We’ve successfully completed the 2010 election cycle, and it seems that already we’re ankle deep in the process for 2012.  Before the tide comes in any higher, I’d like to offer an observation and a new way of looking at the Primaries.

I’ve been following politics for a long time — deep into the last millennium.  The quadrennial challenge of getting the nominations for the President have changed back and forth over the years, but I think that the changes wrought for the 2008 cycle were pretty well hammered up.  The spectacle of states wanting to be first and setting primary dates as early as December 2007;  the’penalizing’ of Florida and the other states that went against the Democrat and Republican Party wishes; the stacking of primaries into ‘Super Tuesday’ all made the process about as neat as a soup sandwich.   It also had the effect of leaving whole sections of the country out of the main debate and process of picking the winner.

I’d like to see that change, in a way that respects the recent upsurge in participation and spontaneity that the Tea Party brought to the process in 2010.  From the experience this year, I think that some of the axioms of past campaigns — that it takes years or months to raise enough money; that it takes years to build organizations; that we have to slog through a 2 year process to get the best candidates — can be put to the test and tossed out.

Here’s what I’d like to see:

1.  No candidate can declare candidacy for the Presidency before July 4, 2011.  That gives roughly 17 months until election day to wrap the whole process.  None of this “announcing that I’m thinking of possibly examining the notion of forming an exploratory committee” stuff either…stay off the stage until the season starts.  Do something of value to become noticed, instead of just talking about doing things.

2.  On July 4, 2011, the heads of the Republican and Democrat Parties meet in DC and conduct a lottery to fill the slots for Presidential Primaries or Conventions or Caucuses, as defined by state laws.  The lottery will distribute the 50 state selection/elections more or less equally across 12 Election Days, held on Tuesday, between the 3rd week in February (President’s Day week) and mid May (4 to 5 states a week).  By making these dates random, there is no advantage to having early front runners take up residence in the ‘early primary states’ (it didn’t work for Chris Dodd anyhow) or making early, repeated trips to Iowa and New Hampshire which represent about 1% of the total  population.  Deciding the lottery in the summer of the previous year should be sufficient time for the states to prepare for the primaries 7-10 months later.

3.  The party conventions are held in July and August, 2012 as traditionally done, and the campaign really gears up from Labor Day to the first Tuesday in November, 2012.

As for concerns about getting organizations and GOTV efforts built in time — maybe we should build those organizations more along the lines of the Tea Party (around issues like limited government and no bailouts) rather than personalities.  Maybe getting people to consider the issues and decide on the direction the country should be heading and then looking for the right person to execute that direction is a better way than selecting our leader based on an 8×10 glossy or teleprompter fed version of their thinking, only to find out they have either no plan for governing, or the wrong plan.

I really think that we have done damage to our government by looking for ‘rock stars’ and brilliant orators at the expense of intelligent, action oriented executive type people that we actually need to run things after the election is over.  We’re living through the ‘rock star’ era now, and it hasn’t been pretty.  It’s time to try something else.

The President seems fixated on automobiles lately.  It must have something to do with having nationalized what was once the pride of American Industry.

In any event, he has used a metaphor comparing the economy to a car as he has stumped all over the country for Democrats running for the House and Senate.  He blames the Republicans for running the car (the economy) into a ditch, and repeatedly blames them for not helping his efforts to get it back on the road.  Interestingly, he never describes where the Democrats in Congress were during this ride into the ditch — could it be that their constant chattering in the backseat were enough of a distraction to cause the crash? (I digress…).  This weekend, he intensified the metaphor with a tinge of “code speech” telling crowds that he would only let the Republicans “sit in the back seat” after the elections.

The President, in spite of his reputation as a gifted communicator,  has seriously bungled the analogy from the start–or maybe he hasn’t. Maybe he intends it this way because this is the way he thinks.  The economy is not a single vehicle to be controlled by a single driver — it is the collective action of 300 Million of us as we go about our lives.  It can’t be a single car, unless the President thinks a single entity controls the economy.  The only way this can happen is under a ‘statist’ government, as Mark Levin has so powerfully written in his book Liberty and Tyranny.  So, the President’s metaphor is all anyone needs to conclude that he really is a ‘statist’ or ‘socialist’ or whatever label is preferred.

