Download audio here Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets , Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Congressman Dennis Ross to discuss Obamacare, Eric Holder’s involvement in Fast and Furious and the end to insider trading in Congress. We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates . If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show. Related Links: Ross to Eric H. Holder: You Can Delegate Authority, But You Cannot Delegate Responsibility GOP blames ‘Obama economy’ in call to extend federal pay freeze Congressman Dennis Ross Follow Brad on Twitter Follow Ben on Twitter Follow Congressman Ross on Twitter Subscribe to The Transom The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.
See more here:
Dennis Ross Discusses Obamacare and Fast and Furious
The Obama administration – in the form of Attorney General Eric Holder – admitted today in Congressional testimony that Operation Fast & Furious program was ‘reckless,’ and will likely end up getting even more people killed. Rep. Ted Poe, R-TX: Would you agree that this operation was reckless? It was a reckless operation on the part of the United States? Attorney General Eric Holder: I mean, I think that the way that it was carried out I’d certainly say it was flawed, reckless, yeah I’d probably agree with that. I mean it was done inappropriately, and has had tragic consequences and is going – as I’ve said in my opening statement – it’s going to continue to have tragic consequences… Rep. Poe: More people are going to die? Probably? AG Holder: Unfortunately, I think that that’s probably true. So. Let us recap. The Obama administration created Operation Fast & Furious, which deliberately put large numbers of guns in the hands of people who were considered likely to resell them illegally to Mexican narco-terrorists. The Obama administration did not follow the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives’ own rules for selling guns in sting operations. The Obama administration did not keep track of the guns. The Obama administration did not inform the Mexican government that the USA was arming their country’s drug gangs. The Obama administration did not do anything about the Mexican civilian deaths that resulted from Operation Fast & Furious. The Obama administration did not keep our own country’s law enforcement personnel in the loop, which inevitably resulted in at least one of our own Border Agents getting shot (possibly even by a weapon that the Obama administration facilitated). The Obama administration did not voluntarily tell the truth about any of this. And there is at least some suggestion that the Obama administration had a domestic political agenda in mind. One involving domestic gun control. Let’s not mince words: Eric Holder – and a bunch of other people mentioned by name in this article – needs to resign in disgrace. I don’t care whether he was complicit in Operation Fast & Furious or not; the actions of the Department of Justice are ultimately his responsibility, which means that so are the deaths that resulted from the DoJ’s incompetence/scheming/incompetent scheming. Let me focus on that last bit: people died because we gave other people guns and didn’t even try to control where those guns went. That makes this entire sorry mess a good deal more significant than the usual Washington scandal. The Democrats don’t want to hear that, of course. Not that I really care. Moe Lane ( Crosspost )
Read more:
AG Eric Holder calls Operation Fast & Furious ‘Reckless…’
Responsibility Reborn : A Citizen’s Guide to the Next American Century By John Andrews (Denali Press, 175 pages, $19.99) Personal responsibility is an eroded American value. Republicans largely preach freedom, Democrats equality, but responsibility, when mentioned at all, plays second string. It’s no wonder, then, that America is becoming bailout nation. The year 2011 was a good time for John Andrews, former Republican president of the Colorado Senate and long-time conservative think-tanker, to pen Responsibility Reborn: A Citizen’s Guide to the Next American Century . The pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps tenet is alive and well among many Americans, but their number is shrinking in favor of those who covet European-style handouts. The Occupy movement has shown that reality in vibrant Technicolor: The violence, sexual assault, and disregard for private property. Mobilized as a political force, envy is among the most powerful of human vices. What’s the cure? Personal responsibility, defined by Andrews as “the quintessential American character trait” of doing “the right thing by choice.” It’s a value that Andrews believes can pull the United States out of the moral quagmire and put her on the path to a second American century. It won’t be easy. Liberalism appeals to baser instincts: envy, jealousy, and sloth, to name three. Conservatism requires far more of us: accountability for our own decisions and voluntary restraint in our actions. Although lawmaking plays a role in fostering such values, there is no substitute for cultural renewal arising from the private domain — marriages and families, schools and churches. “Our toughest challenges now are not political. They are moral,” Andrews writes. “Civil government will get better when individual self-government does, and not until then.” Andrews traces the genesis of the irresponsibility movement to the cultural upheavals of the mid-20th century. He says that “pampered young” threw a “national tantrum” in the 1960s. It worsened in the ’70s, a decade of moral decadence and economic stagnation. “Dependency on government was up,” Andrews says. “Promiscuity, illegitimacy, and divorce were up. Crime and drug abuse were up. Black poverty was up. Family stability and childbearing were down. Academic