All who are disappointed in Hoffman’s narrow loss … do not despair any longer. Hoffman may have lost the election, but those who stand for conservative principles won last evening. The results sent a clear message to the Republican Party – a message that apparently needed to be repeated and will continue to bear repetition until Republican leadership understands that liberal candidates are toxic.

Doug Hoffman not only fought against his Democrat opponent, Bill Owens; he also fought against the Republican National Committee – the committee that spent $1 million backing their liberal candidate Dede Scozzafava and ran ads AGAINST him. The Republican’s “one million dollar baby,” Ms. Scozzafava, was pro-bailout, pro-tax, pro-stimulus and leaned toward supporting a public option for healthcare. In spite of these very liberal positions, the Republican National Committee (RNC) felt she was worth a $1 million investment. After all, RNC elites concern themselves only with party affiliation – not the candidate’s principles and core beliefs. After Dede benefited from the RNC’s lucrative investment, she turned around and endorsed Bill Owens after she dropped out of the race. Mr. Owens owes the RNC much gratitude for his victory.

The RNC still has not learned from its painful past – the 2006 and 2008 elections. I wrote in the first column I published after Barack Obama won the election that conservative principles (especially fiscal) will make one of the most prominent comebacks in decades. The Republican Party still doesn’t get it, which is why America just witnessed an independent running against TWO parties almost emerge victorious. RNC chairman, Michael Steele, can continue his “big tent” policy with calamitous consequences. All he will have in the end is an empty tent. The key factor here is to have a political party that actually stands for something and has core principles. Deviation from core principles or letting liberals define what the party should stand for will allow Democrats to continue to win in areas of the country that had a century of Republican leadership.

This past election is about short-term pain for long-term gain. Either conservatives are going to take back the Republican Party so it will stand as the party of personal and fiscal responsibility or there will be plenty of independents following in Doug Hoffman’s footsteps. Mr. Hoffman’s bravery showed that it is VERY possible to win as an independent – to defeat BOTH political parties. As the U.S. dollar continues to weaken, as more people begin to see that the third quarter GDP results were artificial, as the reality of inflation or stagflation sets in, voters will reject liberal fiscal policy as well as any politician that advocates it regardless of the “D” or “R” after their name. The newly elected Republican leaders and governors in New Jersey and Virginia should keep this in mind.

Michael Steele’s “big tent” Republicanism and George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” has failed on every level. History has shown over and over that “Liberalism Lite” is not the formula for success and leads to disastrous losses for Republicans. Herbert Hoover’s abandonment of conservative economic principles led to decades of Democrat reign in Congress along with four terms of FDR. George W. Bush followed in Herbert Hoover’s footsteps, and America now has one of its most liberal Presidents. If “Liberalism Lite” leads to “Ultra Liberalism,” then conservatives are better off going to war with Republican elites because the elites will soon realize that the tent doesn’t expand or even exist without the base. It is better to lose elections in the short-term than allow radicals to give America an economic makeover.

The near-term is going to be a bumpy ride. However there is a greater danger in giving liberals the opportunity to paint liberal Republicans as conservatives and convince voters that fiscal conservatism is to blame. American citizens need a real option, and when that option exists, blame will be distributed properly. If it takes an independent third party to stand for the kind of economic and monetary policy America needs, then the country is better off being run by Democrats until things get sorted out. Both political parties steering the country in the SAME direction (one faster than the other) is a far worse fate. It is possible that Mr. Owens may be more conservative than Ms. Scozzafava – the Republican Party’s $1 million baby!

Congratulations to Doug Hoffman and everyone on his staff for an eye-opening election that caught the entire nation’s eye. Whether one is a Reagan Republican, a Ron Paul Republican or whether they are socially liberal, libertarian or conservative, one thing that unites all of these constituents is ECONOMIC POLICY. If the Republican Party doesn’t change its ways, this is only the beginning of the rise of the independent conservative and libertarian candidates.

How do you justify racism?

How do you justify hate?

How do you justify theft?

Easy. Don't call it that.

With the communist, racist and radical Mr. Van Jones now out of President Obama's administration the Left, including many mainstream publications and talking heads, are trying to justify the words, actions and writings of a man that is indefensible. It's one thing to be an avowed communist. It's another thing to say that environmental waste is purposely being dumped into black neighborhoods. It's entirely out of one's mind to sign a petition that accuses the President of the United States of allowing/masterminding the 9/11 attacks. And yet, the Huffington Post, The New Republic and even mainstream journalists like David Gergen are all jumping to the defense of this man. What gives? Do they suddenly hold to trutherism? Do they believe that the white majority wants to destroy just the black minority by all conspiratorial means? Really?

The answer is no. I don't think any of the mainstream liberal publications and personalities actually subscribe to the views of Van Jones, or do not have a strong enough belief in them to consider them the truth. Defending Van Jones isn't about what he said; it's about what he represents to the New Progressives. Van Jones, as far as I can tell, is a true believer. A man who gave up personal ambition for political service. A man who stood fast in the face of adversity. A man who was, to many of these people, a good friend and an overall good guy. An icon of the New Progressive movement. In the words of Ms. Huffington, one of Van's closest friends: “He's a remarkable man. One of those things I've always found so impressive about him – and something completely lost in the partisan mudslinging – is his ability to build coalitions and create unlikely alliances.”