I think a President who understands freedom, free markets and capitalism would make a different metaphor to describe the economy.  I think a more accurate metaphor is that the economy is like the highway system of a major American city.  On the highway, the cars driven by individuals represent their freedom to act and go where they feel they should, just as they are free to labor and create in the free marketplace.   The drivers are free to chose any make, model or color, and they are free to choose the destination.  The economy has periods of heavy activity and growth, and periods of less activity, just as the highway has rush hour and late night traffic.  The infrastructure of the highway (the  exit/entrance ramps, curves and numbers of lanes) represent the government’s ability to shape the economy according to the public’s consensus and the optimum cost (terrain and other obstacles may limit direction just as external factors influence our economy).  The rules governing driver conduct (speeding, signaling, etc) are similar to the financial and other regulations that govern free market behavior.  As long as those rules are in synch with the size and pace of the economy, the economy can handle additional growth, just as a highway can handle more traffic.  When either driver behavior or the rules impede the flow of traffic, things snarl and slow down — just as excessive rules and inappropriate behavior (Enron, Fannie Mae, Sarbanes-Oxley, Bernie Madoff, etc) can slow down the economy.  Building more highways or more lanes won’t help if driver behavior is erratic and reckless — or if government rules change the speed limit or number of cars on the road in response to one or more ‘social justice needs.’   Similarly, government stimulus won’t help if it is accompanied by massive changes to laws or other decisions that are haphazard.   Would you travel down a highway not knowing whether all the overpasses were completed?

The President’s analogy is limited and statist.  The highway analogy acknowledges the complexity and scale of the economy, and the influence of human behavior in a relatively free environment.

I think the President should head back to the classroom — either to get a better handle on metaphors and similes, or economics.  The future of our free markets and freedom are at stake.

“Is this a great country, or what?”

This expression is used by comedians and pundits as a punch line to an endless array of stories that show the slight wackiness of the way things work in this country — things like high school dropouts that become millionaires, or  movie stars and celebrities that do absolutely senseless things and get away with them.

But the fact remains, at its core, this question is an expression of a hard truth.  This is a great country. It has great resources, climate and people.  Simply put, the United States of America is a great nation, based on its history and the impact that it has had on individuals and nations across the world.  No other nation comes close to matching the record of accomplishments that this country,  and its citizens as individuals, achieved in the 19th and 20th Centuries.

There is no reason to think that we should be less great in the 21st Century.

Are there obstacles to our continued prosperity? Absolutely.  Are they insurmountable? Only if we wish them to be.

Our exceptionalism as a nation is a result of our traditional way of confronting challenges in front of us and overcoming them.  We have done so as a result of individual character, nurtured by the liberty to act, and inspiration by leadership and example.  That leadership takes many forms:  professional, religious, political and, yes, even ‘community’ leaders that are recognized for their influence within various groups without specific legal powers.

The election next week provides an opportunity to address one aspect of our national leadership.  We are free to choose our representatives in the national legislative branch and scores of executive and legislative representatives for local and state office.  To the extent that political leadership contributes to our nation’s exceptionalism, this is the time to ensure that leadership measures up to our expectations.  In order for our nation to be great, it must have great leadership.  However, in spite of the beliefs of the ‘political class,’ while great political leadership is necessary for our nation to be great —  it is not sufficient by itself to make it so.  Political leadership contributes to our nation’s greatness by providing the environment and structure for individuals to achieve and contributing to the inspiration to do so.

The force of law and regulation does not impose prosperity and achievement on those it governs — at best all it can do is enable individuals, exercising their freedom to act, to achieve prosperity and discover things that benefit society as a whole.  As George Washington said:

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

So our task this next election day is to carefully choose the representatives we empower to make decisions for us.  Our expectations of them should reflect our expectations of ourselves and our future.   We must choose the leadership that shares our expectations, and we should ensure that they, too, have great expectations for our nation.

We dare not support those with small aims, lest they constrain us to small results.  If we are to break free of the indebtedness in which we’re currently trapped; if we are to be independent as a sovereign nation to act morally in our own best interest and in the best interest of freedom across the world; if we are to sustain the the creative energy and advancement of technology and education that we have developed over the past two hundred years; we must choose leaders equal to those expectations.

We need leaders that will act rightly and boldly to turn away from the path we’re traveling.  We have an opportunity to choose freedom over mediocrity, individual action over government control.

We need to have courage and great expectations, rather than fear and submission to smaller ideas.

We need to have great expectations, and hold our leadership accountable to those expectations every day that they hold office.

And while we’re doing that, we need to go out and achieve our own great expectations for ourselves and our families.  ”We the People” have to maintain our own levels of courage and intensity, in spite of all the obstacles we individually face.

We need to regain the sense that anything is possible — Build a railroad across a continent? Sure.  Tame huge rivers with dams? No Problem.  Develop live saving drugs and technology? Routine. Make almost any information accessible anywhere in the world? Done.

So why should we now accept the idea that we can’t reduce our national debt and restore our economy? Why should we accept the idea that things are “too complicated” for us to understand and that we must allow ‘those who do’ to act for us in the ‘new normal’ of mediocrity?  Instead, we should reject those leaders who are telling us these things, and get on with doing what our own ideas and freedom to act will allow.

If enough of us do that, we’ll persevere and restore our nation.  It’s that simple.  Throughout our history, great leaders have understood that.  Let’s find some more that still do and put them in charge for a while.

