This week is a career milestone for me. I appear in Time magazine writing about the state of the conservative movement. As a kid living overseas, my American history teacher subscribed us all to Time and U.S. News and World Report. So it is kind of cool to be in an issue of, between the two, the still printed survivor. The point I try to make is that the conservative movement is going through a necessary transition after the Bush years. You can read the whole thing here but a really relevant part is here: The internecine fights we are witnessing are about a conservative movement starting to separate itself again from Republican Party. Unfortunately, neither of the front runners have legitimate conservative integrity to claim the banner of conservative movement leader, but they will both try. Romney will hold the banner for conservatives within the GOP and Gingrich will hold the banner of the traditional alliance of conservatives with the GOP. I see this playing out in, of all things, my friend Ann Coulter’s column defending Romneycare . Mark Levin offers the definitive rebuttal, which you can listen to here , but there is a point that too few are making that needs to be made. It relates to the dangers associated with supporting Mitt Romney and Ann Coulter’s column is exhibit A on why supporting Romney portends disaster for the conservative movement. There is no need to fisk Ann’s column line by line. I’ll only quote the first paragraph, which is If only the Democrats had decided to socialize the food industry or housing, Romneycare would probably still be viewed as a massive triumph for conservative free-market principles — as it was at the time. I love Ann. She is brilliant. In fact, she is too brilliant to think that Romneycare is a “massive triumph for conservative free-market principles.” It is free market economics 101 that a free market requires that individuals have the right to opt-out of a transaction. In other words, zero must be contemplated in the equation. Consider it a null function. When individuals are, through state power, forced to opt-in to a transaction as individuals are forced to buy health care as a condition of breathing in Massachusetts, it is inherently not free market because a free market depends on the freedom to not purchase. Forcing demand is more akin to the keynesian economics Obama is pushing, not Milton Friedman or Adam Smith. But it also is not conservative. As Mark Levin notes in his monologue, when the state — whether it is a nation or one of the fifty states — can force an individual to engage in commerce it upends the relationship between the individual and the state. The conservative view of government is that the individual is supreme. The socialist view is that the state is supreme for the betterment of the collective. In other words, in Ann Coulter’s first paragraph she calls Romneycare both free-market and conservative, when any intellectually honest review of the facts would have no choice but to conclude it is neither. She confuses federalism and conservatism. Certainly, in our federal system, a state has plenary power to do as it wishes except for those powers it chose, in adopting our federal constitution, to cede to the federal government. But just because something is federalist does not make it conservative. To use an analogy based on hyperbole as Ann does in her column, under the constitutions of one of the fifty states that state could constitutionally require all people buy a copy of the Communist Manifesto. It would be arguably permissible under the concept of vertical federalism, but it sure would not be conservative. Delete “Communist Manifesto” and insert “health insurance” and you have Romneycare. During the Bush years, conservatives all too often sided with the Republican Party rather than their own principles. As I note in this week’s Time : By the time George W. Bush arrived in Washington, the conservative movement had fully moved within the Republican Party. Conservative Democrats had walked across the aisle making bipartisan outreach unnecessary. By the the mid-point of George Bush’s Presidency, people were talking non-ironically about “big government conservatives,” which prior to Bill Clinton’s term would have been merely Republicans who put party ahead of principle. As George Bush left office, conservatives who had seen his father put David Souter on the Supreme Court were championing Harriet Miers, fighting each other over immigration policy, supporting TARP, were okay with saving General Motors, and turning a polite blind eye to Bush’s claim that he had to kill the free market to save it. Leaders and strong voices within the conservative movement have an obligation to speak up in favor of, so to speak, true north within conservative principles and then leave it to the politicians to decide how far away from true north they must drift to build a coalition to enact policy. Debasing ourselves with silly defenses of Republicans along with a willingness to put party politics ahead of principle will, yet again, see voters rejecting conservatives. Groups like the American Conservative Union, the Heritage Foundation, etc. have all made mistakes and have usually had to repent. But in making those mistakes, they have opened up both conservatives and the Republican Party to temptation and temerity that ultimately caused collapse at the polls or ceding issues in debates. Look at the Heritage Foundation and healthcare mandates. Look at the Republican politicians who expand the federal government’s budget while hiding behind their ACU rating as proof that they are conservative. The conservative movement has been sick for the past decade. The further it became absorbed within the Republican Party, the less it could shine with conservative ideas. It compromised with itself because it had become part of the Republican Party and was as much about the acquisition of political power as it was about advocating particular policy. I am afraid supporting Mitt Romney will undo a lot of the repairs made to the conservative movement in the past few years. Already people are defending inherently not conservative ideas by calling them conservative. Already people are too willing to keep their mouth shut to do no harm to the party and, in the process, are doing harm to the intellectual capital built up within the conservative movement. Ann Coulter’s defense of Romneycare, released on the same day Romney rejected years of conservative arguments against the social safety net and the welfare state, is a canary in the coal mine. We are returning to that point where the voters decided they could no longer trust conservatives to be principled.
