Only We Can Prevent the Loss of Freedom in America!

Title links to Human Events article...

Freer Is Better

by  John Stossel 

10/13/2010

The 2010 Index of Economic Freedom lowers the ranking of the United States to eighth out of 179 nations -- behind Canada!

A year ago, it ranked sixth, ahead of Canada.
   
Don't say it's Barack Obama's fault. Half the data used in the index is from George W. Bush's final six months in office. This is a bipartisan problem.

   
For the past 16 years, the index has ranked the world's countries on the basis of their economic freedom -- or lack thereof. Ten criteria are used: freedoms related to business, trade, fiscal matters, monetary matters, investment, finance, labor, government spending, property rights and freedom from corruption.
   
The top 10 countries are: Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Switzerland, Canada, the United States, Denmark and Chile.
    

Seven Principles of Compassionate Conservatism, Part 2 - Basic

The second principle of compassionate conservatism is much-needed in America today. The idea of "basic" is a bit like a police officer's use of minimum necessary force. If we don't agree to maintain minimum necessary government, we end up with a bureaucratic monster. Government is getting too big and a majority of Americans seem to be finally getting it.

Marvin Olasky puts it like this:

Compassionate conservatives choose the most basic means of bringing help to those who need it. The goal is to look within the family first; if the family cannot help, maybe an individual or group within the neighborhood can; if not, then organizations outside the neighborhood but within the community should be called on. If it is necessary to turn to government, compassionate conservatives typically look first to municipal, then to county, then to state, and only then to federal offices. At each governmental level, the basics should be in order before proceeding to the more complicated stages. For example, a group that protects teenage ex-hookers from camps should have adequate police protection. Good Samaritan laws should be enacted so that a person who helps a mugging victim does not have to fear a lawsuit. When such basic protection is in place and counterproductive regulations have been replaced, the next goal is improved information flow concerning an organization and to facilitate contributions. And it is time to bring in questions of direct grants, tax credits, and so forth, always looking to the most basic level of government that connect efficiently on a particular problem.

We're witnessing the opposite of this with the Obama administration today. President Obama is making good on many of the "I will provide" promises that he uttered during the 2008 presidential election campaign. And the Democratic House and Senate have been willing partners in rolling out trillions of dollars for national programs.

Republicans have done it to, in the not so distant past. It's not about party affiliation for me, it's about the conservative ideal of limiting spending and government power. That said, it is a badge of honor for the Republicans to be called more recently "the party of no." We need to roll back spending and government overreach, and on November 2 that means casting a vote for each common sense conservative on the ballot.

In central Wisconsin, that means Duffy for congress, Johnson for senate, Walker for governor, Eno for state assembly, and Galloway for state senate. I've met each of these candidates, and I believe they all stand with the ideal I've mentioned here. I believe they're our best chance to bring government back under control.

Alternative Reform for Healthcare from Paul Ryan

There have been plenty of distractions from the national debate on healthcare reform in recent weeks. We conservatives intend to continue to keep this issue relevant as the country moves toward the November elections.

Here's an update from congress's most articulate voice in opposition to the recently passed healthcare reform bill. Every time I hear Paul Ryan speak, I'm struck by the common sense solutions he brings to the table. Here's his latest.

CONSTITUENT HOTLINE: 1-888-909-RYAN (7926) www.house.gov/ryan | RSS | YouTube | Twitter |  Facebook | A Roadmap for America's Future