Since the first Tea Party last April, I have been energized by the idea that ordinary citizens have become more alert and engaged in the political process — the grass roots involvement of contacting their Representatives, attending Town Hall meetings and rallying for and against various Bills before Congress. This new activity seems to resonate with our history, and the link to our founders seems well made.  In the words of Thomas Jefferson:

“I like to see the people awake and alert. The good sense of the people will soon lead them back if they have erred in a moment of surprise.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1786.

At the same time, I’ve been bombarded by the receipt of thousands of direct mail letters, emails and phone calls seeking my contributions to fund various means to influence people and energize them further.  On the one hand, we pride ourselves on the wisdom of the American people to make the right choices, and on the other, we appear to be insisting that very wisdom needs to be flooded with new information about the candidates, the issues or the dangers posed by the opposition.  This was troubling until I found this second bit of wisdom from Jefferson:

“Reflection,… with information, is all which our countrymen need, to bring themselves and their affairs to rights.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Lewis, Jr., 1798.

But note that Jefferson is advocating reflection, which to me suggests a deliberate and reasoned examination of the facts, not a mass rally filled with emotions and ‘sound bites.’ In these mailings and emails, every media trick, every marketing angle is used to turn up the emotional meter on an issue or a candidate to spur action and get results. Is this the right approach?  Again, I found some wisdom from Jefferson (Wouldn’t it be amazing to have had the chance to have dinner and discourse with this giant?):

“The people cannot be all, and always, well-informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.

Where is the fulcrum or balancing point?  Where is the point reached that we have provided information to the citizens that we jointly trust to have the wisdom to convey the consent of the governed without going to the point where we’re inflaming a crowd?  Where is the dividing line between sustaining the informed electorate so vital to the needs of the country and creating a mob more driven by emotion than fact? Again, Jefferson gets it right:

“When public opinion changes, it is with the rapidity of thought.”Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816

Isn’t our consensus that we are where we are because the Democrats were successful in mobilizing a large body of voters with a mostly emotional call to action?  We realize that the President was successfully elected by creating an emotional bond with those that sought Hope and Change, swaying enough voters to choose that vision over a more conservative one ‘with the rapidity of thought.’  We are also encouraged by the way pubic opinion has rapidly changed since the first Tea Parties in April of 2009.  But clearly, we cannot restore our nation’s prosperity and strength by oscillating wildly from one extreme to the other.

How should we work over the next few weeks and the next several election cycles to restore our country and government to the founding principles that we at RedState are so passionate about?  There is no doubt that emotion spurs action, and that we hope to energize enough voters to sway things back to our side.  We need to rely on the ‘rapidity of thought’ to bring the country back toward its foundation and away from this lurch toward socialism.

But to sustain the correct course over the next 2-10 years, what should we be doing to establish a citizenry that merits the respect and affection given it by Jefferson, Adams and the other founders? Again, Jefferson has a better way of describing it than I:

“My confidence is that there will for a long time be virtue and good sense enough in our countrymen to correct abuses.” –Thomas Jefferson to Edward Rutledge, 1788

There is the solution, I think.  We need to work to ensure that we have a country filled with people of good sense and virtue.  Many on the left think that this isn’t possible — this is the root of their preference for elites to manage the masses, after all.  We must work to prove them wrong.

Good sense and virtue are elements of character, and are not easily taught as academic concepts.  But character is easily demonstrated through example and through personal association.  We must identify leaders with character — those with virtue and good sense — and put them in office.  This can’t be done by relying on mass media or marketing, however. It must be done through ways that RedState is gaining notice for — short candidate interviews, gatherings such as the one in Austin, and shared blogs and other articles among those of common mind, purpose and character.

As the country watches the actions and sees the results of these leaders of good character, they will come around to the ideas and concepts that we advocate and entrust with the future of our nation.  After sustaining that course, we should be able to hold public opinion long enough to establish a new foundation of “virtue and good sense” to carry our nation into prosperity and strength.

There will always be opposition, but in the end, we believe that good will triumph over evil –right?

Cold Warrior has been laser-focused and relentless in his passion to reform the Republican Party from within. Others have been equally energetic and effective in getting us at RedState ‘off the couch’ and getting folks involved, especially in getting people to the polls.  The results in the primaries show significant changes are happening all around the country.  These two elements are essential to restoring our representative government.

The third element is just as important — ensuring that every vote counts and that all votes are counted accurately.  This important aspect of elections is often downplayed or neglected — but we must act quickly and decisively to ensure that all the effort spent on the first two elements is not washed away by a corrupted process of electoral vote counting.