Read this article:
Danger Will Robinson . . . or Ann Coulter
RedState Morning Briefing February 2, 2012 Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge. 1. Danger Will Robinson . . . or Ann Coulter 2. Give Me Your Money in the Name of Jesus 3. Senate Porkers Defeat Earmark Ban 4. A Former Union Thug’s Take On Right-to-Work: What’s Right & What’s Not… 5. Horserace for February 2, 2012 ———————————————————————- 1. Danger Will Robinson . . . or Ann Coulter This week is a career milestone for me. I appear in Time magazine writing about the state of the conservative movement. As a kid living overseas, my American history teacher subscribed us all to Time and U.S. News and World Report. So it is kind of cool to be in an issue of, between the two, the still printed survivor. The point I try to make is that the conservative movement is going through a necessary transition after the Bush years. You can read the whole thing here but a really relevant part is here: “The internecine fights we are witnessing are about a conservative movement starting to separate itself again from Republican Party. Unfortunately, neither of the front runners have legitimate conservative integrity to claim the banner of conservative movement leader, but they will both try. Romney will hold the banner for conservatives within the GOP and Gingrich will hold the banner of the traditional alliance of conservatives with the GOP.” I see this playing out in, of all things, my friend Ann Coulter’s column defending Romneycare . Mark Levin offers the definitive rebuttal, which you can listen to here , but there is a point that too few are making that needs to be made. It relates to the dangers associated with supporting Mitt Romney and Ann Coulter’s column is exhibit A on why supporting Romney portends disaster for the conservative movement. Please click here for the rest of the post. 2. Give Me Your Money in the Name of Jesus Yesterday, in the middle of his campaign National Prayer Breakfast speech, President Obama delighted those of us who love irony by quoting C.S. Lewis. It was an interesting moment in a speech that put forth the notion that taxing the wealthy is right in line with the teachings of Jesus. I mean, Jesus did hang out with tax collectors, right? The idea that government welfare is somehow the fulfillment of Jesus’ teaching on charity is a common misconception that many people make, Christians included, and it’s the main reason that liberals believe conservatives are Christian hypocrites. Perhaps if the president visited church more often than only during campaign seasons, he might not be so confused. See, not only do we spend time praising God in church, we also gain insight from our pastors who have surely spent more time in the word of God than we have. While Obama may have been correct in saying that government mandated, shared responsibility is equal to the Islamic belief that those who’ve been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, he is incorrect to group in Jesus’ teaching, “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.” Aside from the fact that Jesus was discussing requirements from God, not the government, he was actually teaching his disciples that they were stewards of God’s gift of Revelation. Their requirement was to spread the good news of Jesus Christ. It’s the crux of Christianity that Obama seems to miss. Jesus came because we are imperfect. We could never fulfill all the requirements that the pharisees loved to lord over the people. Jesus’ coming ended the rule of law and the began the acceptance that our only way to God was through Him. Yes, Jesus