Tag Archives: GOP

Pathetic Pale Pastels Republicans

Posted on by
4

After the most resounding electoral defeat in over half a century, the outgoing Democratic Party has successfully rammed through one hyper-partisan piece of legislation after the other.

The sad fact is that Senate Republicans have been complicit in allowing awful legislation to pass. Lindsey Graham, yes, that Lindsey Graham, actually excoriated his own party for caving in to the Democrats unnecessarily:

“When it’s all going to be said and done, Harry Reid has eaten our lunch,” Graham said on Fox News radio. “This has been a capitulation in two weeks of dramatic proportions of policies that wouldn’t have passed in the new Congress.”

Republican senators have broken with the party’s leaders on several key votes in order to advance some of President Obama’s top policies during the lame-duck. GOP members defected to pass a repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and have done likewise to secure likely ratification for the START Treaty. Some Republicans might allow a health bill for 9/11 first responders to move forward, while three Republicans voted to end debate on the DREAM Act, an ultimately unsuccessful immigration bill…

“I can understand the Democrats being afraid of the new Republicans; I can’t understand Republicans being afraid of the new Republicans,” Graham lamented on WTMA radio. “They’re not opportunities to take everything you couldn’t do for two years and jam it. It’s literally what they’re doing, across the board. And after a while, I stop blaming them, and I blame us.”

When Lindsey Graham is faulting the GOP for caving in to the Democrats…

The fact that the Democrats have completely ignored the will of the people and pursued their radical agenda is to be expected. That Republicans have repeatedly capitulated is unacceptable.

Unfortunately, there are still too many Republicans who want to go along to get along. They have no real belief in reform. In fact, some Republicans actually fear and disdain the reform movement. The elitists within the party still look down on the ‘uncouth’ Tea Party.

Because President Obama pursued such a radical agenda in his first two years in office, the GOP wilderness years were cut short. While it was of the utmost importance to block the Democrats, the Republicans quick return to power has allowed some of the deadwood to stay in place.

In 2010 the Tea Party movement stayed within the Republican Party. The energy that they provided launched the GOP to victory. If the Grand Old Party wants to keep the movement together, elected officials better realize that the time for compromises, in which Republicans acquiesce to Democrats is over. Now is the time for bold, conservative leadership.

Tax Rates v. Tax Revenues and the Tax Compromise of 2010

Posted on by
2

The Leftist rallying cry ‘tax cuts for the rich’ is predicated upon intentional distortions. In search of votes, Democrats passionately decry the moral injustice of ‘rich’ people being permitted to keep and accumulate the fruits of their labor. If only taxes were higher, the Left contends, the government would have the necessary funds and power to impose equality on ‘the masses.’

The moral argument for lower taxes is quite simple: people are entitled to retain their private property. Taxes should be used to fund the defined roles of government and nothing else. Social engineering and wealth redistribution to favored constituencies are not what taxes are supposed to be used for.

The economic argument has been proven throughout the course of history. To a point, lower tax rates result in larger revenues for the federal government. Thomas Sowell recently wrote a great article on this topic:

…High tax rates do not necessarily result in high tax revenues to the government. “It is time to face the facts,” he said. Merely having high tax rates on large incomes will not bring in more tax revenues to the treasury, because of “the flight of capital away from taxable investments.”

This was all said in 1924, in Mellon’s book, “Taxation: The People’s Business.” Yet here we are, more than 80 years later, still not facing those facts.

It is not just a question of what Andrew Mellon said. It is a question of hard facts, easily checked in official documents available to all– and ignored all these years.

Internal Revenue Service data show that there were 206 people who reported annual incomes of one million dollars or more in 1916. But, as the tax rate on high incomes skyrocketed under the Woodrow Wilson administration, that number plummeted to just 21 people reporting a million dollars a year in income five years later…

Right after Congress enacted the cuts in tax rates that Mellon had been urging, there were suddenly 207 people reporting taxable incomes of a million dollars or more in 1925. As Casey Stengel used to say, “You could look it up.” It is on page 21 of an Internal Revenue publication titled “Statistics of Income from Returns of Net Income for 1925.”