Setting the record straight: How the health care bill will truly impact Medicare beneficiaries Seniors in Southern Wisconsin will soon receive a mailing from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that dramatically mischaracterizes the impact of the recently enacted health care overhaul. The taxpayer-funded mailing titled, "Medicare and the New Health Care Law: What it Means for You" does more to mislead beneficiaries than it does to educate them.  I've received a number of complaints and inquiries from seniors throughout Southern Wisconsin regarding this brochure and I think it is important to set the record straight. The mailer produced by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services [CMS], the agency directly responsible for managing the Medicare program, describes so-called "benefits" seniors can expect to see and additional "improvements" to the Medicare program. Unfortunately, many of the "benefits" in the mailer have already been explicitly refuted by the Federal government's own non-partisan experts.  Among the most troubling claims made in CMS' brochure: -Claim: "Your choice of doctor will be preserved".  -Reality: Because of the massive payment cuts to medical providers required by the health care law, more than 15 percent of Medicare physicians will go bankrupt and stop practicing within the next ten years. (Source: http://www.cms.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/PPACA_2010-04-22.pdf, page 21)    -Claim: "If you are in a Medicare Advantage plan, you will still receive guaranteed Medicare benefits."  -Reality: This contradicts Medicare's Chief Actuary, who said the more than 10 million Medicare beneficiaries who use Medicare Advantage would see their benefits cut and costs increase due to $500 billion in cuts to Medicare. (Source: http://www.cms.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/PPACA_2010-04-22.pdf, page 11)    -Claim: "The new law creates a new voluntary insurance program called CLASS to help pay for long-term care and support at home".  -Reality: This new program has been described by Medicare's actuary as "facing a significant risk of failure" due to its dubious financing scheme that could create an "insurance death spiral".  (Source: http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/press/2010/hc-ed-final-7apr10.pdf, page 6)    -Claim: The health care law makes "needed improvements that will keep Medicare strong and solvent."  -Reality: This stands in stark contrast to statements made last month by Medicare's own chief actuary that "the long-term viability of the Medicare Update Reductions is doubtful." Medicare - a critical program that provides health security for millions of seniors - is going bankrupt.  Medicare faces a $38 trillion shortfall - $38 trillion in future promises that the government cannot keep.  Far from making Medicare "strong and solvent," this law raids $528 billion from Medicare to fund a new open-ended entitlement.  (Source: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/110xx/doc11005/01-22-HI_Fund.pdf, page 1) The inaccuracies and misleading statements contained in CMS' brochure hinder efforts to help seniors understand the law's complex maze of new mandates, taxes, and restrictions. Seniors don't need another sales pitch from this Administration. They deserve clarity, transparency and the truth.  My colleagues on the House Ways and Means Committee have called for a full review of this mailing by the Government Accountability Office and vetted by the appropriate Congressional committees, as has been done in the past with similar publications.  As we fight to repeal and replace this ill-conceived overhaul with fiscally responsible, patient-centered alternatives, I will continue to push the Administration to honestly and accurately inform patients and doctors of how they will be affected by the health care bill.  I remain committed to supporting alternatives like A Roadmap for America's Future, which fixes what's broken in health care without breaking what's working. The Roadmap provides universal access to affordable health coverage, not by expanding government, but by reinforcing the role of consumers - patients - in a truly competitive marketplace. The plan also takes on the necessary task of restructuring the government's medical entitlements, making them sustainable for the long term. For additional information on A Roadmap for America's Future, please visit: www.americanroadmap.org or call 1-888-909-7926.

Seven Principles of Compassionate Conservatism, Part 1 - Assertive

What I'm looking for in a political system is the one that works most effectively and compassionately, regardless of how much compassion the people are feeling as they work within the system.

Let me lay out the foundation of Marvin Olasky's Compassionate Conservatism. This is not an attempt to return to the years of Bush the younger, though America did have a season of resonance with his message. It's more of a declaration that conservatism need not and should not yield the label of "compassionate" to liberals and progressives who primarily find their solutions and salvation in the government.

The U.S. economy continues to crumble under the weight of socialist ideals. That alone should show the emptiness of the government's claim to offer compassion. But this downturn is not shocking and we had better not lose the clarity of it's report: socialism doesn't work.

That message is starting to hit home, but what do we replace socialism with? If we stop charging toward centralized government power and financial control, where do we charge to next?

Marvin Olasky's version of conservatism needs to be considered. Yes, we can chew the meat and spit out the bones, but there's plenty of meat to be had. Let me outline his ABCDEFG principles.

Seven Principles of Compassionate Conservatism

(Compassionate Conservatism, pp 16-20)

Assertive

The preamble to the Constitution speaks of government promoting the general welfare but not providing it. Alexis de Tocqueville was astounded to see Americans forming associations to fight poverty and other social ills rather than waiting for government to act. Such assertiveness surprised to Europeans well into the 20th century.... compassionate conservatism is the opposite of how wimpy doctrine; it emphasizes a renewable of the Citizen assertiveness that so impressed the first great for a journalist to come here, de Tocqueville.

We're seeing this sort of assertiveness in the TEA Party movement of the last 18 months. There is a very real sense that the people still have a voice to remind our political representatives who is working for whom! In a free country, the government fears the people more than the people fear the government. This assertiveness is both historic and uniquely special in this time and place.

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

Holding Obey Accountable for Under-performing Stimulus

David Obey authored the stimulus bill and staked his career on its success. That huge object in Obey's mirror is something he can't escape: his record.

ORPO (Obame-Reid-Pelosi-Obey) sold stimulus aggressively on the front end. Unemployment would be held below eight percent if we would just give them a blank check for nearly a trillion dollars.

This is a key issue in the race between Obey and challenger Sean Duffy this year. I want to publish a couple of resources that will help in evaluating Obey's track record in this area.

First a website: http://www.readthestimulus.org/. Note that zero conservative republicans supported the bill in the house and the senate

Then a new video containing an interview of Rep. Paul Ryan by Sean Hannity. Initial observation appears to show a clear, intentional misleading of the American people on jobs numbers related to stimulus investments.





Seems I've read a hundred reports of questionable dispersing of stimulus funds. And as a conservative, running more money through the government does not resonate as effective. How do you feel about the ORPO stimulus bill?

Framing the Debate

One of the most common phrases I hear from supporters of President Obama is "Hey, give him a chance." The idea appears to be that in order for Obama to bring about the positive change he wants for America, we all need to get behind his initiatives and wait in hope for the good things ahead.