very much emphasized the importance of giving to the poor, but as a reaction in joy to what we’ve been given; not because of a law. Giving out of obligation is not truly giving, it’s merely following the rules. Just ask anyone who’s ever written a check to pay their taxes, I doubt you’d find them excited. The Bible also teaches that everything we have, including money, belongs to God. We are called to be good stewards with His money. The government is the epitome of mismanaging money. If you truly want to help the poor, you should probably seek out charities; but that would require a bit of work on the part of the giver and a great many find it easier to just let the government run every aspect of their lives. So it is that welfare money ends up spitting out of strip club ATMs, and those same people who paid their charity to the government wonder why government hasn’t solved the issue. Perhaps they should ask the 27 Democrats who voted against stopping welfare checks from being used at strip clubs, casinos and liquor stores. Please click here for the rest of the post. 3. Senate Porkers Defeat Earmark Ban Senators Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) learned a valuable lession today about member’s desire to go back to the practice of earmarking pet projects. Toomey and McCaskill offered an Amendment to the STOCK Act that would have created a new Senate point of order against earmarks in bills. They were met with bipartisan opposition to this common sense idea. Please click here for the rest of the post. 4. A Former Union Thug’s Take On Right-to-Work: What’s Right & What’s Not… Having spent nearly a decade as a former union representative and activist (aka “union thug”) in a Right-to-Work state, it has been interesting to discuss and watch the activities and debates over the Right-to-Work battles occuring within the various states. Having been on both sides of the labor-management equation, it’s easy to see the two sides of the coin—the pluses and the minuses—that come into play with Right to Work legislation. Please click here for the rest of the post. 5. Horserace for February 2, 2012 There are storm clouds on the horizon. A day after Mitt Romney’s massive win in Florida he opened his mouth and promptly told conservatives he was incapable of articulating conservatism. Then Newt Gingrich found a bright line rule in the Republican rules that clearly and precisely states that all delegates awarded before April 1, 2012, must be proportional. There goes giving Romney all fifty delegates from Florida despite what Florida’s GOP Chairman says. Then National Review and other Romney supporters , taking a bit of comfort in his secure win in Florida, decided they could finally express some buyers remorse, or at least now stop zealously defending him and criticize him some. Then people really examined the exit polls in Florida. What they found was that turnout fell from 2008. But in counties where turn out was up, Newt Gingrich won. Where turnout from 2008 was down, Romney won. This pattern followed South Carolina. The base remains unexcited about Romney and his comments yesterday about the poor and the social safety net keep the base from getting excited. What should have been Mitt Romney heading into February securing his nomination now becomes an effort to stave off a rear guard action to pick him off. Gingrich and Santorum now have the ammunition they need to keep the Great Coalescing from happening. What should have been a clear path to the nomination is suddenly in jeopardy. We’ll get into it all in the Horserace. Please click here for the rest of the post.