The news of the Civil Rights Commission hearings and the New Black Panthers Party actions during the election of 2008 are but one example.  News from Houston Texas, prompted by actions of Houston area Tea Party patriots, shows that electoral fraud is common.  Having grown up in the 60s with jokes about dead people voting in Cook County, Illinois, through the Bush/Gore election of 2000, the Al Franken election in Minnesota in 2008, and other examples driven by Acorn powered voter registrations in other states, I’ve begun to very seriously worry about the issue.  In fact, in a quote I read this week, but can’t remember so I can link to it, a Democrat strategist has openly opined that in order for fraud to not be a factor, “the Republican has to win by 3%.”

With the number of close races — Reid v Angle, Gillibrand v Gioguardia, Boxer v Fiorina, and others, we cannot allow sloppy registration or improper voter qualifications & voting procedures to dominate these races.  We simply must get enough observers and auditors out to the polls during the elections and question the registrars before the votes are counted.

The folks in Houston are assembling teams to work this issue, one that should spread across the country– particularly where ACORN and other groups have done the most damage.

But beyond the immediate tactical need to ensure votes are counted accurately and consistently, I think we need to pressure the new Congress to ensure votes are provided the integrity and accuracy that our Republic requires:

• They should examine the record surrounding the impact of the “Motor Voter Act” and take action to ensure abuses are ELIMINATED.  If that requires repeal of the legislation, so be it.
• They should examine and rectify any issues related to absentee ballots for military members serving away from their registered locations.  Several states have indicated that they can’t ensure ballots are “mailed out and received in time” in this election cycle — that is just wrong. This must be fixed.
• They should examine and encourage voting methods that are secure and audit-able from end-to-end to ensure that nothing corrupts the process.  No more “hanging chads” or rigged mechanical tabulators.  Although I shy away from imposing federal standards for elections, informal consensus through the various associations of State officials should be able to be obtained.  This is one issue that should be able to gain authentic bi-partisan support.

In his legendary encounter with Joe the Plumber, Candidate Obama expressed a preference to ‘spread the wealth around,’ showing a  brief glimpse and clear warning what his administration would be focused upon.

I’ve found a classic example of how the administration is continuing its process of rewarding friends and punishing enemies.  It’s called the Community Development Capital Initiative (CDCI), which having been established for over 15 years is now considered a new TARP program that

“makes capital available to certain certified Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) for the purposes of increasing lending to small businesses and other community development projects that will spur new economic growth”

Read More →

h/t  The Corner, National Review Online

The debate about extending the “Bush Era” tax cuts is taking some serious turns of late.  According to Daniel Foster, writing in The Corner, Speaker Pelosi is leaving some wiggle room for extending the cuts without limitations for those above $250K/year. Amazing what happens when 31 Democrats, sensing doom, tell their boss that they’re not following her lead.  Good news, indeed (read the whole thing).

But the “How Stupid” part comes in the quote attributed to Speaker Pelosi (emphasis mine):

“What I believe the American people deserve is a tax cut for the middle class,” Pelosi said. “And without getting into procedure and timing and process, what we’re going to do is to say at the end of the day the extension of the Obama middle-income tax cuts will take place, and that’s what I have to say on the subject.”

Since the tax cuts were put in place by Congress at the suggestion of President Bush back in 2001 and 2003, well before President Obama was even Senator Obama, how in blazes are these the “Obama middle class tax cuts?”

The President has decided to follow the lead of many in Congress and the public in preventing the tax cuts which currently exist from expiring — this hardly gives him ‘title’ to the idea!!

Speaker Pelosi continues her slavish and fawning devotion of the President right into historical revisionism….simply amazing!

h/t  Canada Free Press

The Democrats in Congress have been caught in another grand theft through Obamacare.

This time, it’s taxing Real Estate transactions —  starting in 2013  there is a 3.8% tax on all real estate sales effective in 2013 according to tax expert Paul Guppy in an article in Spokesman Review entitled “Health Law’s Heavy Impact.”

So the financial experts that were beginning to predict some recovery of the housing market in 2012 might have to reconsider their figures.  Taxing something is the surest way to decrease whatever is being taxed….and also the surest way for people to try to work around the new rule with even more creative transfers of property or payment.  Taking nearly $7,000 from the proceeds of the sale of an ‘average’ house will have an impact on the subsequent purchase by the seller who is now $7,000 poorer — which should drive the prices down on the whole.  In short, this is a terrible idea — and another shot of class warfare, claiming funds from property owners to be used to fund health care for others.

This revelation of a new tax on something completely unrelated to Health Care should stoke the fires for repeal — the legislation must be completely scrapped, not fixed around the edges.

In addition, every Congressman and Senator who voted for this bill without reading it or considering the tentacles that it was wrapping around all aspects of our lives needs to be held to account.

Every Last One of Them Should Be Defeated in November.  Every One.