Where had all the income of those millionaires been hiding? In tax-exempt securities like state and local bonds, among other places. Mellon had urged Congress to end tax exemptions for such securities, even before he got them to cut tax rates. But he succeeded only with the latter, and only after a political struggle with those who made the same kinds of arguments that are still being made today by those who cry out against “tax cuts for the rich.”

…The government, which collected less than $50 million in taxes on capital gains in 1924, suddenly collected well over $100 million in capital gains taxes in 1925. At lower tax rates, it no longer made sense to keep so much invested in tax-exempt securities, when more money could be made by investing in the economy.

As for “the rich”– who really were rich in those days, when $100,000 was worth more than a million dollars is worth today– those in the highest income brackets paid 30 percent of all taxes in 1920 and 65 percent of all taxes by 1929, after “tax cuts for the rich.”

How can that be? Because high tax rates on paper, that many people avoid, often does not bring in as much tax revenue as lower tax rates that more people actually pay, after it is safe to come out of tax shelters and earn higher rates of taxable income.

The investors do this because it makes them better off, on net balance, even after they pay more money in taxes on incomes that have gone up. More important, the economy benefits when there is more investment in things that create more jobs and rising output…

As John Adams said, “facts are stubborn things.” In this case, the facts support lower taxes.

Since 2000, Democrats have railed against the ‘Bush tax cuts for the rich.’ Now Democrats claim that the extension of the Bush tax rates, by a Democrat controlled Congress, and a Democrat president, is a great victory for Obama and his party.

Preventing one of the largest tax rate hikes in history is a victory for the American people and conservative ideas. In no way can an acquiescence by the Left of this magnitude truly be seen as a victory for the Left.

However, reality never seems to get in the way of the political class. In all likelihood, by 2012 President Obama will be touting the success of the ‘Obama tax cuts.’ In 1996 Bill Clinton won reelection by running on all the successes of the Contract with America – the very same document Clinton had called the “Contract on America,” likening conservative ideas to a hit man’s contract. Just like Clinton, Obama will try to claim responsibility for the successes of Republican ideas, which he will fight bitterly against.

Review of "Young Guns: a New generation of Conservative Leaders"

Posted on by
9

Two years ago it was said that the elections of Barack Obama to the presidency, an overwhelming Democratic majority in the House and 60 Democrats in the Senate signaled the death of conservatism. At this writing, November 2nd is less than 50 days away. Real Clear Politics’ polling averages has the GOP picking up at least 7 seats in the Senate, leading by 5% on the House generic ballot, Republicans picking up a minimum 7 Governorships, and Republicans controlling of 31 state Houses by November 3rd. This rapid sea change raises two questions: why did this happen? What will the new GOP majority look like?

Those two quandaries are answered by Representatives Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy in their great new book Young Guns: a New Generation of Conservative Leaders. The book is divided into three sections, authored by the aforementioned Congressmen. Cantor, the second highest ranking Republican in the House, broadly outlines the political environment that led to his party’s decline and swift resurgence. Cantor also expounds upon the general direction the party will head in, should they take the majority this fall. Representative Ryan tackles the nuts and bolts of Republican domestic policy. The third and final section of the book is written by Representative Kevin McCarthy, Cantor’s deputy Whip. McCarthy’s section focuses on how 2010 candidates were recruited, and what they will do to connect with voters this election cycle. Young Guns sets forth the pro-freedom agenda that the GOP will use this election cycle, and govern by once in power.

America rests in the hands of a Democratic majority that views America differently… they focus on its flaws rather than it greatness…They think America is an ordinary nation, not an exceptional nation.