I'm sorry, Arianna, but when he's recorded telling people how white folks hate black folks or when he blames America for 9/11, his ability to organize is kind of secondary compared to that kind of radicalism. The KKK organized pretty damn well during the Civil Rights era. They built coalitions between labor and management, between the haves and have nots, but I don't think you'd be congratulating them on an organization well done. Because this isn't about a man's ability to organize, is it? It's about your side losing.

The Right is going through that as well. With the resounding defeat of the Republicans in 2006 and in 2008 by President Obama's well-planned campaign, the conservative movement turned on its own, and rightly so, identifying the ideas and the people who blurred the line between conservative and moderate, between statism and federalism. As far as I can tell, the civil war has passed for now, but we have a new problem to deal with: hysteria.

I'm not talking about the exposing of Van Jones, even if some more passive conservative think that was a bad idea. That was a great job that Glenn Beck started and the blogroots finished (major kudos to GatewayPundit for finding the truthful petition). I'm talking about the row over the President's speech to American students. I'm talking about the overblown rhetoric about the amount of czars Obama has. I'm talking about, and unfortunately pointing the finger at, the Glenn Becks of our movement who are more concerned about the metaphorical decoration on Rockefeller Center than with the ideological and philosophical battles being waged across the country. These wars will have much more impact on the way this country goes. (As I have said, I am not a fan of Glenn Beck, but I am not a frenzied detractor either. I simply have an aversion to the populist and conspiratorial style of his show.)

In light of the Left's vulnerability over their dear communist truther, we must be disciplined in our voices and in our words. The loose confederation of conflicting and overlapping beliefs we call the conservative movement is always under a vast larger microscope than the flamboyant and childish New Progressives. While screecher Paul Krugman and alarmist Al Gore are considered intellectuals by the Left, we have people like Yural Levin and Jay Nordinger who bring down the hammer on such shallow thinkers. While the Left can tiptoe around the Animal Liberation Front, the Weatherman, Code Pink and the bigoted Prop 8 protestors, the Right must be held accountable to the deranged murderer of Mr. Tiller, to the uber-radical paranoia of a few violent people and even the antisemitism of a old Nazi sympathizer. While the Left can dismiss John Murtha's billion dollar corruption, California's Democratic Party's gerrymandering, Nancy Pelosi's abuse the Speaker's office by action and word and Henry Waxman's overbearing and probably unconstitutional investigations, but the Right must explain Larry Craig's indecent behavior, Gov. Sanford's indiscretions and Michelle Bachmann's less than tactful words about the President.

The world isn't fair, most of all when it comes to politics. When you talk about good morals, you shouldn't be accused of brining a theocracy. When you talk about patriotism, you shouldn't be called a fascist. When you talk about race quota, you shouldn't be called a racist. When you talk about the freedom of commerce, you shouldn't be accused of hating poor people. But we all get this. We all get the wrath of the ignorant, the radical and the just plain insane. And because of this, especially since the last eight years have been filled to the rim with leftist sewage, we feel its proper to throw some of it back.

The thing is, though, is that we can't throw any back, not if we want our ideas to be taken seriously and our opposition to be seen more than just a mishmash of anger. The townhalls were a good start. The Van Jones investigation was brilliant. Now, with this opening, we need to invade with all the forces we have at our disposal.

We need to explain how expropriating the labor of private doctors for state use without consent is tyrannical.

We need to expose other radicals in the President's circle, like Mr. Lloyd, the FCC's Diversity czar.

We need to put leashes on Congress with term limits and the returning the election of Senators to state legislatures.

We need to individualize Social Security , minimize and streamline welfare, Medicare and Medicaid, so not to put even more of a burden on the post-Boomer generations.

There is a lot conservatives need to do. There are many people we need to find, support and elect to office. There are a lot of people we need to kick out of office. There is a lot of the country that needs to be educated on what it means to support federalism, free markets, and a strong minimal federal government.

But, people, we can't really do that if we're considered just the other side of the same partisan coin.

BY: MIKE PORTER

The Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) is the official title of the program. It has also been called “Cash for Clunkers,” which was the name originally chosen by some dealers to market the incentive-based program to consumers. Essentially, this is another big rescue program by our government intended to save struggling automakers, people who cannot afford a new car and the environment. From the onset, one may think our government has a winning program on their hands. After all, who could deny a program that generously helps people and the Earth? In reality, this program has helped very little and, in some ways, could make things worse.

