Rep. Paul Ryan Gives Republican Response to the State of the Union Address:
Paul Ryan’s Awesome Response
1
Tag Archives: Liberty
Strictly Right Radio episode 79 – Record Breaker
On this Strictly Right, Andrew makes his triumphant return to discuss President Obama’s socialism, property rights in Canada, the debasement of our culture with shows like MTV’s ‘Skins,’ and much more.
Listen online:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Subscribe to Strictly Right Radio in iTunes.
A Year of Regulatory Abuse: The 10 Worst New Rules of 2010
Diane Katz of the Heritage Foundation profiled the 10 worst new rules of 2010.
——————————————————————————-
The year 2010 will stand as a watershed in regulation. In all likelihood, government at every level imposed more dictates on more facets of citizens’ lives than ever before, from the timing of stock trades to the proper size of showerheads. Lawmakers and regulators construct complex cost–benefit calculations to justify the rules, but they never account for the erosion of liberty inherent in each and every one. Some regulations are far worse than others, of course, exacting disproportionate costs—fiscal and otherwise. The 10 listed below rank as particularly egregious, and all deserve a swift demise in the year to come.
1. There hardly could be a more inapt title for the Obamacare legislation than the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” Neither protection nor affordable describes the federal government forcing Americans to buy specific types of health care coverage from particular types of insurers. For sheer constitutional insult, the individual mandate ranks among 2010’s worst regulations.
2. The Dodd–Frank financial regulation will ultimately encompass some 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different federal agencies. Most every sector of finance will be hit by rules that will inhibit product innovation and availability of credit. Creation of the “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” to regulate all manner of financial products and services—including mortgages, credit cards, even student loans—constitutes regulatory overload of the highest order. For its vaguely defined powers and sweeping mandate, the bureau belongs among the year’s 10 worst regulatory exploits.
Are you better off than you were in 2008?
During the final days of his campaign, Ronald Reagan asked voters to ask themselves if they were better off than they were four years ago. As we enter Barack Obama’s third year in office, Americans should ask themselves if they are better off than they were in 2008.
The Heritage Foundation published this incredible comparison of President Obama and President Reagan.
Socialism has never produced superior results to the free markets. The amount of money that America has wasted on worthless government programs is sickening – especially now that America’s national debt tops $14 trillion.
It won’t be long before the 2012 elections. Americans must reject the well intentioned promises of the statists and vote for freedom. Unless, of course, America is better off today than it was in 2008.
2011 GOP Battle Cry: Undo Obama
The media is atwitter over the fact that incoming GOP Congressmen have selected Carrie Underwood’s hit “Undo It” as their anthem.
Liberals in Congress and the media are worried that the GOP actually plans on fighting the Democrat socialist agenda.
Jennifer Steinhauer and Robert Pear lamented in the New York Times:
The health care law, entitlement programs, new limits on emissions of greenhouse gases from oil refineries and power plants, and other legislation that Republicans say cannot be justified by a strict interpretation of the Constitution — a document the new leaders plan to read on the House floor on Thursday — are all in the cross hairs.
While President Obama and Republicans were able to work together during last month’s lame-duck session — to the vocal consternation of the most partisan ends of each party’s base — to pass a tax package and a variety of last-minute legislation, including the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and the ratification of the anti-nuclear proliferation treaty with Russia, such bipartisan consensus seems unlikely at the outset of the new House session.
Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, who is in line to succeed Ms. Pelosi, has said that this time around he would lead efforts to revive the private sector by reducing the size of government — cutting federal regulation, taxes and spending, including the budget of Congress itself.
Mr. Boehner also said Republicans would alter House rules to make it easier to curb government spending and to require more public disclosure about the work of the House.
House Republicans plan on passing a full repeal of Obamacare as a symbolic act, acknowledging that it will be stopped in the Senate, or vetoed by the President. However, after setting the tone, the GOP plans on defunding and dismantling Obamacare piece by piece. Additionally, with Paul Ryan’s Road Map the GOP is finally starting to talk about realistic entitlement reforms.