Eric Cantor begins the book by telling the sad story of the GOP in the waning days of its last majority in 2006. While we are all familiar with this narrative, it is important for elected Republicans to understand what voters mean when they say the GOP ‘lost its way.’ It is one thing to acknowledge a popular catchphrase, it is another to truly comprehend it. If the GOP hopes to not just win a majority in 2010, but to retain it in the future, it must correct the mistakes that have damaged the conservative brand. The Republican Party is not spared in Cantor’s honest analysis. He laments that Republicans did in fact lose their way. At some point the party stopped being the party of limited government and became the party of government. Honest men and women forgot that they were elected to change Washington. Instead, Republicans focused on reelection bids and constructing a political machine akin to that of the former Democrat majorities. With that lesson understood, Cantor moves forward in offering the message of the newly revitalized GOP.

When President Obama was elected in 2008, along with his Democratic counterparts in both Houses of Congress, his party promised honesty and transparency. Obama repeatedly promised to be a ‘post-partisan’ President, who would reach across the aisle to adopt the best ideas put forward. While astute observes noted that President Obama was rated the most liberal of all 100 Senators by the non-partisan National Journal, many held out faith, hoping Obama would live up to his campaign promises. This matter was immediately put to the test. With the economy in a tailspin, the new administration claimed their first priority was calming the economic storm. President Obama made it known that he was in favor of a government spending program that would allegedly stimulate the economy. The price tag of his $787,000,000,000 stimulus bill was unsettling to many on both sides of the partisan divide. With a true bipartisan spirit, the Republican minority put together an alternative stimulus bill. The bill was not doctrinaire conservatism, but rather an attempt to find common ground with the new President. The bill recommended:

  • Reducing the lowest individual tax rates from 15% to 10% and eventually down to 5%
  • Allowing small businesses to reduce tax liability by 20%
  • Ensuring no tax increases to pay for spending
  • Assistance for the unemployed
  • A home buyers credit of $7.500 for those buyers who can make a minimum down payment of 5%

It was determined that this bill would create twice as many jobs as Obama claimed his stimulus bill would at half the cost – using the the Obama administrations own economic modeling. Obama’s eventual response to GOP alternatives? “Elections have consequences… and Eric, I won.” From then on it was clear that the the new President had no intention of pursuing a non-partisan agenda. Obama, Pelosi and Reid routinely shut the GOP out of any and all policy making decisions. The GOP was painted as the part of ‘no,’ but that was a more fitting name for the Democrats. They were, and still remain, the party of ‘no.’ They have said ‘no’ to any and all new ideas that might deviate from strict adherence to their failed ideology.

Paul, Kevin and I are unapologetic believers in the concept of American exceptionalism. America offers opportunity like no other nation, and with hard work, sacrifice, and perseverance, no one is limited.

If Cantor disputes the party of ‘no’ label, Representative Ryan blows it out of the water. While Representatives Cantor and McCarthy hold leadership roles in the party, Paul Ryan is recognized as one of the great thinkers of the conservative movement. His section of the book explains the crossroads his country is at. According to Ryan, America has to make a choice: to pursue the dream of the Founders: limited government, liberty and a prosperous future, or that of Western Europe: gradual decline, substantial tax increases, and an enormous federal leviathan.

Ryan explains that his road map will allow Americans to have a social safety net, remain solvent and ensure the preservation of individual liberty. Ryan tackles: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and health care. Drawing on his experience, which included working for Jack Kemp, Ryan has constructed a pro-freedom agenda for the GOP that leaves no stone unturned. Foremost in his reforms is an area that has been seen as a political third-rail for Republicans in the past: entitlements. However, Ryan’s sober analysis and sensible solutions show that the GOP is willing to tackle the most important issues facing the nation.

Unlike some in Washington today, I don’t have any doubt about the moral strength of America…We’re the good guys.

The final section of the book by Kevin McCarthy explains how the GOP, and especially the Young Guns have been recruiting candidates. Representative McCarthy details how the GOP is not just looking to create a Republican majority, they are trying to create a conservative majority. A majority of what I have called ‘citizen legislators.’ Rather than recruiting typical pols to run for office, McCarthy and the rest of the GOP have been looking for people who ‘get it.’ The GOP brand was damaged by a decade long spending binge. Prospective candidates must understand that being elected to Congress is about something bigger than themselves; it is about “changing America.” In making this point, McCarthy recalls a conversation he had with an aspiring candidate:

McCarthy: Are you going to run?

