Recently, newspapers and blogs have been full of stories regarding the polarization of Congress along ideological lines and that this has created gridlock in Congress. For example, POLITICO had a story warning that things were only going to get worse. They used, as an example, the recent decisions by Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Ben Nelson (D-NE) to not run for reelection in 2012. Additionally, they cite the examples of Orrin Hatch’s problems securing the Republican nomination in Utah and Richard Lugar’s problems in Indiana. In short, they make it appear as if Olympia Snowe, Ben Nelson, Richard Lugar, and Orrin Hatch are the poster faces of bipartisanship. Of course, these people are also generally party pariahs to one group or another within their respective parties.

There are several factors proposed for the alleged rise in partisan behavior. Cable news and the 24/7 cycle feed off of sound bites. There are well-funded activists on both sides, the role of PACs, and special interest groups that hold varying degrees of power within each political party. All of these conspire to create their own illusions of the direction of the party. Richard Lugar is portrayed as either “the establishment,” a “relic”, or an “unreliable conservative.” While it is true that some who are considered “moderates” within their party are dropping out or being voted out, this tendency in politics is not new. There is no doubt that in 2014, we will hear of insurgent campaigns against Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham. And the GOP is not immune from this “pruning process.” Liberals tried to eliminate Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln in 2010 by enlisting labor unions. That same year, more than half the so-called Blue Dog Democrats lost their election efforts with another five deciding not to run this year and two more in Pennsylvania suffered primary defeats (Tim Holden and Jason Altmire).

One study found that in 1972, 40% of Senate Republicans and 33% of those in the House could be described as “moderate.” Today, the figures are 10% in the Senate and 10% in the House. Similar trends were found among Democrats as their moderate ranks dropped from 40% in the Senate in 1972 to 15% today and from 27% to 12% among House Democrats. At one time, both parties were big tents that attempted to accommodate the views of various factions within the party. However, those who were not in the political base of either party have declared their political independence. Over the past 40 years, there has been practically no change in the amount of people describing themselves as moderate. However, over those same 40 years, party loyalty has decreased. This de-alignment of the electorate has left “moderates” vulnerable to defeat, especially in nomination battles since it is here where the base of the party has the most influence. It is why there are two sets of statements from candidates: one for the primary/nomination and one for the general election- the so-called Etch-a-Sketch effect.

I decided to see if, in reality, Congress (those actually elected) are more partisan and if there is greater polarization today than in the past. To do so, using a variety of criteria that included outside sources, Congressional votes, candidate views on issues, and special interest group endorsements, individual members of Congress (House and Senate) were assigned a value of their relative “liberalness” or “conservativeness.” I then used that criteria to compare trends from the 107th to the 112th Congress, roughly the last 12 years.

Not only were trends discerned, but the data also lent itself to a gauge of the divide between liberals/Democrats and conservative/Republicans. The average difference over 12 years was .337. The current Congress shows a divide of .362- certainly above average but essentially the same as the 108th Congress. In fact, the greatest divide- .488- occurred in 111th Congress and the second worst was the 110th Congress- both under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, not John Boehner.

Looking at how individuals within each camp fared, we discover that from 2006 to 2008, Democrats elected to the House moved very slightly to the left while Republicans moved slightly to the center. From 2008 to 2010, the same trend was seen except the difference for liberals was more pronounced while that of Republicans demonstrated yet another very slight move towards the center.

When it comes to Congressional gridlock, most fingers point to the Senate. However, the 12-year average over the divide between parties is .972. The figure for this Senate is .881, below the historical average. It is interesting to note that conservative Republicans surged in the 108th Congress and then basically stagnated until the current 112th Congress when their numbers actually dropped to the levels of the 107th Congress. Meanwhile, among Democrats we see a general liberalization in the Senate before dropping slightly in the 111th Congress, then surging again in the 112th Congress. This flies in the face of the prevailing notion that the election of Tea Party candidates to Congress- the House and Senate- have radicalized the GOP. In fact, the greater effect can be seen as radicalizing the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party. Part of this trend is probably attributable to the fact that a great proportion of Democratic moderates suffered defeats in the 2010 midterms leaving only a smaller pool of the more liberal Democrats in place. However, if the Tea Party and insurgent GOP candidates were really as conservative and radical as the detractors assert, then the Republicans replacing those moderate Democrats should push the GOP to the right. That has not happened. In reality, in 2010 although conservative Republicans certainly had success, a equal or greater number of “moderate” Republicans also had success.

Although Congress appears dysfunctional at times compounded by gridlock, it is actually performing as designed- with deliberation. At times of great national crisis, Congress does, in fact, act. Whether that was the reaction to the Great Depression, World War II and the attack on Pearl Harbor, or in the wake of 9/11- all true national crisis- Congress has performed as designed. The opposite would be Obamacare. Despite over a year of debate punctuated by back room dealing, there was no Congressional or even national consensus to move forward on that monstrosity of a law. The result was resorting to the budget reconciliation process.

The problem with this discussion, especially as concerns the Senate, is that in order to break the gridlock it places too much emphasis and power into the hands of too few Senators who just happen to be described as “moderate.” Decisions made and legislation passed by a de facto Senatorial junta are no better than those made by a dictatorial President.

In conclusion, the best that one can take from this is that the American electorate is not so much embracing hard core conservatism as they are repudiating liberalism. Either way, conservatives win. Whether hardcore or moderate Republicans are elected, it is 100% improvement over the liberals exemplified by Barack Obama.

Barack Obama’s recent announcement regarding gay marriage during an ABC News interview comes as no surprise to anyone with a modicum of interest in the 2012 elections. This is less a startling revelation and more a calculated effort to motivate his liberal base and, more specifically, their check books. There is no secret that the Left has adopted LGBT concerns as the “new civil rights battle,” something to motivate themselves in this area. This announcement by Obama was presaged on the Sunday morning talk shows when Vice President Biden stated his new views regarding gay marriage. And, of course, despite the efforts by liberals and their allies, the rallying cry for the announcements by Biden and Obama was the North Carolina gay marriage amendment on the primary ballot which passed.

Any law, to some extent, is an expression of morality in some sense. What is not an expression of morality per se is a Gallup or any other poll that shows an increased tolerance for gay marriage (or any other issue for that matter). Hence, these polls that indicate Americans are more accepting of gay marriage stands in direct opposition to actual voting behavior. As the voters of North Carolina indicated on May 8th, they joined the ranks of some 29 other states that have state constitutional or statutory bans on same sex marriage. Only eight states- New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Washington, Maryland- and DC recognize and/or allow same sex marriage. Obviously, despite their best spin on the situation and despite the results of these public opinion polls, there is greater opposition to gay marriage than there is legal acceptance of gay marriage. As further proof of this tendency, in most instances where gay marriage has been banned at the state level through constitutional amendments enacted in response to ballot referendums, the results have been a resounding rejection of the idea. Even the voters of a blue state like California rejected gay marriage through Proposition 8. To listen to liberals speak, the mores of America have so changed in the recent past that there is overwhelming support for same sex marriage. However, like most liberal mantras, the argument falls apart when presented with reality.