The plan is loosely based on a program initially implemented in Germany, only this version has a few more restrictions. It issues a credit based on the car you are trading in against the new car you are purchasing. In order to qualify for the program, you have to own a car today that gets combined miles of 18 mpg or less according to www.fueleconomy.gov. Depending on how inefficient your old car is compared to the efficiency of the new car you purchase, the more of a rebate you will receive. The rebates available are $3,500 or $4,500 for your car as long as it is not more than 25 years old.(1) Apparently very old clunkers do not qualify for this program. There is a specific list of vehicles that are approved for you to purchase under this plan that cost $45,000 or less. All cars have to be purchased between July and November of this year to qualify. (1) This program is in addition to any dealer incentives your dealer may be offering such as cash back, low-interest financing, etc. The old car is sent to the salvage yard with the engine destroyed by the dealership. (1) Basically this is a check written from the stimulus package that goes straight to the dealership upon purchase of a new vehicle and the savings is passed onto the consumer at the time of the purchase. The initial amount funded for the program was one billion dollars, and it is now estimated that an additional two billion will be required to fund the remaining portion.

First, the misnomer is that the CARS program would actually save struggling dealers. There is a website set up to give dealers the information they need to comply. Many dealers have complained the site is unstable and crashes often. A poorly written disclaimer meant to discourage hacking into the site has actually frightened many into thinking the government can take over their computer if they browse to that website! This prompted Glenn Beck to do a segment on his program dealing with the issue on his television program. The initial disclaimer has since been changed. Also cars that may be clunkers by our standards are not necessarily clunkers in the eyes of the government. (5) Many people will not qualify for this program whether they believe they have a clunker or not. The numbers from the White House paint a rosy picture showing results of thousands of cars that have been sold and inefficient cars that are no longer on the road. What the White House is not telling you is that summer is normally a busy time for car sales.

Critics of the program predict many of these people would have bought cars eventually and as a result waited to buy a car once the “buzz” leaked about this program. Our government very well could have caused dealerships to have slower months leading up to when this program was started. How many people were let go in the auto industry between the time this program was announced and when it was finally available? Many also predict once this program ends car manufacturers will experience more down months which will result in more lost jobs. How does that help anyone in the car business? Forcing dealers to have months of sales squeezed in a limited amount of time can be problematic for the car industry who have cut back and are running with less people. Who is going to change their spending habits in this economy if they know this demand bubble is temporary and will not continue? Many of the cars purchased in this program are going to foreign car manufacturers. Is that really what our government intended to happen after dumping billions into GM and Chrysler? Also, why does our government choose the auto industry? Millions of people have lost their jobs in a variety of industries, but you do not see a program like this for washing machine manufacturers do you? Worse yet, what are the automakers going to owe the government in the end? I fear this could lead to more regulation and more control by our government in the auto industry moving forward.

Next, the idea that CARS is helping people who cannot afford to buy a new car is also a myth. Our government cannot explain how someone who cannot afford a new car could afford to have a new monthly car payment in an environment where we could be coming up on 10 percent unemployment. Increased demand also leads to dealers selling cars at higher prices with fewer incentives than they would otherwise. This could also lead to fewer options for the consumer as dealers run low on some models. Does any of this sound familiar? It sounds a little like the housing bubble we are experiencing today, doesn’t it? Would it surprise anyone if we saw an increase in people defaulting on car loans in the next few years? If that does happen, then you can bet our government would be discussing a big ticket rescue package to save these people who are defaulting largely due to past programs administered by our government. In the long run, I feel this may hurt people more than it may help by forcing some into a more expensive car just to qualify for the program. Also, since dealers are required to destroy the engine, this will result in fewer functioning engine parts for some older cars. Fewer engine parts available will mean higher prices to get these cars repaired which will hurt many who cannot afford to buy a new car even with CARS incentives.

Finally, the claim that CARS is saving the planet is also debatable. Many of the new vehicles purchased through this program average about 25 mpg. (2) At a taxpayer cost of 3 billion dollars, many people could have bought a used car they could actually afford and got similar if not better fuel economy. Is the White House taking into consideration the energy that is spent to properly dispose of these cars according to government rules? The Associated Press has estimated carbon dioxide will be reduced just shy of 700,000 tons a year as a result of this plan. (4) While this sounds like a lot, last year the US emissions totaled nearly 6.4 billion tons, which was down from years prior. (4) One doesn’t have to be a math genius to conclude this hardly represents progress.

In the end, we can conclude this is just another government program that provides very little results and could lead to other problems in the future. In addition, this is costing tax payers more than anyone had expected. The government really needs to stop picking and choosing industries they want to help and allow the free will of the market to decide how they should or should not spend their money. Since the average car being purchased is getting just over 25 mpg, one can easily see there is still a market for bigger cars that use more gas than the economical tin cans our government says everyone wants. We can add “Cash for Clunkers” to the list of many other government programs that cost tax payers a fortune and have not produced the results we had hoped.

(1) http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.com/bill-faq
(2) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/04/clunkers-programs-environmental-impact-debate/
(3) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/08/05/experts-carbon-savings-cash-clunkers-small/
(4) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/05/car-rebates-populist-stimulus-clunker/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g2:r2:c0.048353:b26960246:z0
(5) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/11/eveningnews/main5152636.shtml

BY: MIKE PORTER

No debate is more lively or dividing than the healthcare debate in America. The average American pays more today for health related costs than ever before. According a Kaiser study, “health expenditures surpassed $2 trillion in 2006 and are three times as high as they were in 1990.”(1) Health care spending accounted for 16 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) in 2006 and grew at an annual rate of 6.7 percent.(1) Everyone agrees health care costs need to be addressed in the near future, but turning the American system over to the government may not be the “cure” everyone is seeking.