See the original post:
Morning Briefing for February 3, 2012
Well, of course they’re going to smack me. The other day I looked into a post at National Review on Newt Gingrich by the estimable Elliot Abrams. In short, after reading the Gingrich Special Order cited by Abrams I found his post to be grossly misleading. And reporting what I found, so too did others who took a look at the same Special Order from start to finish. Mark Levin read it and agreed completely. He’s a Santorum fan… but he was incensed at the misrepresentation of Newt’s ties to the Reagan-era. He was there in the day, as was I. I heard from others as well, and not all Newt Gingrich people. Yes, Rush was so amazed he read a good bit of the piece on air, doubtless adding to the heat. Sean Hannity discussed, Mr. Levin was furious — and Mr. Hannity was more than kind to go on the Levin show moments before his own TV show to defend me. A personal and public thanks to all of them for
“The rosy predictions for revenues and reduced healthcare spending can come to fruition, but not with the current socialist policies as the baseline.” The budget season has officially commenced today with CBO’s release of its annual budget and economic outlook. Here are some of the major takeaways from the report: FY 2012 Budget The topline figure that the media will focus on is the projected $1.070 trillion budget deficit for FY 2012, down from $1.3 trillion last year. However, as CBO notes several times throughout the report, the reduction in this year’s deficit is predicated on several assumptions. 1) Revenues : The entirety of this year’s deficit reduction comes from higher projected revenues, roughly $220 billion. CBO is forced to score current law, which assumes that the payroll tax cut will expire at the end of February. Another 10-month extension, which is almost a forgone conclusion, would cost over $100 billion. Also, the CBO baseline does not include a likely AMT patch, and extension of many annual “tax extenders,” such as the credit for research and development. It’s very likely that the extensions will wipe out the entire revenue gain from this year over 2011, thereby eliminating the reduction in the deficit. 2) Outlays : CBO is projecting $3.601 trillion in spending, up just $3 billion from last year. Obviously, this projection does not account for a full-year extension of unemployment benefits and doc fix, which could add as much as $70 billion to this year’s spending total. 3) Defense : Outlays for defense will be reduced by another $20 billion. When these factors are accounted for, it is clear that non-defense discretionary spending will not decrease significantly, while mandatory spending will continue to rise. If you assume the alternative scenario, in which most of the temporary tax and spending measures are extended, the deficit should be about the same as last year; around $1.3 trillion. In other words, there will be slightly more revenue this year, but increased spending as well. 10-Year Budget Frame: 2013-2022: Over the next 10 years, CBO is projecting $41.179 trillion in spending and $44.251 trillion in revenue, for a deficit of $3.072 trillion. The $3 trillion figure is a real lowball estimate of our projected debt for several reasons. Under that scenario, our annual deficits would dip to $450 billion in just two years, and stay below $400 billion indefinitely. They are assuming rosy pictures of revenue increases, along with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Furthermore, CBO notes, that Medicare and Medicaid spending have always increased above expectations, and with Obamacare taking effect, the real cost of healthcare spending will blow out the budget deficits – way beyond $3 trillion. Another important long-term factor is interest on the debt. At present, interest rates are at historic lows, but they will eventually revert back to their historic norms. That could add several trillion more to the 10-year deficit. The rosy predictions for revenues and reduced healthcare spending can come to fruition, but not with the current socialist policies as the baseline. Economic Outlook CBO is projecting more stagnation for the next few years. For 2012, they are seeing 2% GDP growth and 8.9% unemployment. For 2013, they are projecting a pullback to just 1.1% growth and a spike in unemployment to 9.2%. With these bleak economic figures, it’s hard to envision a scenario in which revenues increase substantially and spending on welfare programs decline (as projected by the report). How can revenues go from 16% of GDP to 20% in just two years, even without the extension of tax cut provisions? Then again, it’s all a moot point. Budget deficits tend to be much higher than the figures projected in CBO reports, in part, due to some of the aforementioned factors. Social Security Social Security is, by far, the largest expenditure for the foreseeable future. This year, SS outlays will top $770 billion, accounting for 21.3% of the entire federal budget for FY 2012. From 2013-2022, SS spending will top $10.5 trillion, almost 24% of the budget. On the revenue side, Social Security taxes will only rise $627 billion this year and $8.9 trillion over 10 years. Once again, this projection does not factor in any future payroll tax cuts. Another noteworthy point is that the Social Security Disability Insurance trust fund will be exhausted in 2016. Remember that the Social Security Trust Fund is a notional accounting gimmick and is nonexistent. Consequently, every penny of SS benefits that is not covered from the payroll tax will augment our deficit. The real question is why one quarter of the budget is consumed by a program that should be controlled by the individual. Why are we bankrupting our future for a