That is not to insinuate that one’s views cannot change over time. As mentioned in other postings here on Redstate, my personal views regarding gay marriage have changed somewhat from a stalwart opponent to one of moderation. Leaving aside the religious arguments against same sex marriage and homosexuality in general, upon research I found no reasons to be a stalwart opponent. However, that same research revealed that there was no good reason for same sex marriage. Most of the “rights” that state-sanctioned gay marriage would confer on couples could be had through intestacy or contract law. In only one instance does the LGBT community have a case- that of a spouse being compelled to testify against the other. Even then, it is possible that some statute, as part of a broader scheme that recognizes civil unions, could address that problem.

One of the things that leads me to like Ron Paul in one sense- and I am not a Ron Paul supporter- is his consistency in principle. He has been a consistent opponent of the Iraq War and Afghanistan and a frequent and consistent opponent of the Federal Reserve. Likewise, I have my problems with the Catholic Church’s views on certain issues (disclaimer: I am Catholic). For example, I don’t like their stand on immigration and their acceptance of “sanctuary cities” and such. However, their views are consistent and principled upon the sanctity of life wherever those views lead. Those views leads to relentless opposition to abortion and state-sponsored contraception, but they also lead to opposition of the death penalty. What is disturbing about Obama’s “change of heart” and Biden’s changing views is that they reflect a lack of principled, underlying philosophy and worldview. In short, their principles are guided less my reflection and research of an issue and more upon reflection upon their chances of gaining money supporters in the liberal community and research into polls.

Obama tried to nuance the response to ABC News by resorting to Orwellian tactics. For example, he states that the government’s decision not to defend DOMA is based less on an acceptance of homosexual rights and more upon state’s rights. He has stolen a conservative view and applied it to a liberal outcome. We see this elsewhere. Government control over the Internet is the better sounding “net neutrality” while stifling free speech is the “Fairness Doctrine.” In short, Obama claims that the issue of marriage was federalized with DOMA and that should have never occurred. Hence, his Justice Department will no longer defend it in court. But there is a serious problem with that line of thinking from Obama now. If he really believes that marriage in general and gay marriage in particular is a state issue, then he has to accept how the states- through legislation, referendum, or amendment- define marriage. Liberals cannot accept that fact and where the people have spoken through legal referendums, they have resorted to the courts to curry favor in support of their agenda.

And his comments about marriage being federalized are somewhat disingenuous. Mainly through the complicated tax code and social safety net legislation, there are thousands of references to marriage. If he, or anyone, truly wishes to “defederalize” the issue of marriage, then all references, penalties and advantages of “marriage” should be purged from federal legislation.

Acceptance of same sex marriage may very well be changing in America, although it is doubtful given the obvious disconnect between polling data and results at the only polls that count. If so, then over time laws against same sex marriage will fall. That certainly has not happened and, in fact as North Carolina recently proved, the exact opposite may be happening- a collective circling of the wagons around the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman. However, it is now hypocritical and disingenuous of the President to stand before the American people and state that his views have “evolved” to the point of acceptance of gay marriage and that this issue rightfully belongs with the states. It is great that he has suddenly had this states rights epiphany, but if it is true, then he must accept and honor when the people of those states speak at the polls. I have no problem with Obama being in favor of gay marriage and making it a campaign issue, nor do I have a problem with him using the bully pulpit to advance his new-found beliefs and expressing his view when a state initiative is headed to a vote. However, I have serious problems with Obama and liberals claiming the mantle of states rights then working to abrogate states rights when the decision fails to create their desired outcome. That is not the definition of the evolution of a view on a controversial subject. At best, it is the definition of crass political gamesmanship. At worst, it is the definition of hypoocrisy.

More in the continuing line of liberal junk that makes one shake their head and say, “Huh?”

1) Why do we have greater security for credit card transactions than we do for preserving the integrity of voting?

2) After Indiana passed a voter ID law, later upheld by the Supreme Court, why did voter turnout increase?

3) If Citizens United should be overturned to remove the possibility or appearance of corruption, why should we not have voter ID laws to remove the possibility or appearance of voter fraud?

4) Why are pro-choice people also more apt to protect animal rights?

5) Why do violent crime rates decrease when states pass concealed carry laws?

6) Why do we not see white liberals living in black ghettos?

7) Obama will accept the Democratic nomination this year in the…(wait for it)…Bank of America Arena.

When Obama leaves office, will he be labeled a “war criminal” for use of Predator drone attacks on real or suspected terrorist targets? (Personal note: I have no problem with the tactic per se)

9) If Romney admits to “being born with a silver spoon in his mouth,” will Obama admit to being a beneficiary of affirmative action and not his academic abilities?

10) Every time there is a tornado outbreak or a drought or “weather out of the ordinary,” why must NBC attribute it to global warming?

11) By the way, to paraphrase Simon & Garfunkel, “Where have you gone Al Gore, the global warming crowd turns their increasingly lonely eyes to you…”

12) Why does the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops now complain about Obamacare when they were one of its biggest proponents in 2009? Did they really trust Obama and the Democrats when it came to issues like abortion and contraceptive services? Do they still?

13) I was surprised to learn recently that being 1/32 Cherokee makes you Native American….

14) Why do conservatives give more to charity while rich liberals complain they are not taxed enough…or on par with their secretaries?

15) Why is the government more concerned with a citizen proving they have health insurance and less concerned with a person proving they are a citizen in the first place?

16) Why are the neoconservatives quiet about Obama’s war on terror? Could it be because he has doubled down on what they started and they are proud of his actions thus far? (Personal note: again, I am not against keeping scum in Cuba or killing them abroad before they kill here)

17) We know we have a southern border that needs to be secured. Does Mexico realize they have a northern border?

18) In 2006, Paul Krugman was warning us about the dangers of deficit spending under George W. Bush. In 2012, why does he now support greater deficit spending under Obama? In the intervening six years, has Krugman had an epiphany over defcit spending?

19) If $4 trillion in accumulated debt in eight years under Bush is “unpatriotic,” what is $5 trillion in debt over 3+ years of Obama?

20) Is the American citizenry suddenly disabled? The number of “disabled” Americans since 2009 has increased by 5.4 million people. Where did they all come from in the past 3 years? Did I miss a natural disaster somewhere?