Let me begin by saying nobody in the U.S. wants to see anyone go without healthcare. The common goal is to have the classic utopian system where everyone has access affordable, quality care. A big misconception when conservatives make the argument against government controlled healthcare is that conservatives do not care about people without insurance. Many on the left are quick to make the charge that conservatives are against this because they want to see low-income people left out in the cold. Some will go on to say they want to “hoard” the system only for themselves and do not want to share it with poor and impoverished. These charges are not only ignorant, but false, and they insult the intelligence of Americans. The problem conservatives have with the government controlling healthcare is the fact that it has failed to provide quality care everywhere it has been tried. Many believe it will make U.S. healthcare worse and more expensive than it is today. Many countries have tried this, and the results have been catastrophic in countries with less than a quarter of America’s population, which today is around 300 million. Many individual states have tried to implement a program, and to this day, none of them have had any success. Most recently, Hawaii cancelled a universal health care plan for children only after seven months because the program was too costly.(3) If states cannot implement a plan like this just for children, what makes anyone think this can done for everyone in the U.S.?

The biggest case for universal care is to address the issue of the 47 million people in America without health insurance. This number has become a political football being tossed around on Capitol Hill painting the dark picture of millions of Americans shivering in the cold coughing, sneezing and left to die in our streets. As usual, the left fails to point out the details of who exactly are figured in the numbers of the uninsured. Stuart Browning has produced a brilliant short film called “Uninsured in America” that offers the best details that reveals the identities of the uninsured. (2)

http://www.stuartbrowning.net/

To quickly summarize, Stuart Browning makes the claim 47 million uninsured is extremely misleading. Many of these people have access to insurance or existing government programs, but choose not to take it. Many are young people who see insurance as a waste of money, so they bet against the likelihood they will get sick since they are young and healthy (I know - I used to be one of those young, uninsured myself). Some are non-U.S. citizens, illegal aliens, and even some homeless people who have retracted from society. There will always be some people who will be down on their luck and end up uninsured, but it becomes difficult to justify this as a “crisis” given this information. Consider the fact that every one of these 47 million people could get treatment at emergency centers all over the country regardless of their ability to pay. Those who cannot pay, the cost of their bill is spread out over insured/paying customers or reimbursed through existing government programs like Medicaid. Regardless of what you may hear on the left, the crisis of the “uninsured” in reality is nothing more than a manufactured fairy tale to attract votes.

Next, is the issue the Democrats never want to address is existing healthcare resources. Once all 300 million people have access to healthcare, who is to say they are all going to use it properly? Will these people pay the “patient portion” of medical bills or the premiums associated with government insurance? Will they get the proper preventative care needed to keep in good health and control overall healthcare costs? No authoritative body can force anyone to get the care they need. Should everyone be covered under a government plan? What about illegal aliens? What about drug addicts who routinely poison and destroy their bodies? Many will question what exactly is considered “healthcare.” Some have made the claim that contraceptives and abortions can be considered health care and should be covered unconditionally. Some people will also go to see a doctor to get things like aspirin or cough suppressants instead of buying them at the store. Why should anyone buy something like that when they can receive it “for free?” This will cause a huge backlog in the healthcare system like nothing seen in America before. Some will simply exploit the system to get their money’s worth. Others will not use the system as intended. Regardless, this will put an enormous strain on existing doctors and hospitals which will result in long wait times for care. It is no secret about the excessive wait times in countries that have universal care, and it would be worse here with the amount of people being covered. Expect to wait months to see a specialist and even longer for surgeries. Excessive wait times and sub-par care are the primary reasons many people choose private hospitals over public facilities in countries that have socialized medicine. It is ironic that people would pay out of pocket for care when they already pay exorbitant taxes to fund the public healthcare system. If public care provided by universal healthcare is so good, then why is there any demand at all for private hospitals in these countries?

Cost controls will become the primary focus of our new universal healthcare system. Rationing of the system will become a way of life to manage costs and care for 300 million people. Older patients may be forced to wait longer than younger patients. Our government will have the power to intervene with the doctor/patient relationship and begin to tell doctors what they can charge. In some cases, our government will make the decision where doctors can practice. If the government decides there are too many doctors in one neighborhood, doctors can easily be told that they need to practice in less desirable areas. The government may assume some tests being performed are not necessary since it adds to the cost. All of this will discourage people from entering the medical field, which will make wait times worse and add to the restriction of resources and health care rationing.