Candidate: Do you need me to run?

McCarthy: No, I don’t need you to run.

Candidate: Do you want me to run?

McCarthy: No, I don’t want you to run. I’ll help you if you want to run.

McCarthy eventually advised this candidate not to run, telling him “this can’t be about you. This is about changing America.” The section goes on to profile a number of the Young Guns running this year. These candidates do ‘get it.’ They are running to change Washington, not to become political hacks.

Young Guns provides more than a road map to Republican victory in 2010. It offers the basis under which a conservative coalition will govern once in power. If the principles outlined in this work are adhered to by a new class of Republicans, the party will unite the center-right, that makes up the majority of the United States, achieve electoral successes, and more importantly, implement the solutions that will put America back on track. In 1976 Ronald Reagan said:

This is our challenge; and this is why here in this hall tonight, better than we have ever done before, we have got to quit talking to each other and about each other and go out and communicate to the world that we may be fewer in numbers than we have ever been, but we carry the message they are waiting for.

We must go forth from here united, determined that what a great general said a few years ago is true: There is no substitute for victory.

Republicans once again are in the political wilderness. However, conservatives again carry the message the country is waiting for. Young Guns makes it clear that the GOP will trumpet this message, and lends hope that once in the majority again, Republicans will govern appropriately.

Click here to purchase a copy of Young Guns: a New generation of Conservative Leaders.

Sarah Palin – an Articulate and Fearless Voice for Conservatism

Posted on by
3

With President Obama’s job approval rating falling all the way down to 46%, and his disapproval rating climbing to 49%, according to Real Clear Politics, which averages all major polls, it is impossible to ignore the choice the GOP will have to make by 2012: who will be the standard bearer against Obama?

Barack Obama and the Democrats have been relentless in advancing their statist agenda. They are taking over the economy one piece at a time, from the banks, to the auto companies to healthcare and beyond. Every day they are in power, they find new ways to stifle freedom and kill the American Dream. While this has proven incredibly harmful, it gives the Republican Party an opportunity to contrast itself against the radical left. Where the Democrats offer socialism, the Republicans can advocate a pro-freedom agenda.

Sarah Palin has been the most effective voice of the conservative alternative to the Democrats’ European style socialism. Through her Facebook posts, Twitter messages, television appearances and public speeches, the former Governor of Alaska has been a one woman wrecking crew, taking on Obama and his party at every turn. Sarah Palin is an articulate and fearless voice for modern, common-sense conservatism. The Left has predictably deployed its calumny tactics, trying to slime the Palin family. They have not quieted her.

However, there are still some on the Right that remain unconvinced. Their arguments against Palin are usually along the lines of: She’s unintelligent and she can’t win because she’s ‘too conservative.’ All of which, of course, is wrong.

The media uses the same tactics against every Republican candidate. Every last one. Does the intelligence argument sound familiar? In 1964 Barry Goldwater was dumb. Next, Gerald Ford was falsely portrayed as a bumbling idiot, then Ronald Reagan was an uneducated country bumpkin, Dan Quayle became the next target, followed by George W. Bush, who was the dumbest man in  America, according to the left, from 2000-2008. As for the ‘smart’ candidates? The Left loves to extol the brilliance of the man from Plains, Georgia, Jimmy Carter, to this day. They were enamored with the intellect of John ‘D-student’ Kerry. And then there is the ‘genius’ that currently occupies the Oval Office.

On one hand the ‘idiots’ cut taxes, grew the economy, and won the Cold War. On the other hand the “effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals” (as Spiro Agnew once put it) who have ascended to the Presidency have put the country’s very survival on the brink. Their policies have put the economy on life-support, swelled the ranks of the unemployed, and emboldened tyrants the world over.