There is a tremendous battle looming in Indiana for the Senate seat currently held by Richard Lugar. No- it is not some right-of-center Democratic insurgent making his reelection a problem but the challenge comes from within the Republican Party in the name of State Treasurer Mourdock. In many posts, I have stated that, based upon the most recent polls, Lugar would have an easier task defeating Donnelly than would Mourdock. In responses to those posts, people have pointed out that “these polls are too early” and that they are meaningless. Yet, these very people are then eager to cite these admittedly “too early to tell and meaningless polls” when one shows Mourdock is gaining on either Donnelly or Lugar (in the primary). Selective dismissal of polls seems to be the norm.

I also question many here and elsewhere who, when confronted with some statements or policy positions by Mourdock from his past failed runs for Congress in 1990 and 1992, that paint him as something less than the consistent conservative he claims. Many of the ardent Mourdock supporters are quick to point out that these statements are old and that he has moved more to the right as his political career developed. They also point out that as this happened, Lugar has moved to the left and is now more a centrist. Yet, many of these same people are quick to jump on the presumptive nominee at the top of the ticket- Mitt Romney- for essentially doing what Mourdock supporters now claim of Mourdock. If Mourdock can “evolve” as a conservative, then so can Romney.

Not that Dick Lugar supporters here and elsewhere are really helpful with their candidate. Instead of listing those items that would make one want to support Lugar, they engage in a campaign to tear down his opponent. One would think they are Democrats since that is their preferred strategy. We are all aware of the “hit and run” tactics of a particular poster here who attacks Mourdock, but then leaves and refuses to engage in a dialogue regarding their assertions. These tactics hardly enhance the view of your candidate.

Having visited the Lugar website many times, I find it replete with hypocrisy. For example, he lists his endorsements- mainly Indiana business groups- and the number of people they employ in the state and their economic contribution to Indiana. Alongside these, he lists the endorsements of Mourdock and notes that groups like the Club for Growth employ no one in the state, nor do they contribute to the economy of the state. In other words, he infers that Mourdock has the support of outside interests while he has the support of Indiana insiders. This from a man who does not maintain an Indiana residence in any real sense of the word. Lugar can hardly claim to be running as an outsider having been in the Senate since forever. This is nothing but rank hypocrisy of the highest order.

Originally, I leaned towards Lugar for three reasons. First, given the importance of this election, it is imperative that Republicans win the Senate. I believed that this would be easier with Lugar running in Indiana. In short, a Mourdock-Donnelly match up could put that at risk. In 2010, I saw the GOP put forth too many candidates (WV, AK, DE, CO, NV) in states where Republicans could have easily won because the opponents were weak and beatable. In short, given the importance of the election, going with a relative political novice in statewide races is fraught with risk.

Second, Mourdock is the Treasurer of Indiana. As such, he reigned over what amounts to a $300 million error. We should all be aware of the fact that $300 in corporate business tax receipts were “lost” and never transferred to the general fund. This necessitated an approximate $300 million budget cut to Indiana education. A forensic audit in an unrelated case uncovered the error. And although Mourdock may not have been directly involved, he is the State treasurer and has to shoulder some of the responsibility. This has not been an issue in the primary probably because it would reflect badly upon Mitch Daniels who, as Governor, also has to shoulder some responsibility. Lugar, a Daniels friend and ally, will not raise the issue, but surely Donnelly will. Throw in some apparent bad investments by Mourdock with Indiana pension funds and it creates fodder for attack on Mourdock, the candidate in the general election.

Third, I cared less about endorsements from groups like the Club for Growth and even Redstate and more about records. There have been misinterpretations here of Lugar’s record. For example, Mourdock asserts that Lugar voted for cap and trade when the actual vote was a cloture vote, not one on the actual legislation. That being said, research into Lugar’s record in this area is disturbing, if not schizophrenic. Lugar detractors are quick to point out that he failed/refused to sign onto a letter opposing Obamacare. I care less about what he did NOT sign onto and more about what he DID sign onto. He did sign onto UN protocols regarding global warming. He REFUSED to support legislation that would force the addressing of India and China- two of the biggest polluters in the world- in “global warming” legislation. He DID sponsor enhancement of CAFE standards that do nothing but make vehicles less safe and more expensive. Energy and environmental policy is very important to the economic well-being of the United States and in this area, I am afraid that Lugar has abdicated his responsibility to ensuring the health of the economy in favor of joining the global warming bandwagon.

There is enough hypocrisy and mudslinging and questionable endorsements on both sides. However, there is a bottom line. Indiana is a red state. Their flirtation with purple status in 2008 was an aberration (when they barely went for Obama) and that was corrected in 2010 with Congressional gains and the election of Dan Coats to replace Evan Bayh. For these reasons, I am now convinced that whoever wins the Republican nod on May 8th will be the Senator from Indiana for the next six years. That being said, Mourdock winning the primary will not upset or frustrate Republican hopes of winning the Senate in 2012. And for those reasons, new blood is not such a bad thing. It is time to thank Richard Lugar for his many years of service to the state of Indiana and for him to gracefully step aside. Although I retain certain doubts about Mourdock, I have an equal number of doubts about Lugar. As someone who leaned towards Lugar and all things being equal (in terms of hypocrisy and records), I am hoping that the voters of Indiana vote for a breath of fresh air on May 8th and pull the lever for Mourdock.

We are slightly more than six months away from the general election where we will decide who our next President will be and whether Republicans can take control of the Senate. The following analysis of the battle for the Senate is based on recent polling information which I then modify based on the trends and the reliability of the polling data. Obviously, some polling services have better predictive value than others, so I essentially weight differing polls based on their past demonstrated accuracy. The same method is used for the Presidential race on a state-by-state basis. In order for the GOP to take control of the Senate, they must successfully defend all their seats and win four seats currently occupied by Democrats.

First, looking at incumbent Democrats running for reelection, it would appear that the following incumbent Democratic Senators will win in these states: Washington (Cantwell), California (Feinstein), Minnesota (Klobuchar), Michigan (Stabenow), Ohio (Brown), Pennsylvania (Casey), Florida (Nelson), Delaware (Carper), Maryland (Cardin), New Jersey (Menendez), New York (Gillibrand), Vermont (Sanders), West Virginia (Manchin) and Rhode Island (Whitehouse). Incumbent Republicans who will win reelection hail from Utah (Hatch?), Wyoming (Barrasso), Mississippi (Wicker) and Tennessee (Corker).