Finally, one will be amazed at the creative ways our government will come up with methods to pay for a universal system. Taxes in every form imaginable will be levied on everyone to pay for this new system. Not only will the government (possibly future “health czars”) tell doctors what they can and can’t do, they will tell you what you can and can’t do. We will see excise taxes like never before on anything government bureaucrats or health czars will deem hazardous. Lifestyle activities we take for granted in a free society will be discouraged and heavily taxed, if possible. Alcohol consumption, smoking, eating fatty foods, soft drinks, scuba diving, sky diving, etc. will be considered too dangerous for our own good. At this point, America will have lost all the freedoms our founding fathers fought and died to preserve. All of our freedom will be surrendered to our government under the guise of providing Americans with universal healthcare.

Given this information, why would anyone want to turn our healthcare into a production-line system consisting of rationed care? Costs in the current system are expensive and need to be addressed. However, universal healthcare jeopardizes our freedoms, the quality care people take for granted and will make care more expensive. Don’t dismiss the fact that other countries have the current American system to fall back on. Other countries around the world will be in worse shape and would cause a real global health care crisis if America decides to adopt a similar government-run plan. Look no further than the current state of existing government programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which are on the pace to go bankrupt within the next two decades in spite of rising taxes. Shouldn’t we address our existing social programs before we start new programs?

What is the Solution to healthcare? My preference would be more free market solutions and less government regulations and waste. More patients with Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) give them a direct stake in choosing providers who offer good service at a low price. The issue of illegal immigration along with some kind of tort reform needs to be addressed, as the cost of malpractice insurance and legal fees are passed onto the patient. Just like any other business, all doctors’ costs and expenses are figured into the price they charge you for the medical service they provide. In conclusion, we cannot afford socialized medicine for everyone. If this program were put into place, then as history all over the world has shown, it will come at the expense of your freedom, wealth, and care.



(1) http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.asp?imID=1&parentID=61&id=358
(2) http://www.stuartbrowning.net/
(3) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,439607,00.html

by Jordan and Michelle S

President Obama has taken his promise to “spread the wealth” for the sake of “fairness” and actually went through with it, much to the dismay of people who want the economy to recover. Since January, Mr. Obama has pretty much nationalized the auto industry, proposed a major increase in government participation in the health care industry and will change the rules of credit card companies so that those with good credit are subsidizing those who had bad credit. Not since the fascistic New Deal has an economy been chopped up and served so willingly to rabid, hungry bureaucrats by the elected representatives of the people. This is what is known as corporatism, and it will not bode well for those who want to prosper in America.

Corporatism and Cartels

Since the Second World War, the American economy has been one of a mix of private business and government intrusion. America's free market ideology went out of style when the anti-capitalist myths of the Great Depression took hold. Unlike World War One, when the socialized/nationalized wartime economy fell apart due to the reluctance of the American people to give their financial future the unsympathizing government, the Progressives of the New Deal ingrained it into the new American generation that the state is your friend, your father, your mother, your eternal watcher and caretaker. The Nanny State that emerged was so powerful that every Republican president up to Reagan refused to take it on.

The National Recovery Administration (NRA), the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the War Industries Board (WIB ); all the alphabet soup agencies created by FDR did not simply nationalize the economy, though that did occur in some sectors. No, instead of simply taking control of the economy and running it through and through, the agencies regulated the economy into submission to fit the goals of the government. This is what's known as corporatism. It was a major part of early-to-mid century economies of all the major powers: America, the United Kingdom, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Only the Soviet Union, a communist nation, rid itself of major private industry.

The New Deal agencies would use an iron fist to direct the economy. For example, the NRA instituted price controls on everything from dry cleaning to the price of a newspaper on the street. This was in the name of helping the “forgotten man” who supposedly survived on selling products at above-market prices. Businessmen were actually thrown in jail for violating these regulations, the most famous being a dry cleaner who charged five cents lower than the NRA mandated. The fetish with price controls went so far that tons upon tons of food (wheat, pigs, etc) were burned or culled by order of the government so that the prices would stay high for farmers.

Within these agencies, though, were the very men of industry FDR would assail in his speeches and his fireside chats. The steel makers, the arms manufactures, the bankers, the auto makers; all those who found it easier to work with the government than to fight it. These men took it upon themselves to carve out their own little sections of the economy for their respective companies. These economic fiefdoms are called cartels. The military-industrial complex that the left-wing warns us of all the time is one of these cartels, created out of FDR's need to coral industry to suit the purpose of the government. Unwittingly, the left and their crusade to humanize the economy is creating new complexes run by federal paper pushers that will drain the innovation and the dynamic prosperity our still somewhat free markets provide.

Cars, Crutches and Credit

George W. Bush told the American people just before the November 2008 election that it was necessary to abandon the free market in order to save the free market. His position was reminiscent of Herbert Hoover’s in the aftermath of the 1929 stock market crash. Bush unveiled the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which allowed the government to essentially become a shareholder in major banks and the auto industry.

Instead of banks and the auto industry taking their lumps and overhauling their business models, top executives ran to the government for help. Upon doing so, the government now has the power to tell these companies how to run their business. This does not bode well for the companies and the American people.