program that offers a worse rate of return than private accounts, which would not cost the government and future generations of Americans a penny? Medicare Gross Medicare spending, the second largest domestic spending program, will reach $560 billion this year and $7.8 trillion over 10 years. Net Medicare spending (subtracting $1.2 trillion in offsetting revenues from premium payments from seniors) will be about $6.55 trillion. This year’s outlays would have been higher if not for a shift in certain payments from fiscal year 2012 into fiscal year 2011 because the first scheduled date for payments to health plans in 2012 fell on a weekend. Revenues from the Medicare payroll tax will only bring in roughly $2.8 trillion – and that is including the payroll tax increases under Obamacare. As such, the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund, which is funded by payroll taxes, will be exhausted in 2022. Now that it is incontrovertibly clear that government has failed at controlling healthcare and retirement costs, is it too much to ask that we allow personal ownership and the free-market to get a bite at the apple? Liberals always complain that seniors will be left to their own devices under our policies. Judging by the future debt figures, I think we would all rather be on our own, as opposed to shouldering the burden of crushing debt payments. Cross-posted to The Madison Project
The rest is here:
CBO’s Budget Report: Perennial Debt for Generations
Recall that in late December, Egyptian authorities raided the offices of numerous nongovernmental organizations, including the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute, which are funded mostly by US taxpayers through the National Endowment for Democracy. At the time, I wrote that allowing this to stand without tangible consequences for military aid to Egypt would be asking for trouble, and when Egyptian authorities had not fulfilled promises to return material seized in the raids a week later, I (along with some more prominent commentators) called for aid to be cut. That didn’t happen, and, having asked for trouble, the Obama administration has indeed gotten trouble. Eric Trager of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy notes that the mistreatment of democracy-promotion groups has continued and gotten worse, with American citizens’ targeted and banned from traveling: The Egyptian government’s recent travel ban on American democracy workers is the latest — and most grievous — attack on U.S.-funded NGOs operating in the country. Six employees are not allowed to travel, including Sam LaHood, the son of U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. Four other non-U.S. citizens are also affected. All ten are employed by either the International Republican Institute (IRI) or the National Democratic Institute (NDI)… The travel ban represents an escalation in the Egyptian military’s crackdown on civil society. Since assuming control last February, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) has used state-run media to foster a hostile political environment for pro-democracy NGOs, accusing them of catalyzing instability and portraying as traitors the Egyptian citizens who work for them. Trager adds that the government still hasn’t backed off from the December raids; the organizations’ Egyptian employees remain under investigation, and their offices remain closed. The administration just keeps asking nicely, to no effect: Indeed, the Obama administration’s current approach toward the SCAF — dealing with bad behavior through communication rather than consequences — is failing. For example, the president spoke with Defense Minister Muhammad Hussein Tantawi on Friday night and, according to the White House, “underscored that nongovernmental organizations should be able to operate freely.” Yet on Saturday, Sam LaHood, IRI’s director in Egypt, was prevented from leaving the country. It’s worth pausing to reflect on this: The President of the United States asks the defense minister of a client state to do something perfectly reasonable, and the next day the regime does the exact opposite. How can we keep sending massive piles of no-strings-attached cash to these people? Trager points out that aid money has proven useful in the past for changing the Egyptian military regime’s behavior: Previous experience suggests that a stronger U.S. response, such as threatening to withhold at least part of the $1.3 billion in annual military aid to Egypt, could convince the SCAF to lift the ban. This is precisely what the Bush administration did in 2002, when it successfully pressured the Mubarak regime to release Egyptian American democracy activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim from prison by threatening to withhold $130 million. Given the SCAF’s recent escalation against NGOs, it is time once again to enact this strategy. Trager concludes that that admininstration has been hesitant to withhold aid because “policymakers view such aid as vital to maintaining U.S. leverage, given the longstanding relationship between the American and Egyptian militaries, not to mention the recent election of an Islamist-dominated parliament that will be hostile to American interests.” This is an all-too-easy trap for an American administration to fall into: The military presents itself as a check on the Islamists, while meanwhile following the Mubarak playbook of suppressing the development of any non-Islamist opposition — and plays Washington like fiddle. Letting them get away with it is unacceptable. As Trager puts it, “maintaining leverage requires demonstrating a willingness to use it.” It’s past time to demonstrate such willingness.
Read this article:
More Reason to Cut Aid to Egypt