Next, we turn to the open Democratic seats. In New Mexico, it would appear that Martin Heinrich will keep this seat in Democratic hands. In Wisconsin, Herb Kohl is retiring. The most recent polling data indicate that a Baldwin-Thompson race would be close with Thompson winning. In a Baldwin-Neumann match-up, Baldwin comes out the winner. Although this race, like that in Indiana, is the subject of much debate over who should be the GOP nominee, lets just assume that Thompson gets the nod. In that case, Republicans pick up a seat. They will also very likely pick up seats in Nebraska and North Dakota thus giving the GOP three seats. In Virginia, in what should be a very close race, current polling (of which there is a large database) indicates a win for George Allen over Tim Kaine, thus giving Republicans their 4th seat. It would also appear that Democrats will retain open seats in Connecticut and Hawaii.

However, there are six Republican seats that need mentioning. First, in Nevada, Dean Heller should defeat Berkley keeping the seat in Republican hands. John Kyl’s seat in Arizona should also remain in the GOP column with a victory by Jeff Flake while whoever emerges as the candidate for the GOP for Kay Bailey Hutchison’s seat in Texas will also win. The same will hold true in Indiana whether the Republican nominee is Lugar or Mourdock. Olympia Snowe’s retirement in Maine has thrown a monkey wrench into the whole thing as it would appear that an independent will win that seat, but will caucus with the Democrats. Hence, Republicans lose a seat. And although it should be a close race, I am predicting that Scott Brown will prevail over Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts.

That then leaves two targets for the GOP to flip a state to the GOP column- the seats of Claire McCaskill in Missouri and John Tester in Montana. A challenger against McCaskill has not been decided yet, but because all three bona fide challengers (Steelman, Akin and Brunner) lead McCaskill in polls, it would appear that this seat will fall to the Republicans. Likewise, Denny Rehberg looks as if he will take down Tester in Montana. The net gain for the Republicans will be five seats and control of the Senate.

Turning to the Presidential election, based on polling data from 36 states (the other 14 are reliably red or blue), I have Obama at 268 electoral votes to 191 for Romney with 79 in the toss-up category. Unlike other sites like RCP, I see fewer toss-up states AT THIS POINT. For example, they place Colorado and Nevada in this category (I give them to Obama) along with Arizona (I give it to Romney). I realize that many here believe that Michigan and Wisconsin are in play- and they may very well come into play as the campaign progresses- but right now, Iowa is a more realistic state to look at although I also give it to Obama.

The toss-up states are Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and New Hampshire. If Obama wins any of these states, he will be President (unless one of these midwestern or mountain states come into play). Come election night, we may know fairly early on where the election’s results are headed as the initial results start to come in from Virginia and North Carolina. If Romney wins these states, then it may foretell results in Florida, Ohio and New Hampshire. However, as many have mentioned here and elsewhere, Ohio may be the key. Simply, neither Romney nor Obama is exactly the right choice for that state. Unfortunately, they cannot vote for “none of the above.” They can, however, stay home and not vote so getting out the conservative vote if for no other reason than to cast a vote AGAINST Obama will be vitally important.

A special note: some have argued that perhaps Pennsylvania, Indiana and Missouri are in play. It is true that Indiana swung to Obama in 2008, but that was by a bare margin. In fact, Indiana is fairly reliable red state which is why I stated that this time around, whoever wins the nomination for the Senate (Lugar or Mourdock) they will likely defeat Donnelly in the general election. I just personally believe the task would be easier with Lugar (but that is for the voters of Indiana to decide). I fully understand the reasons Lugar is so disliked on these pages and it may very well be that it is time for a relic to be retired. However, unlike a lot of posters here, I am fully prepared to support Mourdock should he win the nomination/primary, but I am not so sure the Mourdock supporters would do likewise should Lugar prevail. Some people believe Missouri may be in play because McCain barely won this state in 2008. That was then and this is now. The voters of the great state of Missouri have seen Obama in action and they will hand this state to Romney in 2012. And while it may be true that Obama may not be particularly well-liked in Pennsylvania right now, he still holds a lead over Romney. However, if Romney can make inroads with voters in the Philadelphia suburbs, it can make that state more interesting come Election Day. Still, I think it more realistic to give Obama their 20 electoral votes at this point.

It would appear that Romney has his work cut out for him. Just putting states like Colorado (possible), Iowa (somewhat likely) or Nevada (not likely) into play could change the whole dynamic and make must wins in the east and south less a necessity. Colorado, Nevada and Iowa carry 21 electoral votes which is three more than Ohio’s 18 electoral votes.

Final note: I still thoroughly believe that a stronger GOP candidate than Romney would have swung states like Virginia, North Carolina and Ohio to likely GOP pick-ups. However, that not being the case, it is vitally important, given the stakes involved with the possibility of another four years of Obama, that we all support Romney.

No one on the Right denies that there is an income gap between the haves and the have nots in this country, nor do they deny that it is getting worse. In fact, 66% of conservatives polled said it was a problem with another 21% characterizing it as a crisis. So, 87% of conservatives are acutely aware of the income inequality problem in America. There are three differences between Republican and Democratic solutions. First, Republicans have proposed solutions that help everyone rather pander to select groups. Second, Republicans do not camp out in city parks throughout America. Third, Republicans wish to create the environment for opportunity for all rather than wealth redistribution through the tax code.

Federal laws, codified in Dodd-Frank, regarding executive pay is one thing that amounts to window dressing. Taken together, although apparently obscene, the bonuses awarded at failing financial institutions is more a public relations problem rather than a fundamental reason behind the financial collapse. It riles the anger of conservatives also that executives of AIG and the banks that needed a federal bail out received massive bonuses for what amounts to failure. That, essentially, is a perversion of capitalism- rewarding failure. But, that was hardly the reason for the financial crisis of 2008.

Instead, the Democratic solution is to adopt a generally populist argument of soaking the rich. One can only draw so much blood from a stone before the stone rolls on. It has happened in microcosm in states like California and New Jersey and it will happen on a national scale. Repeatedly, there have been studies demonstrating that one does not increase federal revenues by increasing taxes, but by expanding the tax base. This does not translate into taxing workers in poverty, as many liberals would have you believe. No less an iconic Democratic leader than John F. Kennedy realized this with his across-the-board tax decreases which ushered in a period of rapid economic growth which benefitted everyone across the political spectrum. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush did likewise. That is one place to start.

There is no shortage of reasons postulated for this income gap. After World War II until approximately the 1980s, there was an actual shrinking of the gap, but then it stopped and widened. Many have blamed the Reagan tax cuts, but that is too knee-jerk an explanation more apt to be given by the likes of Paul Krugman. Lax immigration policy has been blamed although there is a plethora of studies that indicate illegal immigrants do nor depress wages overall, but they certainly have an effect on wage depression at the lower end of the spectrum. A third reason given is the decline of manufacturing in America since these were generally well-paying union jobs forever lost. In a related idea, some believe that offshoring jobs through trade agreements have had an effect. Practically every study out there does indicate that as worker productivity has increased, income levels have stagnated or decreased thus widening the gap. Through mechanization and other factors, employers have learned that they can get the same or greater amount of output from workers with less. The recent recession underscored this effect. Despite massive layoffs and loss of jobs, productivity remained fairly constant probably because those who retained their jobs worked even harder to keep them although they may have lost on salary increases.