The “Big Three” and “Big Brother”

Recently, President Obama called for the Chief Executive Officer of General Motors to step down. Although, General Motors did not perform well under the leadership of Rick Wagoner, the government should not be making these decisions. In the past, these decisions were made by the company’s shareholders. However, now that the government is a “shareholder,” the President and other bureaucrats otherwise known as “car czars” can use force to implement their agenda. In addition, bureaucrats can tell the auto industry what kind of cars they will make and what type of workers they employ. As a result, the stranglehold the United Auto Workers Union (UAW) has on the car companies will be tighter.

In the end, both the consumer and the company are hurt. The UAW’s mandates have driven labor costs to almost twice the cost of their foreign competitors. The cost is then passed to the consumer who has elected to buy better made foreign cars. If American car companies cannot sell cars, they are forced to lay off workers. Therefore, one must ask what good the UAW had done for America when consumers pay more money for cars that cannot match the quality of their foreign competitors’ products. Unions destroyed the American steel industry in the 1970’s and 80’s, and now the American auto industry is in serious trouble.

To further complicate matters, the Obama Administration has unveiled new fuel efficiency standards that will eventually require vehicles to have a much higher mile-per-gallon rate. One would think a mandate like this would benefit consumers. After all, why not have higher standards? Why not rely less on foreign oil? Why not make cars that are better for the environment? The truth is consumers would not be better off, and these mandates have not reduced our oil consumption in the past.

First off, hybrid vehicles are more expensive, and there is no cost benefit when comparing fuel savings to the higher cost of the vehicle. Second, the demand is simply not there, as Americans prefer bigger cars. Third, the United States is obviously not the sole country that uses oil. Therefore, even if we reduced our oil consumption, which in turn, would lower prices; the overall world demand would NOT decrease. Therefore, increased demand elsewhere in the world would drive prices up. Increased demand from China and India was a key factor in driving up crude oil prices to record levels in 2007.

“Big Brother” offers a “lending” hand

Most of America’s largest banks got in line with the auto industry to ask Uncle Sam for a bailout. As a result, the banks are now under the “brilliant” leadership of Congress. Just as the government tells the auto industry what kind of cars they will make, banks will be told to whom they will lend money. The government will also tell them what kind of financial shape they are in based on bureaucrat derived stress tests. Although government mandates such as the “Community Reinvestment Act” were not the sole cause of the housing bust, these types of mandates created the sub-prime mortgage sector and led to reckless lending practices. These reckless practices caused a surge in demand for housing, which drove the cost of housing up to a level that was disproportionate with inflation.

Through quasi-public institutions, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as the Federal Reserve, the government has had its hands in the banking industry since 1913 (the year the FED was born). The very same government that caused one of the biggest financial debacles in decades now wishes to tell banks and lending institutions how and to whom they should extend credit. The government through the Federal Reserve and congressional mandates has created a society that lives on credit. Debt is a way of life for the average American today. Accessibility is what drives demand. Increased demand drives up prices. Remedial economics shows how easy access quickly inflates prices. Have you ever wondered how your grandfather was able to pay cash for his automobiles and even his home? Answer: limited access to credit. The accessibility of credit and the amount of credit people can receive is sole cause of deflating purchasing power. Since our government cannot manage debt either, the value of the U.S. Dollar is declining.

“Big Brother” and “Band-Aids”

Uncle Sam is very generous. Bureaucrats wish to tell us what kind of cars to drive, how much credit we should have, and now they want to provide us with healthcare. The biggest argument that is made against privately-run healthcare is that profits are put ahead of the care of human beings. This hypothesis is severely flawed in the sense that the elimination of “profit” does not eliminate the constant need to control costs. In addition, this conclusion neglects to consider the fact that profits allow reinvestment for better technology and better personnel which directly results in better care for the individual.

The second argument that is made in favor of government run health care centers on the government being a competitor to private sector insurance providers. The sad attempt by politicians to turn the supply-side argument of increased competition leading to lower prices is pure fallacy. This is due to the fact that the government will not merely be a competitor to private insurance companies. The government will impose very strict regulations on private insurance companies by requiring insurers to insure all applicants and place price caps on premiums. In the meantime, the government could borrow from taxpayers and the U.S. Treasury to make up for its shortfalls. The cost of compliance for private insurers would be exorbitant and allow the government to squeeze them out in an effort to MONOPOLIZE the industry. So much for competition…

Healthcare is NOT FREE if the government provides it. People will see tax increases not seen before on both federal and state levels. Employers’ cost of compliance will come at the expense of jobs and growth.

Last but not least, one must ask if they really want a government bureaucrat making their personal decisions when it comes to their own health care and the health care of their loved ones – the very government that has trouble delivering your mail.

Empathy Rewards Mediocrity

Both FDR and Obama made promises of an empathic government. They told the “forgotten man” that he'd be heard. They promised the little man his check would be bigger. They promised the hard worker that selling his labor would not be in vain. They took on the fat cats, the bankers, the traders, the factory bosses, all the name of fairness for the employed and the poor. It's a nice notion, like any other do-gooder idealism, but it’s impractical and inefficient past a certain point (that point being crossed decades ago by FDR). The federal government's economic role is not that of feelings and paternal instinct, but of streamlining and protection of property. No where in the Constitution does it talk about giving the greedy their due or making sure Jimmy the Carpenter can buy his family some new clothes for Christmas. Those powers are left to each state to make on their own time and on their own dime.