We have been rallying those that read RedState to oppose the Obama agenda by likening it to European style socialism, with its tight control of medical care and private enterprise.  For a lot of Americans who don’t pay attention to what goes on in Europe, or what the current mindset of the European leadership is, today brought a terrific example to study and understand.

This interview published in Spiegel Online International between Spiegel and Peter Krämer, a German multi-millionaire illustrates the depth of socialism in Europe.

Spiegel: Forty super wealthy Americans have just announced that they would donate half of their assets, at the very latest after their deaths. As a person who often likes to say that rich people should be asked to contribute more to society, what are your first thoughts?

Krämer: I find the US initiative highly problematic. You can write donations off in your taxes to a large degree in the USA. So the rich make a choice: Would I rather donate or pay taxes? The donors are taking the place of the state.  That’s unacceptable. (emphasis mine).

Spiegel: But doesn’t the money that is donated serve the common good?

Krämer: It is all just a bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires. So it’s not the state that determines what is good for the people, (emphasis mine) but rather the rich want to decide.  That’s a development that I find really bad.  What legitimacy do these people have to decide where massive sums of money will flow?

Speigel: It is their money at the end of the day.

Krämer:  In this case, 40 superwealthy people want to decide what their money will be used for.  That runs counter to the democratically legitimate state.  In the end, the billionaires are indulging in hobbies that might be in the common good, but are very personal.

There are a number of interesting things to see here:

*  ”bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires”  Apart from the idea that it would also transfer power to others who aren’t billionaires, the Europeans seem to have gotten our Declaration of Independence exactly backwards.  Power is granted by the consent of the governed to the state, not the other way around.

*  The whole notion of individual acts of charity seems to be missing from the discussion, which I suppose is an indicator of the extent of “post Christian” thinking in Europe.   This is truly sad, given the heritage of cathedrals, monasteries, the Reformation and the Catholic Church.

*  The gentleman seems also to miss the point of “it’s their money” as the source of the legitimacy of their desire to see it used well (even when tossed the softball by the interviewer!).  He also seems to ironically miss the point that these billionaires are already have the power to decide “where massive sums of money will flow” and they apparently are doing a pretty successful job of it — or they wouldn’t be billionaires.  Maybe that’s why he’s still just a multi-millionaire.

The most important point to draw from this interview is this:  After less than 70 years (or two generations), the concepts of capitalism, individual rights, liberty and individual choice seem to have withered to non-existence in Europe.

Those who think we should not try to fully repeal the bailout/Obamacare/amnesty/cap-n-trade/’environmentalist’ laws that have been rammed through in the past 18 months are wrong. Dead Wrong.  Leaving any parts of these in place will lead to re-emergence of the ideas until freedom, free enterprise and individual choice are choked out as surely as kudzu destroys anything in its path.

Just look at what has happened to Europe.  I, for one, don’t want to go there.

The whole business of Anna Chapman and her cohorts is a bit of a mystery in itself.  We’re told that the FBI had been tracking these folks for years, patiently gathering awareness of their actions and intent.

And then Wham! Bam! they’re swooped up, charged, and convicted through guilty pleas.  So far so good.  But wait!  They’re put on a chartered jet within hours and flown to Vienna to swap for 4 individuals that the Russian government had been holding in various prisons for years without trial, as far away as Siberia.

The logistics of all of this suggest a lot of planning and action that most likely traces back to the visit between President Medvedev and President Obama last week, if not before. So now it seems we’re conducting FBI operations in synchrony with foreign government actions.  That in itself could be an acceptable thing when it relates to counter-terrorism or other multi-national crime, but this specific case doesn’t fit that mold.

So, what was the purpose of the deal?  What compelling national interest was served in this unusual deal, breathlessly described by news media reporters as “the largest spy swap since the Cold War?”  What was the compelling national interest of Russia to return these people to Russia?  They would most likely have been released in a couple of years anyway.

On its face, we got fewer spies back than we gave.  Is this to suggest the four we got are twice as important?  There seems to be little evidence of that.  This seems to be in line with our deal capitulating missile defense in Europe for essentially nothing gained.

Did the arrest, conviction and swap improve our image in the world?  Not much evidence of that, either.

Did the spy swap instead signal a willingness to negotiate things better left alone?  This might be closer to the target. If so, it signals a weaker foreign policy, and the potential for danger ahead.  The message seems to be that if you snatch a few random folks off the street and accuse them of being agents of the CIA, you can bank them for later use in extracting your own agents from the US.

This doesn’t seem to be a great advance in US foreign policy.

As I have read the articles leading up to the confirmation hearings for Ms. Kagan, and now listened to her testimony before the Senate, the various reporters and pundits have referred to the position she is to fill as “Justice Stevens’ seat” or “the liberal seat” on the Court, conveying the idea that there must be some sort of designation attached to the seat.