standards were down and educators were disrespected. The warrior spirit was down and soldiers were spat upon.” But even as cultural and economic liberalism made sweeping gains, Andrews points to the rising sun of conservatism, born out of the dark days of moral decay after Watergate. It was an economic and social force that beat back the tides of unchecked liberalism. Andrews’ thesis: A renewal of this responsibility movement is needed if America is to continue as a great nation. Don’t mistake Responsibility Reborn exclusively as a conservative call to arms against the excesses of liberalism, though. It’s certainly that, but it’s also a call for self-reflection among lovers of freedom. Andrews carefully probes a sore spot in conservative circles: the seeming conflict between personal freedom — the right to do what I want — and personal responsibility — the right to do what I should. With the all-out assault on individual freedom prorogated by the proponents of big government, conservatives are concerned chiefly with ensuring that liberty endures. But in so doing, have we lost sight of personal responsibility? It’s a question that Andrews wrestles with. His conclusion (emphasis mine):
It is not my attention to pile on Herman Cain or to get further into the abortion imbroglio covered in detail here at Redstate. Instead, I want to take a moment to talk about the concept of “professional politicians.” People love to hate politicians and often for good reason. And in our hyper-populist mood these days there is a scrambling to be anti-politician, anti-Washington, anti-government, etc. Conservatives in particular are enamored of businessmen and figures who can plausibly claim to free from beltway and big government thinking. Obviously, Herman Cain benefits from this dynamic; and Mitt Romney has – awkwardly and unsuccessfully in my opinion – tried to use this to his advantage. There is one small problem with this idea: it is naive and unrealistic and leads only to problems for candidates and their supporters. The truth is that being a politician is a profession whether we like it or not. Outside of local positions, and very small jurisdictions, elected office is a full time job. The size and scope of government, and the nature of modern society, means the larger the responsibility and power attached to an office the more difficult it is both to get elected and to do the job. In my opinion the the idea of citizen legislators is a myth; a nostalgic belief that does not match reality. This is true at the state level. Budgets and legislative issues require a knowledge base and skill level of a professional; you can’t just walk in off the street and be successful. In a similar way, running for office requires a set of skills and base of knowledge that is beyond the average person. Yes, you ca surround yourself with good staff and good advice but running a good campaign is a skill and requires experience; the more you do it, generally, the better you become. Take all of this to the presidential level and the pressures and complexity of it all is off the charts. So why do we expect that someone with very little experience in this area can just waltz on to the stage and succeed? Herman Cain is a talented businessman. He obviously has experience with leadership and management. And this background brings with it a unique ability to speak to the issues from a fresh perspective and in a way that appeals to many outside the political process. And you can’t be involved in business at the level Cain has without being politically involved. Cain is no stranger to politics or to government. But running for president is in many ways sui generis; something unlike anything else. And I hate to break it to fans of Herman Cain, but I think the last few weeks have shown that Cain is not quite ready for the pressure involved. The media spotlight is hostile and white hot. Everything you say is scrutinized and attacked. Your history, your motives, your every decision is researched and probed for weaknesses (unless of course you happen to be Barack Obama). Most people simply can’t handle this. The list of people who have in important ways been ambushed by this process or who have not held up under the pressure is long. Michelle Bachman, whatever you think of her positions, etc., went from building momentum and gaining support to fringe pretty quickly. Or, and again whatever you think of her choices and or style, Sarah Palin; thrust into the spotlight and forced to compete on the national level in the most hostile of circumstances. All too often conservatives swing between a naive idealism and a harsh, almost Machiavellian, pragmatism both, and often ironically, infused with a strong element of the cult of personality. We latch on to a rising star or a fresh face and insist they are the second coming of Ronald Reagan and George Washington combined and deny for as long as it is possible that they might not sweep into power and change Washington forever. Or we get behind what we perceive as the most electable candidate and then insist that they have no faults or that their are no trade offs involved in politics. After a loss, or when the responsibility of governing grows tiresome, the blame game begins and we too often fail to wrestle with the blinders we put on during the campaign. I would suggest that there is an important conservative principle in seeing politics are the art of the possible. It is important to play the ball as it lies; to take a metaphor from the game of golf. And we ignore this reality at our peril. This doesn’t meant that we abandon principles or turn harshly cynical. Yes, first principles and policy stands are important; as is the ability trust a candidate to follow through on promises and make the tough choices based on their ideals. But it does