Fueled by a reverence for the Constitution and an acknowledgment of reality, Republicans won in 2010 by representing the alternative to Obamunism. If the Grand Old Party wishes to remain in power surrender is not an option.
Mitch McConnell stated that his foremost political priority is ensuring that Barack Obama is a one-term president. Republicans are openly stating that they plan on using Obamacare as an albatross to hang around Democrats in 2012. The only way to fix the economy, and the country, is to get government out of the way. The only way to get government out of the way is to defeat Democrats. The GOP, at long last, is ready to play hardball.
On the other side of the aisle, Democrats believe that a renewed debate over Obamacare will actually help them. The Left believes that the only problem with Obama’s government takeover of healthcare is the branding. If only the American people really understood how great Obamacare is, they’d support the monstrosity.The fights over Obamacare, and liberty, are fights the GOP should welcome, and decisively win.
The legislative plan for the GOP is quite simple; Barry Goldwater spelled it out in 1960:
I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is `needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.
For a modern interpretation “Undo It” works:
A Dysfunctional Congress is a Congress That Can’t Hurt Us
Greg Gutfeld at his best:
Hey Government, It’s NOT Your Money!
The debate over tax cuts and tax hikes has been devoid of one key factor: who the money belongs to.
On MSNBC‘s Andrea Mitchell Reports Mrs. Mitchell grilled Senator Judd Gregg on his support of extending of the Bush tax cuts – in other words, Senator Gregg’s opposition to one of the largest nominal tax hikes in history:
The economic argument made by Mitchell is pure sophistry. ‘Tax cuts’ can be a misleading term. Tax rate reductions do not necessarily mean tax revenue reductions. The static modeling used by many economists is premised upon “ceteris paribus” – with all other things being equal. In reality, all other things are never equal.
In a dynamic economy nothing happens in a vacuum. Tax rate reductions leaves more money in the supply side, which results in businesses big and small having the needed capital to expand. A growing economy results in higher earnings and the creation of jobs. More earners means more taxpayers, the result being increased government revenues. Government revenues increased when presidents: Harding, Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush cut taxes. This stubborn set of facts has been presented ad nauseam, and yet the Left continues to deny reality.
However, there is more to the debate surrounding taxes than just what will result in higher government revenues. In the segment above, if you disregard Mitchell’s painful economic ignorance, her point that not raising taxes costs the government money is illustrative of how Democrats think.
The Left believes that all capital belongs to the government. Furthermore, the benevolent ruling class should decide how much capital you, the citizen, is allowed to keep, in the Left’s view. Using that logic, liberals view tax cuts as a reduction in the government’s money.
The aforementioned view is diametrically opposed to the fundamental precepts of private property rights. On one side, there are those whom believe that people are entitled to the fruits of their labor – their property. On the other side is the modern Left, which believes that all property belongs to the government, and should be disbursed among “the masses” by altruistic planners.
Senator Gregg’s simple response, “it’s their money,” reflects a sound understanding and belief in private property rights.
The government does not have the moral authority to seize your wealth and distribute it as they see fit. That type of broad and arbitrary power, the very type the Democrats have pursued at least since Franklin Roosevelt, is exactly what the Constitution sets to limit.
While it is well and good that lower tax rates result in larger government revenues, it is of secondary importance. The primary issue is that when you work, you are entitled to the fruits of your labor. Tax rate reductions are not about the government losing money, they are about taxpayers keeping what is rightfully theirs.
Bobby Jindal ‘Gets It’
In promoting his new book, which will be reviewed here in the near future, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal continues to impress. In this interview, Jindal makes the case for limited government:
The best idea proposed by Governor Jindal is making Congress a part time job. Government is a great exemplar of Parkinson’s law; work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion. In fact, “no man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session,” as Mark Twain said.