It occurs to me that everyone is completely forgetting the point made by Senator Scott Brown — the open position on the Supreme Court, like his open Senate position, is in fact, “the People’s Seat” because it is provided for in the Constitution.  Through the consent of the governed, we have provided for our elected representatives to choose this Justice on our behalf.

As such, there is no requirement that the position go to a ‘liberal’ or ‘activist’ or even a ‘conservative.’  The position should be chosen in accordance with the Constitution — the President nominates and individual and the Senate grants its consent.  There is no provision in the Constitution that the President is guaranteed that his nomination will be approved, or that there is a specific designation for the position in terms of political or judicial philosophy.

The only consideration should be that the person selected should be the best qualified and sincerely willing to serve the role as Justice to the best of their ability.  Our tradition calls for that Justice to be fair, open minded and capable of determining how the facts of the case apply to the intent of the Constitution.  To be an effective Justice, then, it would seem that the individual should have a strong background in legal matters pertaining to the Constitution, and a strong familiarity with the legal process.

Ms. Kagan seems to be weak in these qualities.  Her inability to clearly articulate the breadth of the Commerce Clause and her stumbling, halting discussion of the aspects of Natural Law (from which our concept of inalienable rights arise) shows that she has a difficult time with basic elements of Constitutional Law.

Ms. Kagan seems to have a strong record — not of weighing Constitutional issues, but of advocacy of very controversial issues.  Her involvement in aspects of abortion and gay rights show her to be strongly opinionated in these issues.  Because she doesn’t have a long and clear ‘paper trail’ showing her ability to examine issues in a balanced and comprehensive way, we are left with the pieces we have to judge her ability to be impartial.  In her own words, she claims “What my political views or my constitutional views are just doesn’t matter.”  But the truth is that these matter very much, because no one is able to completely separate themselves from their beliefs and opinions, and the more strongly they are held, the more they will affect their reasoning.

So the question for the Senate remains:

Is Ms. Kagan the most qualified to occupy the People’s Seat on the Supreme Court?

The Senate should carefully weigh their vote before they rush to approve her vote in deference to the President.  Choosing an individual steeped in activism and advocacy and then expecting that person to transform into an impartial arbiter is an impressive act of ‘willful suspension of disbelief’ in the words of then Senator Hillary Clinton.  Choosing an individual on the outer bounds of issues important to the People is also contrary to the Senate’s role.

I urge everyone to communicate with their Senators on this important issue.   This confirmation is being done on our behalf, and our input should be felt.

There is a classic book, “On War” by Carl von Clausewitz, written in the early 1800s, which makes a number of observations about war that stand the test of time.  In fact, the book is a standard part of the curricula for US military leaders.  In the book, his most famous axiom is that “War is politics by other means,” by which he meant that there was a continuum of action that begins with diplomacy and ends when a state commits its forces to combat in war.

Like everything else these days, the leftist/statist folks attempting to ‘transform America,’ seem to have turned this notion on its head.  Instead, we find ourselves in a situation where “Politics is War by other means.”  Since we are too strong militarily to bring down, and our economy is the strongest in the world, those that would have America be reduced or defeated have had to resort to politics as their means.

In the slow movement from Progressivism of the early 20th Century to the present day, most ably detailed by other authors and commentators such as Glenn Beck and Mark Levin, the statists have been working from within to alter our nation.  They have been using politics as a surrogate for war, because war was proving to be the more difficult course.  While there have been some direct military threats to our nation the Axis Powers of World War II and the communist states of the Cold War, those were turned away.  The final gasp of Soviet Russia in the late 1980s showed that military conflict and direct assault were too difficult to bring about the change in the US that the left was seeking.  The statists knew that they needed a “Plan B,” because it was obvious as time wore on that direct conflict wasn’t going to go their way.  So, in parallel with the efforts of the statist governments, other leftists worked to get support for their cause through our own culture and media to insert their messages and gain political leverage.  For a great discussion of this aspect, see David Kupelian’s new book How Evil Works. He has a great discussion of Alinsky, Axelrod and Obama, among many other examples.

Kupelian’s book has an armful of insight and a bushel of hope for those of us that are concerned about the future of our nation.  He has some really terrific thoughts about how we can turn back the current torrent of transformation — and it boils down to something easy.  He demonstrates that by unleashing the truth about the issues, relentlessly but positively, everyday Americans can be brought back from the seductions of the statists: the security of their handouts and the promises that they can solve our problems.  We need to be creative and, at times, indirect in the methods used to reach Americans.  With the left controlling much of the MSM, we may need to use alternatives to reach out successfully.  But Kupelian shows that open confrontation and argument with the opposition may be a waste of time–until they can be made to understand that we actually care about them as individuals.  His example of the pro-life groups reaching out to pregnant women and caring for them — while showing them their decision in the flesh with ultrasound pictures is the most effective way to win the argument over abortion.  Clearly, there are similar ways to reach workers being ill served by unions and the unemployed.  There may be times when facing off with the opposition and carrying signs is the way to go, but there are other ways to get people to listen.  There is a saying about communication that “People don’t care what you know until they know that you care…” and this is part of Kupelian’s message.