The Right has to stop looking towards the self-appointed arbiters of intelligence for validation. Instead of repeating what David Brooks wrote in the New York Times, read, listen to and watch Governor Palin. Her positions are well thought-out and genuinely conservative. They are common-sense solutions to today’s problems. A Harvard education does not ensure sound decision making (in fact, a Harvard education may be detrimental to good decision making).

The Left disdains what Angelo Codevilla termed the “Country Class.” This classification contains the vast majority of Americans; people that have never attended an Ivy League institution, haven’t risen through the bureaucracy, and have to work every day to stay afloat. Sarah Palin is the best representative the ‘Country Class’ has on the political front. She has an accent that liberals mock. So do most Americans. She comes from a small town, as do most Americans. And most of all, she believes in God, an indefensible position to the modern Left. However, that is a position Palin shares with 92% of the American people. All these factors are why the Left savages Palin. The intelligence argument is old hat for Leftist smear merchants, and in this case, as with all the others documented above, it is an outright lie.

The ‘too conservative’ and ‘not electable’ arguments come up every election. The media says some radical leftist (Carter, Obama, Kerry…) is a ‘pragmatic centrist.’ Meanwhile, mainstream Republican challengers are made out to be conservative extremists. Sadly, conservatives ceaselessly desire acceptance ‘at the big table.’ They are not going to get it – ever. The GOP nominates duds, like John McCain, because they are ‘electable.’ ‘Electable’ candidates are losers. McCain got thumped. Congressional Republicans were Democrat-lite for nearly a half-century – and they never won (although, Bob Michel did get great tee-times with prominent Democrats). In 1980 the Republicans nominated their ‘conservative zealot.’ His name was Ronald Reagan. Reagan won two of the largest landslides in American history. In 1994, Congressional Republicans finally decided to give conservatism a try, and they won. As Rush Limbaugh likes to say “the blueprint for victory is there.” That is not to say conservatives can’t lose, as Barry Goldwater proved. In order to win, candidates need the total package, not just ideology. Of the rumored 2012 candidates the only conservative that stands out as a relaible, viable option is Sarah Palin. Her approval ratings have steadily climbed, following her low after the 2008 campaign, in which she was handled embarrassing poorly and was later even demonized by McCain apparatchiks. Can she win? No one can answer that now. Ruling her out due to the red herring of ‘electability’ at this point is foolish.

Conservatives have to stop striving for the approval of the elites. Instead of seeking the good graces of the ‘Ruling Class,’ the ‘Country Class’ should focus on advancing an agenda that will be embraced by the majority of Americans. That agenda is built upon the timeless principles that the Founders described as “self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” And the best trumpeter of that platform is Sarah Palin.

Chris Matthews on Sarah Palin

Posted on by
Reply

Genuinely shocking. Every once in a while a lucid point escapes Chris Matthews’ lips. His analysis of Sarah Palin’s political future looks, to me, to be dead on:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Matthews’ point, that Palin is being pragmatic in her endorsements, in an effort to ‘collect chips’ for 2012 is an interesting idea. Many Palin backers have been dismayed with some of her ‘establishment’ endorsements this year (Carly Fiorina was the biggest one (or John McCain)). However, if Palin wishes to have a future in national politics she will need people in power that owe her. The only way to build up this necessary base of support is to pick winners. With  her high success rate (thus far), Palin can claim that her influence matters across the country. By siding with Carly Fiorina in California Palin demonstrated that her endorsement can matter even in the most liberal of states. The Governor’s strategy works on a number of levels. The first two have already been stated: she collects favors and flexes her political muscle. In addition, Palin’s endorsements keep her in the news for political reasons, not tabloid ones. When her candidates keep on winning it is impossible to ignore her power. As well, by endorsing a wide array of candidates, Palin is able to increase her appeal to ‘moderate’ voters – a group she excelled with as Governor of Alaska. The question is: will Palin’s support for a few moderate Republicans cost her support among the party’s base? (Answer: a resounding and overwhelming NO).