The 56th Congress met for eleven months in their two year period and no one can remember a single piece of legislation they passed. That should be the model for governments the world over – just get out of the way. There is no reason to have the Congress sit for 12 months a year. Better to have representatives go home and meet with their constituents.
Additionally, if Congress was only in session part time, Congressmen could be paid part time wages. Making members of Congress hold down real jobs at home would force them to suffer the effects of their legislation immediately. Would someone working in the real world vote for a costly healthcare bill that would have caused their employer to drop their healthcare?
Part time government is not just a theory. The Texas state legislature meets five months a year. Not coincidentally, Texas’ economy is recovering faster than the rest of the country’s. It is home to more Fortune 500 companies than any other state, and has an unemployment rate almost 2 per cent lower than the national average.
Governor Jindal’s other suggestions, like a balanced budget amendment, in conjunction with a super majority requirement to raise taxes are both giant steps in the direction of fiscal sanity.
A standalone balanced budget amendment would just give the Democrats cover to raise taxes every time they wanted to increase spending. However, forcing a super majority vote to raise taxes is a brilliant check on that power. Making it next to impossible to raise taxes, while mandating by law that the government maintain a balanced budget will necessarily reduce government in size.
Governor Jindal is someone conservatives ought to keep their eyes on. Although he seems determined not to run in 2012, he would make a great candidate. If not in 2012, there is most definitely a bright future ahead for the 39 year-old Governor of the Pelican State.
Strictly Right Radio episode 72
On this episode of Strictly Right, Ari and Andrew discuss more about the useless airport security methods, a heated debate on security vs. liberty, the need for tax cuts and the threat of socialism. And, of course, much more!
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Subscribe to Strictly Right Radio in iTunes.
Is Canada ready for a majority government?
Everyone this week has been asking, “Is Canada ready for the Tea Party Movement.” (The answer is YES by the way.) The Ottawa Citizen though is asking if Canada is ready for a Majority government.
After four-and-a-half years of governing with more seats than any other party, but less than half of the total available seats in the House of Commons, Prime Minister Stephen Harper may need to make a bold move in the next election to get the extra 11 seats he needs to have complete control of the federal government. The alternative? A government lead by a Canadian who lived outside the country for 34 years returning only to run for office, a socialistic who thinks terrorists are just misguided freedom fighters, and a man who hates Canada so much that he wants to pull the second biggest province out of confederation. Now, I’ll be the first to admit that Stephen Harper isn’t perfect. He’s passed some policies that I personally disagree with. However, he’s a heck of a lot better than the three stooges on the other side of the aisle. Actually, the two don’t even compare.
The Tea Party Movement in Canada is not a mouthpiece for the Conservative Party of Canada. In fact, it’s a mouthpiece for the citizens of Canada, and I sure hope that government will take the Tea Party values of limited government, greater liberty and individuality and start to insert that into policy. Some people fail to see that liberty is not a fringe value. Liberty is a God-given right shared by everyone. The government doesn’t give us freedom, government by nature limits freedom.
So, how can Harper get his majority? According to Tom Flanagan, former Harper aid, he needs to contrast him versus the opposition without ever uttering the word ‘majority.’ Oddly enough, where majority governments used to be common, Canadians seem to be scared of them now. In the two-party United States system, there’s a majority party and a minority party. Nothing else. In the recent British election, the voters had no idea what they would do when the winning party failed to win the majority of seats. As a response, the “conservatives” got into a coalition with the socialist Liberal Democrats. Critics of Prime Minister Harper assume that he’s only riding out the wave until he has a majority then this miraculously conservative hidden agenda will be implemented.
If he were prepared to hold out for almost five years before putting forth those policies, I imagine they wouldn’t be that important. Just as it’s time for Canadians to make a bold move, it’s time for Harper to. If the Prime Minister continues on this path, he’ll lose support from the right that he won’t gain from the Left. He needs to tell people he wants a majority, and tell them what he’ll do with it.