recognize that there are no perfect candidates, that politics is a necessary part of our public life and that it requires skills and experience just like any other profession. You don’t just jump from never having run for public office to becoming president of the United States. You can’t just figure out how to act on one of the largest stages imaginable on the fly. Running for president isn’t like running a business. And “Lame Stream Media” or not, effective communication, management and style play a crucial role in success today. Is it fair or ideal? No, but it is reality. In my opinion, on a number of issues recently Cain has simply not shown the basic level of competency necessary to run for president let alone get elected. When pushed to take his message from basic marketing to more detailed policy debate he has offered confusion and, at times, outright incoherence. Given what is at stake this is not acceptable. Now, before the flame wars begin let me just say that none of the candidates have exactly shone in this area. They all have weaknesses from seemingly doing nothing else but run for president to all the baggage of a long political career; from brutal honest that quickly slips into the fevered swaps to an inability to defend and sell your very strong record of achievement. And to be honest, I think Michelle Bachman in many ways forshadowed Cain’s problems. I also think Rick Santorum’s spectacular electoral failure the last time he ran for office, and his inability to come off as anything but angry, make him fatally flawed. So here is my, probably equally naive, plea: lets debate and discuss this primary with an awareness that politics is a profession that requires skills and experience; and that all of the candidates have strengths and weaknesses. We need to decide who we think has the best blend of the skills and experience necessary to get elected and succeed in office. We need to decide what policy or beliefs are non-negotiable and which tradeoffs we are willing to make in order to move our ideals forward (or at the least prevent further destruction). In other words, we need to go into this with our eyes wide open to the actual political landscape we find ourselves in not the one we wish existed. This isn’t easy I know, but it is the task that is set before us.
View original post here:
Herman Cain, 2012 and Professional Politicians
One of the first things you learn as a young infantry officer is that hope is not a method. You don’t hope the enemy behaves in a certain way. You don’t hope support shows up at the right time. You don’t lead an operation that is based on hope. As Herman Cain has shot to a surprising lead in the polls more attention has turned to his signature economic program: the 9-9-9 Plan . There is a lot that is superficially attractive about the plan. It’s shortcoming is that it relies entirely on hope. Not just any hope but a hope that runs contrary to everything we know about human nature and the way government operates. For the sake of argument we’ll stipulate that the Plan will do all those things Mr. Cain claims. It will produce more revenue in a fairer way than the current system. I don’t disagree with that. Sending regiments of Cossacks out to pillage the countryside would achieve the same purpose. The plan is unrealistic for two reasons: Congress must pass it and Congress must sustain it. Anyone can see the inherent difficulties in passing the bill. Between the armies of lobbyists who would oppose the bill and the armies of lobbyists trying to make the plan an 10-9-4.3 Plan to help their clients the odds of passage in anything resembling Mr. Cain’s proposal approach zero. Mr. Cain is not going to have 60 votes in the Senate to prevent a filibuster and even absent a filibuster the responsibility for taxation lies in the House of Representatives. The House rarely, if ever, shows deference to a president, even one of their own party, when it comes to this core function. Again hope is not a method. Of course, I could be wrong on that because were I a Liberal Democrat I’d vote for this plan for a simple reason: it provides an additional source of taxation. The idea that fiscal conservatives who have lambasted no less than Tom Coburn for not being sufficiently anti-tax thnk that giving the federal government a brand new tax, a national sales tax, is a good idea continues to baffle me. You don’t have to be a genius to see how the 9-9-9 movie will end. It will be 10-10-10, 11-11-11, and so on because the plan makes no provision for capping increases. I know, Mr. Cain has claimed the bill will require 2/3 vote of both the House and the Senate to change it. But just as he doesn’t have a vote, literally, in what the Conress might pass in the way of a revenue bill, he doesn’t control the rules the House and Senate will use to raise or lower the rate. Absent a Constitutional amendment, which Mr. Cain is not advocating, there is no mechanism to prevent the Congress from changing a 2/3 vote requirement to a simple majority vote in some subsequent piece of legislation. Conservative support for a sales tax or a VAT has historically been predicated upon the concurrent repeal of the Income Tax Amendment. That this long standing principle should be tossed aside makes no sense. Mr. Cain’s plan has an appeal that some wonkish 57-point plan never will. That it is appealing doesn’t mean it is either workable or a good idea. The 9-9-9 Plan, even if it passes Congress in the form favored by Mr. Cain, simply cannot survive constant Congressional tinkering any more than did the original income tax. Plus it gives the federal government access to a revenue stream that it currently does not have. So it is hard to understand the excitement this plan is generating.
Continue reading here:
Herman Cain’s Unrealistic Economic Plan