In all likelihood, the reason is a combination of “all of the above” working to stagnate wages. The solution includes a multifaceted attack on the causes that need not be done piecemeal, but move forward together. It is one thing to argue that revamping the tax code coupled with alleviating the regulatory burden on business are the only answers. This is the traditional conservative mantra and there is nothing wrong with this. These two reforms lay the broad groundwork for overall improvement. However, they alone will not shrink the income gap.

Instead, there is one constant indicator of lifetime income and that is education. Romney must stress that K-12 education must be divorced from federal control and restored to state and local authorities. About 9% of any school district’s budget is federal money, yet the federal government exerts an enormous amount of control for that minimal investment. Also, the output has either stagnated or declined. However, where the government can help is by rewarding our best and brightest students with grants for higher education in high need and skilled occupations. Furthermore, job retraining programs should be diverted from the Labor Department to the Education and given as block grants to states.

Secondly, a coherent immigration policy that addresses the need for low-skilled and high-skilled labor is a must. However, incorporating unions in the discussion would be counter-productive towards these goals. Third, the United States needs to enter into more trade agreements on a bilateral basis rather than going through the W.T.O. or GATT. Too many agreements are held up over concerns regarding workers and environmental issues instigated by special interest groups here. We cannot and should not try to force our environmental and labor laws upon foreign countries. Studies have shown that as developing countries are lifted out of poverty, they then develop the social safety nets, labor reforms, and environmental laws we take for granted here. Along these lines, aid to Africa can almost be eliminated if we had free trade agreements with African nations. Additionally, although I doubt that any politician, including Romney, has the balls to do so, free trade with Europe is held up by agricultural subsidies here in the US. We can (1) save money by phasing them out and (2) increase the trade of American agricultural products to Europe.

The Liberal/Democratic solution is to lower the wages from the top in order to even things out. The conservative/Republican solution should be to lift the lower wages up since that benefits everyone. The usual solution is to do both, but that is an artificial narrowing of the gap. In that scenario, the rich are taxed in order to enhance the social welfare programs for the lower earners. In fact, that is what we see now. A select small percentage of the higher earners are providing the revenue to partially pay for the increase in food stamps and other welfare programs for the lower wage earners. In effect, the current system creates a system of slavery to government largesse.

Romney needs to articulate this policy in words the average Joe can understand. He must stress the fact that his policies and his Administration will be one that tries to lift the fortunes of everyone, not just the select few at either end of the wage spectrum. He needs to be honest and note that there will always be an income gap, but that his ideas are the best solutions for the long- and near-term and would be more based on the character of America rather than the European-style welfare state Obama envisions.

It is understood that Romney has a public relations problem here given his personal and business past. Personally, I would rather have the former head of Bain Capital as President rather than a community organizer. But, Romney needs to surround himself with people who have worked in the real world at all levels, not just egg-headed intellectuals (like Obama). It does not mean rolling up your sleeves and joining a chambermaid in turning down a bed for a photo opportunity, but he clearly needs to be among the “regular folk” everywhere, listen to them, let them speak, explain his policies and how and why they will work, and speak and treat everyone with honesty. Absent a lottery win, chances are Conchita or Jose or Joe Blow will not be a millionaire, but maybe their children will and that opportunity will be greater with a President Romney. In the meantime, we are going to create the environment and smartly use the government wherever we could to make things better than they have been over the past four years. A perfect campaign slogan would be: “Freedom. Choice. Pride.”

Entitlement reform will be the main prong in the Democratic attack on Romney and Republicans this year. Whenever the subject of Social Security reform is mentioned, I am always struck by these words: “We shall make the most orderly progress is we look upon Social Security as a development toward a goal rather than a finished product. We shall make the most lasting progress is we recognize that Social Security can furnish only a base upon which each one of our citizens may build upon his individual security through his own individual efforts.” These are not the words of Ronald Reagan or Paul Ryan or any other conservative or Republican leader. They are the words of Franklin Roosevelt in an address to Congress in 1939.

Since the 1990s, due to demographic factors beyond the control of anyone, the need for Social Security reform has been known, but precious few rational proposals advanced. There has been tinkering and accounting gimmickry that would make the accountants at Enron proud, but beyond that, there has not been actual reform. If the answer is privatization in some form, it is usually automatically dismissed out of hand as “ending Social Security as we know it.” As with Medicare, whether privatized in whole or part or tinkered with as has been the case or if nothing is done, both programs “as we know it” will cease either through reform or insolvency.

The conservative answer falls in line with the overall view of the economy- greater competition, greater personal choice, and greater freedom. If Romney is to embrace the Ryan plan, for example, he must stress, as an overall economic philosophy, greater competition, choice and freedom. He has history on his side as the words above profess. Social Security was never intended by Roosevelt to be a vehicle to enslave retirees to the government. In fact, Paul Ryan’s plan, detailed in his Road Map for America, is a voluntary system for workers under the age of 55. Reality dictates that this will not be achieved overnight and the long term plan makes greater sense in that it avoids unnecessary and severe hardships along, or at least lessens the blow should any occur.

The Ryan plan for Social Security phases in over 30 years and, as already mentioned, is a voluntary system. At the very least, it is a starting point. As with most issues, liberals and Democrats act as if they, through the government, know what is best for all and their solutions are a one size fits all solution. By voluntarily diverting a certain percentage of FICA withholdings towards a private retirement plan, the GOP can take advantage of certain inequities in the system. For example, because of the way benefits are calculated, the system is essentially sexist. Periods of no employment are entered as zeroes in the tabulation of benefits and women, because of child births and child rearing, are more apt to leave the workforce for extended periods of time. The current system is also racist in that unemployment among blacks always tends to be higher than that of whites and thus their benefits also take a hit. Additionally, by partial privatization, blacks could potentially become members of the investor class, an area where they are woefully under-represented. If framed in this manner, imagine the inroads that can be made with minorities and women, not to mention the youth vote IF Romney can frame this argument correctly.