We can regain control of Congress and the Executive Branch by simply showing the truth to those that will listen.  Those fully committed to leftist thought may never be convinced — but they are actually the minority, if we can place any trust in the results of the recent polls.

We must understand the way the opposition thinks and their methods (think Alinsky’s rules) — they are ‘at war’ with us and our values, and they are using politics as the means for their objective. Republican lawmakers must understand that their opponents believe the conference table is the battlefield, and the pages of legislation their ammunition. Having heard the President and others speak of ‘bringing a gun to a knife fight’ and ‘punch back twice as hard,’ the Republicans cannot act as though they are merely gathering to discuss whether something should be done in 2 years instead of 3, or whether there should be 400 more employees in the EPA.  Republican lawmakers  must understand they are also ‘at war.’

Those that don’t understand this basic point must be sent home for re-training. We must then replace them with fresh troops that are trained and ready to face the opposition with the right intensity and tactics to win.

Red State has been in the thick of this realization and re-equipping of our side for victory.  We must not waver or falter.  The next few months are critical.

Remember November.

I was listening to the Mark Levin Radio show this evening (It’s OK, I also listen to Erick live in the AM when he’s on the Macon Station), and a couple of phrases he spilled out during one of his passionate rants got me thinking, so I have to give credit to his show for making me think a little bit.  When he was on a roll, he reminded us that the federal leadership’s main job is to preserve and protect the Constitution and pass it to the future. He spoke of the value of the Constitution, and the ways the current administration and Congress were doing damage to it.

As I was listening to him, I was thinking about the primaries just past and those in the next couple of weeks, as well as the elections in November.  I was trying to figure out a way to get Mark to talk about what we, as voters in the trenches, can do in these contests to ensure we’re choosing the right people for the offices up for election.  I agree totally with the point he was making — that the people we send to Washington have to be the right ones — we have to make sure that we have the right team in Congress to get us back on course.  Unfortunately, with all the campaign ‘image making’ and media hype and exposure, it can be really difficult to figure out if the right candidates are on the ballot.

That brought to mind a couple of analogies which I think finally make enough sense to share.

Getting the country  back ‘on course’ is a natural way for me to think, because of my previous experience in the Navy, and because I’ve always been fascinated by the ‘real navies’  and merchant vessels of wooden ships in the 17th and 18th century. So bear with me…

We elect members of Congress and Senators to write laws to run the country and prepare the way for a future, which we always seek to be prosperous and peaceful.  In the same way that a master boatwright would use experience and ‘feel,’ along with proven tools and great materials to build a vessel, we want Congress to fashion laws and provide the budget to build a strong country.  Just as the boat builder designs the vessel to have the right draft and beam for the seas and coast to be traveled, we want Congress to create an economy that won’t run aground or break apart.  As the boat builder crafts a vessel capable of running fast in clear weather and stout enough to take on the occasional heavy seas that arise from time to time, we want Congress to craft a government capable of creating opportunity and preserving peace, but also capable of defending and sustaining the country when it’s under assault. Just as the boatwright uses plans and proven tools, we expect Congress to build the nation using the Constitution as the Plan and well proven concepts for its laws and budgets.

Just as every ship needs a capable Captain and crew, the country that Congress creates through its laws and budgets needs a proven Executive and his Cabinet.  A beautiful schooner or cutter deserves a Captain with experience, courage and proven leadership, crewed by able hands.  So it is with our country — the President and the Administration must be capable of not merely staffing the offices, but running the country with skill and courage from start to finish.

So as we draw near to the elections, picture the boatwright and ask yourself:  Does this officeholder have what it takes to craft the vessel?  Does he or she seem to have a clue about its design and the use of laws as tools to create it?  What would the result look like — a schooner or a sinking barge?  Would the vessel endure?

If you’re considering a candidate for Executive Office, would you hire that candidate to be Captain of a vessel?  Does the candidate have a record of assembling a crew and making the voyage happen? (And no, running a campaign, while potentially useful, should not be the only resume bullet here!)  Has the candidate been in charge of a similar ‘vessel’?  Does the candidate give you the image of a capable leader ‘on the bridge’ (Star Trek could be useful here, too…)?  Could you sleep in your cabin with this Captain and crew on watch?

The way ahead is going to be filled with challenge; it always is.  We need to select the right people to design and build the future, and the right crew to make the journey.  Primaries and elections have become endless cacaphonies of charges, spin, sound bites and images. It’s important that we find a way to cut through all of that and find the people with the expertise, experience, integrity and courage to lead us through it.  Folks like Erick and Moe have done a wonderful job helping cut through the noise and give us facts to use to make the choices. Now it’s up to us to follow through and get out the vote and select the candidates that will do the right thing.