The federal government's supposed empathic regulation ends up creating cartels around the powerful chairmans and minions of the economic congressional committees. Decades of federal usurpation and consolidation of economic liberty has fed congressional corruption to the point that trillions upon trillions of dollars have vanished into the crony black hole, never to be seen again, unless you happen to drive by the home of John Murtha's nephew. He received of tens of millions of taxpayers dollars for “warehouse services” for the military, but, ironically, has a skeleton crew watching such sensitive and expensive material. Chris Dodd protected his sweetheart deals with Countrywide while writing up new regulations for banks. Barney Frank kept his mouth shut about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two of his major donors, while beating his chest over freer, less toxic banks. Diane Fienstein got millions upon millions of dollars of bailout money for a company her husband runs. Chuck Schumer cries about credit cards, but last year he publicly leaked confidential letters that sunk a California bank at the same time he defended the solvency of New York banks, which eventually crashed anyway. Empathy, indeed.

Despite our objections to government pseudo-empathy governing economic regulation, we recognize that there is a need for a basic safety net in today's world. Basic welfare for those who truly cannot work, basic unemployment for those who have been recently laid off and cannot find work, medical coverage for the low-income elderly and the low-income disabled, protection of bank accounts under the FDIC; these things are the thin armor of the economy. While it cannot protect everything, it does stop many dangers and allows for flexibility and speed; characteristics essential to the prosperity of our nation. What the President and the Democrats have proposed with the auto industry, health care and credit cards is solid metal plate. It may attempt to protect everyone, but it’s cumbersome and near impossible to move quickly. Granted, it may be able to take some hits, but once you knock it off balance it'll tumble end over end until it hits bottom.

The light armor and adaptability of the American economy is what has allowed it to prosper for so long and so well during peacetime. The post-war boom cited by many preaching collectivists was actually a confluence of military and economic history. Continental Europe was physically and mentally annihilated by World War II and the Spanish Civil War. The United States sold them everything they needed to rebuild themselves. Since the post-war period, every boom has been heavily driven by the ambition and innovation private business, not the empathetic government bureaucrat. Mr. Obama's new economy will destroy that ambition and innovation in favor of “fair” cartel-style redistribution, led by the less than trustworthy leaders of the Congressional committees.

The new socialized corporatist economy will take a nation driven to the top by exceptionalism and bring it low by rewarding mediocrity and blocking economic progress.

The recent bill designed to restrict credit card interest rate hikes and excessive fees that had an overwhelming amount of bipartisan support in the Senate is a perfect example of how our elected officials put politics ahead of doing what is prudent. Angry constituents have demanded that the government crack down on the credit card industry for charging them outrageous interest rates and fees. As a result, Congress responded to the populist outcry as elections in 2010 are quickly approaching. Lawmakers have completely ignored the fact that the last time the government attempted to meddle with interest rates (almost three decades ago), the results were not what lawmakers intended, which is indicative of most demand-side policies. However, it’s safe to say that no politician on Capitol Hill would recall that incident or be brave enough to put policy ahead of their political career to make the following points:

Credit card interest rates are OPTIONAL:

How many people realize that money can be borrowed free of interest for the duration of the grace period? If people pay off their balance when the bill comes, then they have had the benefit of borrowing money interest free for 25 days – the typical grace period. Instead, most people abuse credit cards and borrow more than they can afford to repay. Senator Chris Dodd D-Conn says "This is a victory for every American consumer who has ever suffered at the hands of a credit card company.”(1) Senator Dodd’s logic is perplexing. How is it that the consumer has suffered when consumers have the ability to decide how much or if they would like to borrow any money on a credit card?

Interest rate caps restrict the flow of credit:

This actually might be a good thing as the lending industry is not entirely innocent. Although it is clear that people have abused credit, the lending industry is equally guilty of extending too much credit to consumers. However, it is best that this problem be solved without government intervention seeing how well the government’s involvement went with the housing sector. High interest rates will curb borrowing, which is necessary in certain phases of an economic cycle; however, government overreach during a recession can place too much of a restriction on credit flow. Since the beginning of the “economic crisis,” the term “frozen credit markets” has been frequently discussed. If this economic crisis is as serious as politicians have made it out to be, then why pass a measure that will further restrict the flow of credit, which according to them, will make things worse?

It is best to let the private industry work with their customers who are having a hard time paying their bills. There are many services available to customers from their lenders that surprisingly exist without “big government” passing laws. It is in the best interest of the lenders to recoup some of the cost when a customer is unable to repay, which is why lenders often do reduce borrowing rates. Both the lending industry and consumers will have to pay for their mistakes, and it is best for the government to move aside to allow for private negotiation.