The bottom line is that if Social Security is not fundamentally reformed, benefits will have to be cut 24% by 2030. That is small consolation for those nearing retirement. In the final analysis- and this plays into that populist “soak the rich” philosophy- the Ryan plan with some slight tweaks would work to the advantage of the working poor and middle class and, because of price indexing and means testing, work to the disadvantage of the higher earners. That should not be a major concern since they are in the greatest position now and in the future to take care of their own retirement needs. They already have the means to realize Roosevelt’s final formulation of retirement security. Lower earners, including the middle class, are at a disadvantage in saving for retirement because a greater percentage of their expendable income goes to everyday living expenses.

At the very least, we should at least attempt this system as a pilot program over time and gradual phasing in as its success is demonstrated. To many a liberal, the idea is a non-starter because it does not involve revenue increases. However, if there is one thing the American electorate realizes is out of hand other than entitlement reform, it is taxes. That is, they know reform is needed, but not at the cost of higher taxes. Hence, this fundamental reform is the better winning solution. To those who dismiss this idea for Social Security out of hand, one word: Chile. That is a real-world example where privatization is a success, a system adopted throughout Latin America and in Great Britain.

And these reforms are equally applicable to Medicare. There is no doubt that Democrats and Obama and their liberal special interest groups will portray Romney and liberals as leading scores of senior citizens to their death. But what is Obama’s solution? He wants to cut disbursements to providers (after the election, of course) which would force doctors to simply cease taking Medicare patients. That proposal more than any Republican plan would have a greater effect on the lives and health of senior citizens. While Obama may not be proposing monetary cuts to Medicare, his idea would definitely lead to a decrease in the number of practitioners taking Medicare patients which would, ironically, increase overall costs through less competition.

The bottom line is that conservatives and moderates believe both Medicare and Social Security should exist in some form. The conservatives have a working plan waiting in the wings. The moderates realize that if left to its current state or tinkered with by the Democrats, neither program may be around when they reach retirement and/or old age. In fact, most polling indicates that although senior citizens oppose cuts to Medicare, they also are acutely aware the system needs reform and that those changes must be both effective and reasonable. What can be more effective and reasonable than a system that engenders greater personal choice, greater competition and probably lower costs to boot? Wouldn’t it be ironic if a Republican President actually finally realized the goals of an iconic Democratic President?

How often have we heard that conservatives, or Republicans, are for the rich? To hear the Obama Administration speak, everything the Republican Party proposes is dictated by some secret cabal of rich businesspeople sitting in some oak boardroom somewhere. It borders on continuously discounted conspiracy theories. But, lets look at some facts from the past three years of the Obama Administration.

In reality, it is conservative voices that have been the most critical of Wall Street abuses. George W. Bush lamented that he had to inject the government into the free market in order to save the free market during the financial crisis through the TARP program. Yet, who were the most outspoken critics of that program when it first came up and to this day? It was not Chuck Schumer or Frank Dood or Barney Frank or Barack Obama. It was not even John McCain or Dick Lugar or any other moderate Republican. It was the more conservative political leaders who remained steadfastly opposed to TARP. And TARP was nothing more than a government bail out of Wall Street. But somewhere along the line, liberals have painted the true conservative movement as being in bed with Wall Street bankers at the expense of Main Street businesses.

In fact, conservatives have remained true to reforms that help small business over large business. However, should that small business evolve into a big business, conservatives do not, in knee jerk fashion, suddenly turn on them because they happened to suffer success. Instead, we need to advance policies that make it possible for any worthwhile business to succeed and that starts with creating the best environment to do business in the first place. Through a skewed regulatory and tax policy that stifles business, the liberal state, exemplified by Obama policy proposals, does exactly the opposite.

In fact, conservatives respect the role of entrepreneurs over that of big banks. Yet, the perception of the opposite persists mainly egged on by a complicit liberal mainstream media. In any free market economy, there will be winners and losers. That is an unfortunate fact of economic life. That is the price we pay for economic liberty. However, the true conservative subscribes to the unwavering belief that the government should not be picking the winners and the losers. Liberals oppose true, fundamental tax reform because they realize that it would necessarily eliminate those tools for social engineering they hold near and dear to their hearts.

Just looking at that monstrosity of Frank-Dodd: did it really even address the root cause of the financial crisis? In fact, it merely codified the “too big to fail” mentality that fueled the TARP debate. Likewise, Obama is very quick to point out the alleged success of the US auto industry. Leaving aside the fact that the “cash for clunkers” program was an unmitigated failure, he and others ignore the fact that there was a vehicle (excuse the pun) to save the auto industry in 2009- namely, bankruptcy. The fact remains that American cars became costly due to sweet deals with unions where workers were paid to do nothing at times not to mention pension and health care plans born by car prices. The argument was that workers in supply industries would also suffer. However, during a bankruptcy proceeding, cars would not cease being manufactured. In its place, we have the government picking winners and losers. General Motors immediately cast off its Saturn product, possibly its best product. The auto industry may be doing fine now, but additional regulations and mandates now threaten the very success they now tout.

Conservatives believe that abuses on Wall Street call for needed reforms and, if necessary, punishment for those who violate the law. But has the Obama Administration prosecuted anyone for alleged abuses during the financial crisis? Regulatory reform designed to increase transparency so that individuals have the necessary information to make informed decisions is the desired path. Regulatory reform that aims to guarantee success, however, is not capitalism in the form I was taught. In a strange, perverse way, everyone should have equal ability to succeed… or fail.

In fact, this argument is not new; only the players and industries have changed. It has transformed from railroad robber barons to oil barons to sweatshop industries to Wall Street bankers. When one thinks about it, as originally formulated (and not what it has morphed into), the #OWS group has a lot in common with the Tea Party as concerns that which originally motivated the groups. The first grumblings of the Tea Party occurred in reaction to TARP and bank bail outs. That is the same original motivation behind the Occupy Wall Street movement. But whereas the latter is demanding heads on sticks, the Tea Party is simply demanding economic freedom no matter where that leads. If a big bank was so involved in bad investments to the point that its financial stability was threatened, then so be it. Additionally, when the government intervenes, it chooses winners based on political considerations, not sound fiscal policy. For instance, why was it fine for Bear-Stearns to fail, but not Goldman-Sachs? Possibly because Goldman had more former employees interspersed through government rather than the former Bear-Stearns people?

Admittedly, the Republican Party has a perception problem this year with their nominee. Mitt Romney comes from that very class of capitalist that is the face of the greedy corporation. There is no doubt that Obama will run ads at some point showing people who lost their jobs because of some investment decision Bain Capital made under Romney’s leadership. However, this is an unfortunate by-product of a free market economy- there will be winners and losers. He needs to trot out an equal number of faces who attest to the fact their jobs were saved, even enhanced, because of decisions he made at Bain Capital.