Another common objection I hear, perhaps most recently from supporters of Obama and the liberal viewpoint, "All of the arguing and mudslinging in politics is completely disgusting!"

In my humble opinion, each of these comments shows a lack of understanding of the big picture of US politics. May I try to frame the debate a little?

On the right, the conservatives believe that the country will function best with a firm commitment to the US Constitution. This includes ideas of (much more) limited government, strong national defense, and financial responsibility. Limited government, at this point, involves rolling some national power back out to the states, then to cities, neighborhoods, and so on.This also means a commitment to be restrained by the constitution unless it is formally changed by amendment. Financial responsibility means that the government should not be allowed to use "crises" to spend beyond its means.

On the left, the liberals/progressives believe that the country will function best with extensive government programs, centralized power and decision making, and a policy-based economic structure instead of free market capitalism. Their response to the great needs and ills of society is for the government to address and treat the problems.

In short, liberal equals more government, conservative equals less government. The political debate revolves around pushing the center point between government and the private sector back and forth. The TEA partiers are clamoring for less government while the Obama-Reid-Pelosi-Obey liberal camp sees current national crises as an opportunity to make government even more powerful. If you're not sure about my conclusion, ask a devoted liberal what he thinks of trickle down economics.

So, with this frame of reference, the comment "Hey, just give President Obama a chance" would mean allowing the liberal left to push the center line more easily to the big government side. This is not simply about a unique genius of a president who can brilliantly solve our issues. This is about the liberal left marching together to empower government. Four years can have an impact on moving that center line for generations to come. I believe a more informed comment from a liberal might be "Hey, I like Obama's ideas of government solutions and I hope he has a strong enough coalition to take us in that direction."

And going back to the "I wish they'd stop arguing" comment, our big government vs. small government frame of reference works here too. "Stop arguing" means ultimately, let the party in power push the center line  without objecting. Again, generational impact. A more informed comment from a liberal might be, "Wow, these issues are complicated and people have passion on both sides. I better get informed so I can understand what all the passion is about."

I'm a conservative and I want the center line moved back to the right. I believe the people of America have resources and solutions far greater than the government can offer.

In northwoods Wisconsin this year, that means supporting Republican challenger Sean Duffy to overtake David Obey for a seat in the US Congress. The center line has moved farther and farther to the left, to big government, during David Obey's 41 years in that seat. Sean Duffy is a committed conservative who wants to represent the people and set government back into it's constitutionally-authorized limited position. There is a team of conservatives waiting for the strength to push the line back to the right. Let's get Sean in there to strengthen their ranks!

Compassionate Healthcare Heist?

Would it be truly compassionate to pay a hospital bill if it meant stealing the money from innocent passers by? Stated another way, would we hail Bernie Madoff as noble if his $65 billion ponzi scheme heist was actually being routed to finance healthcare for the urban poor? While it has a bit of a Robin Hood flare to it, we'd have to agree that the overall plan was unacceptable and still grounds for life imprisonment.

In order for public policy to be compassionate, it must be truthful. The Obama-Reid-Pelosi-Obey healthcare reform bill makes a number of assumptions which should not form the basis of honest cost projections. And then, with those ungrounded assumptions in place, even then the projections are based on the best-case scenario. History, on the other hand, has shown that such a public program should more reasonably assume worst-case scenario and multiply by 10 in order to approach the reality of the actual costs.

There is ample reason to believe that national health care reform bill is as financially sound as Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme. One might counter that business has been done this way in Washington for years. Agreed, but this terribly invasive plan might actually bring us to tipping points both in public policy funding and in the patience of the American people.

The Intrinsic Compassion of Conservatism

"Eight years of failed policies." The words echo in my ears and frustrate me today just like they did during the 2009 US presidential campaign. With an unpopular war testing the patience and attention span of the American people, Senator and candidate Barack Obama found traction in showing disdain for the entirety of President Bush's political philosophy and track record.

Eight years prior, Governor George W. Bush of Texas campaigned successfully with an economic philosophy tagged Compassionate Conservatism. But in 2009 as the markets slid and mega-corporations began to fail, Obama was more than happy to point the finger of blame at free market capitalism specifically and conservatism generally.

Coming soon...

I notice some have already signed up for feeds of this brand new blog. As you can see, I wanted to get the environment and links set up before posting. Apparently some of that is working!

Opening comments are likely to be based on Marvin Olasky's Compassionate Conservatism. The term is used in a million ways, but I admire his core intentions.

The 7th Congressional District in Wisconsin will feature a showdown this year between 41-year incumbent Democrat David Obey and 38-year-old Republican challenger Sean Duffy. I believe the two candidates represent two vastly different approaches to compassion in public policy. I also believe public conception of compassion in politics is as distorted as one's reflection in a house of mirrors.

Link up now for a dynamic conversation through the November 2, 2010 election and beyond!