Credit card lending is a risky business:

Why are interest rates on credit cards so much higher than the rates for home or automobile loans? Are these types of lenders greedier? One could think the answer to the latter question is yes after hearing all of the talk on Capitol Hill. The truth is interest rates on credit cards are higher due to the fact that money is being loaned to consumers with NO COLLETERAL. When people buy a home, the bank can repossess the house if the borrower is unable to repay – the house is collateral. The same holds true for automobiles. However, when banks issue credit cards to consumers, the bank has no recourse if the borrower is unable to repay. Therefore, interest rates are determined by RISK factor and overall demand for credit.

It is most unfortunate that politicians have focused on the fact that they do not wish to appear insensitive to people struggling to pay their bills with the hope that voters will remember this bill when it comes time for the 2010 elections. Even more disturbing is the Republican Party, a supposed “conservative alternative,” voting for a measure that expands the powers of the federal government. Chairman Michael Steele need not look any further than this bill to see why less than 25 percent of voters identify themselves as members of the Grand Old Party.(2) Eight years of George Bush’s big government fiscal liberalism has done considerable damage to the party’s reputation. If the Republican Party has any chance of growing in size, it must take itself off the path of the last eight years and become the party that stands for small government, individualism, freedom, self-responsibility and put practicality ahead of populism.

(1) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090519/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_credit_cards

(2) http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/fewer-than-one-in-four-identify-as-republican-2009-04-29.html

BY: MIKE PORTER

Late last month, Republican Senator Arlen Specter announced he was switching from a Republican to a Democrat. His reasons for abandoning his party are not necessarily the reasons why most conservatives have abandoned the GOP as of late. He talked at length about how he is “becoming more comfortable with the Democrat’s approach” and “increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy.”(1) Later, he went on to say how the Republican party has gone too far right then when he started back in 1980. Many feel, myself included, the Republican party has gone too far to the left and is losing elections because they have become the “Democrat light” party.

The left has wasted no time driving home the Republicans are dead, and this is the nails in the coffin for a battered and already badly beaten party. Many Democrats are seeing this as a reason to celebrate. Democrats and socialists believe this is a crushing blow to the party and ensures Democratic rule for many years to come. After being one of only a few Republicans invited to Obama’s Super Bowl party, Specter has challenged his party by granting a key vote on the most recent spending bill. He crossed party lines once more, only this time, he will cross party lines for good. Specter broke from the GOP to support a massive spending bill no conservative in their right mind would support. Many agree things cannot get any worse for the GOP.

I personally see this move in a very different light. I do not want, nor will I ever want Arlen Specter’s support on anything pertaining to the country I so dearly love. I feel much more comfortable today knowing Specter is a Democrat, rather than being disappointed by his surprise liberal vote. This move does not damage the party; to the contrary, it will only strengthen it. Specter represents exactly what is wrong with this party. In the past, when reelection came up, Specter was there to tell the moderates and conservatives exactly what they wanted to hear. He would campaign fighting for fiscal responsibility and other moderate/conservative initiatives. Every election cycle, the voters in Pennsylvania took the long time Senator at his word only to be disappointed time and time again.

His vote for the massive spending bill was the last straw. Recent polls showed Specter was trailing a more conservative GOP opponent, Toomey, by over 21 points. Specter may have fooled his conservative voters for the last time as many have come out against him and thrown their support behind the more conservative challenger. Specter was in jeopardy of losing his seat to a true conservative for the first time in many years. So what does Arlen Specter do? He turns around and becomes a Democrat, the team many believe Specter has been playing for all along.

The loss of Specter does not come without consequences. Specter will be the 59th vote and if Al Franken holds on, as many think he will, it will bring the Democrats up to the magic number of 60. Many question the timing of this change knowing this majority was in place. Fellow conservatives, the loss of Specter is not a bad thing at all, rather it is a good thing. This means perhaps the Republican Party is starting to move in the right direction. In my opinion, there is a lot more work that needs to be done before this party can be a conservative alternative again, but steps like this are encouraging and necessary. I encourage anyone else in our government who is currently a Republican today to please take long look at the Democratic philosophy. If you find you line up with more government solutions, excessive spending, and “spreading the wealth around,” then by all means, please jump to the other side while the Democratic Party is popular and in control. Republicans-in-name-only (A.K.A. RINOS) have been what has killed this party for so many years. I would rather throw my support behind a few true conservatives and know how they will stand on issues like healthcare, defense, energy, and the free market. If we cannot count on RINOS to remain with their party at a time when the Democrats are a couple of seats away from 60, then how can we count on them to stop provisions like socialized medicine? What in the world can we count on them for? Better yet, why should conservatives even vote for people like this?

Big government policies and excessive spending have been tried by other countries and have failed. More government solutions in America will also fail, and when they do, perhaps the Republicans will be there to steer the ship right like they did in 1994. If the Republican Party does not straighten up and stand for the things most conservatives want, there will be another party to represent the majority of Americans who still consider themselves conservative in one way or another. Brace yourselves we may lose a couple more before it is all said and done, but the loss of liberal Republicans is no loss at all if this party is serious about becoming a conservative alternative.


(1) http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/28/specter.party.switch/index.html
(2) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/31/obama-host-democrats-republicans-white-house-super-bowl-party/