He needs to articulate a consistent and clearly understood policy regarding regulations, tax policy, free and fair trade, and improving the business environment so that every American will be given the chance to succeed OR fail without overbearing government interference. Most importantly, he needs to avoid the class warfare tactics adopted by Obama by bridging the gap between Main Street and Wall Street and facilitating the important relationship between the two. Along the way, there will be hardships and failures, but the promise of economic freedom over a nanny state that aims, but fails, to avoid failure is a greater motivating factor in the voting booth. Its a choice between a European welfare state government and the promise of America that has drawn immigrants to these shores for over two centuries. By framing the discussion of one that embraces commonsense regulatory reform with transparency as the primary goal, of allowing even the least of the citizenry the opportunity to succeed or to fail, and allowing those that do succeed to keep more of the fruits of their labors, Romney can speak to a factor that runs deeper through American veins than party affiliation or ideological identification- the fundamental right to economic freedom and the right to succeed or fail. In short, Romney needs to bridge the gap between Main Street and Wall Street, not further widen that divide.

In the aforementioned Luntz article in the Washington Post, the author noted that a popular myth regarding the conservative voter is that they all support the deportation of illegal immigrants. However, it is exactly that- a myth. There is a fundamental difference, however, when it comes to the proposed solutions to the problem. Illegal immigration affects border states more than other states, but every state has illegal immigrants residing within their borders. The Obama solution is one of having a blind eye and wink and nod towards the situation in the name of “other priorities.” In effect, they have no immigration policy.

Admittedly, according to every poll I have seen, immigration reform lies somewhere around #6 on the list of priorities in this year’s election. However, it is still a ticking time bomb that will only get worse the more it is ignored. More importantly, the sometimes heated rhetoric on either side of the issue sometimes obscures the issue and solves nothing and serves no other purpose than to portray the other as “weak” or “bleeding heart” or “cold-hearted.” I have written in the past that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why enhancing border security cannot work hand-in-hand with addressing those already here through reform of our immigration laws. The “do this first” attitude is more akin to two kindergarten children fighting over a soccer ball on a playground. And is understandable to a certain degree: past attempts at “amnesty” have only made the problem worse. Most point IRCA and the Reagan amnesty, yet the number of people affected in that program was actually lower than the many amnesties granted under Clinton. But, that is the past and a past all sides need to let go.

But first, a well thought out and well articulated immigration policy should not be an attempt to pander to a segment of the population in a particular state, namely the Hispanic vote. A good immigration policy should cut across ethnic or ideological lines. Perhaps I have a more naive and utopian view of the electorate- one that does not view any group as bleating sheep being led to the polls (well, except maybe unions and blacks). The more radical Hispanic organizations are quick to voice the “threat” that they are the fastest growing segment of the population. While that may be true, they still do not represent some monolithic voting bloc. They, like any other group, may- given a swing here or there,- change the result in a close state. But, the formulation of a workable immigration policy should not entail pandering to the Hispanic vote. While Hispanics may represent 18% of the population nationally, they still represent only 9% of the electorate. Hence, a reasonable policy now lays the groundwork for those future Hispanic voters who will be more important in the future. Perhaps that is why Obama insists on putting the issue off into the future. Likewise, it creates an opening for the Republican Party and Romney to exploit now. Just weakening the Hispanic vote for Obama in 2012 in certain states- not outright winning it- can change the dynamic and bring states not in play currently into play.

But first, Romney needs to distance himself from the notion of mass deportation of those currently here. It is estimated that this would cost us $285 billion over five years to achieve. Considering that the current budget for immigration enforcement is $15.5 billion, it would require a 400% increase in spending in this area. Regardless, the mainstream conservative does not support mass deportations. Fortunately, we have a starting point for rational reform. Illegal immigration from our southern border was not always a problem in this country.

At one time, we had what was known as the Bracero program. Under this program instituted in response to the need for agricultural workers after World War II, we allowed the immigration of workers provided they had an employer sponsor. During the life of the program, illegal immigration decreased 95%. That strategy was changed in 1964 when we moved away from a policy of allowing immigration to meet economic needs to a policy of family reunification. Additionally, the employer sponsorship requirements led to widespread abuse of workers. Also, the 1964 shift was part of a Cold War strategy by opening the borders to people running from communism and and social upheaval in Latin America. This transformation in policy neglected labor needs which created the problem that exists today. The reinstitution of a Bracero type program with portable three-year visas without employer sponsorship would allow for an orderly immigration of workers from Latin America to the United States and a recycling of workers. If we were to allow the legal entry of workers on such visas, it would legalize about 400,000 workers per year and establish some circularity in immigration. Today’s illegal immigrant is more apt to stay here longer than the legal immigrant admitted under the Bracero program.

Secondly, border security must go hand-in-hand with visa reform. Incidentally, I hear so much about strengthening security on our southern border, but rarely do I hear conservatives arguing that Mexico needs to strengthen their northern border. Perhaps one national security issue to be discussed should be less about keeping illegal immigrants out of the country at the southern border and more about Mexico doing more to keep their population in their country. To strengthen the border, obviously increased patrols are necessary and immediate repatriation a necessity. Additionally, although I have my doubts about the efficacy of fencing and barriers- economic hardship will only force them elsewhere- we should not dismiss it out of hand and build them wherever they are feasible.

The most troublesome aspect is what to do with the illegal immigrants already here. The first part is to identify and locate those who overstayed visas and deal with them through expedited deportation proceedings. Since the last “amnesty” under Reagan, the US has averaged 950,000 immigrants per year with 200,000 of them being illegal. It is estimated that the Reagan amnesty legalized 2.7 million immigrants. However, it should have ended there. Under adjustments under IRCA and other laws under Clinton, his Administration granted amnesty to 3.1 million illegal immigrants. As for the others, we can decrease the amount to be deported by, in effect, offering a path to citizenship through granting a provisional visa.

Only those here long term- say 10 years or more- would be allowed to participate. Additionally, they would have to prove employment and have community sponsorship (time for the Catholic Church to put up or shut up), have English language proficiency, and pass a criminal background check. They would then be placed on a five-year probationary period after which, assuming they remained model citizens, they would be granted citizenship. Most will correctly argue that this is unfair to those waiting to enter the country legally. But then again, we need to speed up that process also.

Finally, we need to enhance employer sanctions against those who repeatedly and knowingly continue to hire and use illegal workers. That includes using more boots on the ground by using, where feasible, local and state law enforcement. The federal government should embrace these efforts, not fight them in the courts. We need to increase fines against employers up to and including taking their business assets for the most egregious of offenses. We need to demand that employers use E-Verify.

In reality, conservatives and moderates do not frown upon immigrants as a group. However, they do see a government that has sat on the sidelines for too long and a Democratic President that has done nothing to prevent illegal immigration, other than interfere in the efforts of states to address the problem they refuse to address. A very small, but sometimes very vocal, minority of the population actually supports a mass deportation policy. In the end, a large portion of the conservative and moderate community supports a policy of, as Luntz states, “tall fences with wide gates.” It is a policy that will resonate with the more rational sentiments in the Hispanic community, if not the entire electorate. If nothing else, it is a 100% improvement over anything Obama has proposed, which is essentially nothing.

Frank Luntz recently had an article in the Washington Post about five myths regarding conservative voters. This may very well be a starting point for a winning strategy for Romney in this year’s general election campaign if he can accurately and forcefully articulate the message. In short, he has to delineate a vision, based on pragmatic conservative ideology, that separates him and the Republican Party from the Democrats and Obama. No matter how one views anything, this country was, is and shall continue to be a right-of-center country. This does not infer that the country is the embodiment of the Liberal caricature of the conservative voter. Those views from the left, best exemplified by ignorant comments like people “clinging to their Bibles and guns,” is the traditional view of conservatives held by Liberals. Certainly, there may in fact be a segment that does “cling to Bibles and guns,” but even at that, why should it be the source of mockery?

Instead, the true conservative voter, as the unofficial polling by Luntz suggests, is more pragmatic than ideological. Originally, I was researching an article on the evangelical vote and it became evident early that the traditional view that evangelical voters are like bleating sheep following a Republican leader was itself a myth. Clearly, the fundamentalist voter is more apt to vote Republican, but to state that Republicans can take for granted the evangelical vote every four years is false. The same is true of conservatives. Even in 2008, some 20% of self-described conservatives voted for Obama, up from the 15% of that vote that went to Kerry in 2004.

There is so much talk about the establishment versus the Tea Party or insurgent candidates. In fact, they should be working together towards a common goal, the first of which is getting Obama out of office. The “enemy” is Obama and his liberal policies. He can no longer run on a campaign theme of “hope and change.” He is not some blank slate unknown with a silver tongue. He has a record now upon which he must run and one which he must defend. The fact he was resorted to a campaign of divide and conquer is indicative of the fact that this record cannot be defended. Being your typical liberal, he has resorted to diversionary tactics. One week, we have the “war on women,” the next the “war on the poor,” followed by the “war on youth,” etc. Inevitably, we will have the “war on senior citizens.” He takes advantage of the angst over income inequality by pitting Wall Street against Main Street.

Some amongst the conservative ranks have resorted to bombastic remarks and policy proposals, but they are few and far between. Some have called for the absolute abolition of the Department of Education, or Energy, or the EPA. I, as a conservative and Republican, have problems with these entities also. In past articles, I have not called for the abolition of the Department of Education, but a reform of it whereby they get out of K-12 education and leave that to state and local governments where it was for years without federal intervention with greater outcomes. The Energy Department clearly is in need of reform, yet there has to be a national entity to coordinate national priorities when it comes to energy policy. However, they should not be picking the winners and losers when it comes to energy exploitation or sources. The EPA should be forced, through changes to the laws that formed that agency, to do cost/benefit analysis when making regulations, something they are not required to do by law as it stands now.

This is the first area to look at when it comes to the Luntz article: the myth that conservative voters care most about the size of the federal government. The current size of the government is a reflection of the regulatory state. Years and years ago, Alexis de Toqueville noted that bureaucracy was the greatest threat to the emerging American democracy. To read the Constitution- a guide to the role of the federal government- one would expect only a Defense, State, Treasury, and Justice Department. Instead, we have numerous executive departments, agencies, commissions, authorities, and boards. Unfortunately, the growth of the federal bureaucracy and the regulatory state is not unique to liberals and Democrats as Republicans have been guilty of the practice. The only difference is that Democrats and Obama in particular have taken it to a gross new level.

Instead, most conservatives want a government that works better with less waste. Dating back to at least 1964, implicit in the Democratic agenda is that local and parochial interests should be subordinated to the national interest. Although never totally subordinated, it did come to the center of politics and the result to breaking gridlock that inevitably occurs was not through compromise as the Constitution dictates, but through legislative deal making: “I’ll support your crop subsidy if you support my beach replenishment project.” An unpaved road in Mississippi becomes a national problem when you have a national Transportation Department. Urban blight in Detroit or Newark becomes a national problem when you have a HUD. Low SAT scores in Alabama become a national problem when you have a Department of Education.

In 1995, the GAO discovered that over $350 billion was wasted on duplicate programs yet that same state of affairs exists today. In 1879, the US Geological Service was created to map the nation’s natural resources. Some 133 years and over 300,000 maps later, I think they have done their job. Today, they are tasked with establishing stations to monitor global warming despite those maintained by private interests, academia and numerous thermometers on back porches throughout America. We have 14 programs for foreign study abroad, 17 offender re-entry programs run by five different agencies, over 20 programs to identify and eradicate invasive plant and animal species and nine programs spending over $300 million annually on biofuels. It is estimated that the federal bureaucracy spends over $400 million every year producing reports, studies, files and forms. The GAO reports we spend over $123 billion annually on programs with no effect on the targeted populations. And the Defense Department is perhaps the poster child of government waste and abuse.

Citing these facts and taking action are two different things. Once the bureaucracy is formed, it is almost impossible to get rid of it. But, three facts remain. First, a more efficient, less wasteful government will require political fortitude, someone willing to to make the tough decisions and follow through on those decisions to the end. Whether Romney is that person, we really do not know. We can surmise all we want from his business record, or leader of the Salt Lake Olympic Committee, or Governor of Massachusetts. But we do know one thing: Barack Obama is not that person and that is something we can all rally around. Second, there will undoubtedly be hardships along the way that will be exploited by liberals and their allies in the media. But it should also be remembered that liberals will be the flies in the ointment regardless. They are an innocuous (and obnoxious) minority of the electorate. Third, a more efficient and less wasteful federal government will necessarily result in a smaller government. Hence, it is incumbent upon conservatives to hold Romney’s feet to the fire. I also venture that this basic philosophy will appeal to the equally important moderate/independent voters.

A winning strategy will be to highlight the shortcomings of the Obama Administration in this area. Despite his assertions of cleaning up waste and abuse in the federal bureaucracy on the one hand, he expands the bureaucratic state on the other hand through nonsense like a run-amok EPA, Obamacare and Frank-Dodd, among other acts. Despite protestations to the contrary, we have the examples of the GSA scandal, Fast and Furious, and the Secret Service scandal occurring on his watch. They are merely symptoms of a broader problem with government in general. No one said it better than Mitch Daniels, the outgoing Governor or Indiana who turned a budget deficit into a surplus while lowering taxes and decreasing the state bureaucracy: “You’d be surprised how much people really don’t need the government.”