H/T to National Review from the Corner, Thursday April 29.

Everyone has already made the relevant points about the President’s quote about making enough money. There’s no need to spill any more ink over that remark.

But earlier this week, while speaking to reporters on Air Force One, he had more bits of discourse that reflect his thinking in pretty interesting ways.  From The Corner, quoting another blog:

President Obama: “We’ve gone through a very tough year and I’ve been working Congress pretty hard (emphasis mine). So I know, there may not be an appetite immediately to dive into another controversial issue. There’s still work that needs to be done on energy. Mid-terms are coming up. So, I don’t want us to do something for the sake of politics that doesn’t solve the problem.”(emphasis mine again)

Let’s see…where does one begin?

First, let’s consider that the President has basically described Congress as his staff and not the co-equal branch of government that it is.  Congress, directly elected by the voters, is the body created to consider and enact the laws that the Executive Branch carries out.  The President, technically is not directly elected — that whole Electoral College thing found in the Constitution is the official body that chooses the President.

The Senators and Representatives are not his employees to ‘be worked pretty hard’ by the direction of the President!!  The fact that he poses the issue this way is definitely illuminating, in much the same way as his ‘money quote’ from this week, and the ‘spread the wealth around’ from the summer of 2008.

Second, for the President to insist that he isn’t going to do something ‘for the sake of politics that doesn’t solve the problem’ is one of the more breathtaking examples of cognitive dissonance that I’ve ever seen. How many ways has the administration done exactly the opposite of what the President insists he isn’t going to do:

• The Stimulus Bill that failed to fix unemployment but loaded billions into Democrat districts
• The Health Care Reform Act that leaves millions without insurance and adds hundreds of billions to the deficit (although technically, the President was therefore right that it wouldn’t ‘add one thin dime to the deficit’…)
• The Cap and Trade bill that destroys the economy while doing virtually nothing to ‘solve’ global climate change
• The Financial Reform Bill working its way through the Senate that makes bailouts permanent and makes a mishmash out of ‘too big to fail’ while giving the President and the Treasury sweeping powers to seize companies.

John Fund of the Wall Street Journal has done his usual superior work to illuminate the acceleration of voting problems which is just around the corner.  When you have time, read the whole thing.

He frames the issue squarely:

Election laws should be clear, simple, applied equally, and balance ease of voting with the need for ballot integrity.

But that’s not what’s going to happen.  After the extraordinary outcome of the Senate election in Wisconsin (hello, Senator Franken), which took post election manipulation and court actions to insane heights, Senator Feingold wants to make sure the rest of the states have the same capability.  He is introducing legislation that according to Mr. Fund, will “mandate same-day registration in every state…”

Not to be outdone, Senator Schumer of New York is also introducing legislation:

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York is readying a bill to override the election laws of all 50 states and require universal voter registration—which would automatically register anyone on key government lists. This is a move guaranteed to create duplicate registrations, register some illegal aliens, and sow confusion.

So we must energize now and let our Representatives and Senators know that:

1) Federal protection in voting is limited to ensuring equal protection and non discrimination; there is no basis for ‘sweeping aside the laws of the 50 states’.  Using ‘universal registration from lists’ will ensure the same dead people that get Social Security checks will also vote.  This is a really dumb idea.

2)  Any attempt to make voter registration ‘automatic’ or unverifiable (as ‘same day’ registration would be..) will not be allowed.

The contortions and manipulations of election laws over the past couple of decades have resulted in more fraud, not less.  The WSJ article cites the example of Minneapolis having something more than 4,000 votes counted than voters that showed up to the polls.

This obvious weakening of the value of each citizen’s vote has led some to become more apathetic and disenfranchised, which is a bad thing for the future of our country. It is vital that a nation operated by the ballot box must ensure that ballot box has integrity.  Part of that integrity is to demand that voters themselves take this act seriously enough to fully participate — show up in person and vote, except for the most compelling of reasons. Voting is not an ‘inconvenient act’…it is the way each citizen participates in self governance.

We understand the importance of the right to vote, and the price paid to ensure that right is not diluted or destroyed.

We need to ensure that fair election laws are enacted and uniformly enforced.  We must ensure that our elected officials understand they will be accountable for making this happen.

President Clinton spoke today at the Center for American Progress, expressing concern about the Tea Party participants, trying to connect the crowds to the rage that created the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.  He was concerned that many people are ‘deeply troubled’ and closed by saying:

“By all means keep fighting, by all means, keep arguing,” he said. “But remember, words have consequences as much as actions do, and what we advocate, commensurate with our position and responsibility, we have to take responsibility for. We owe that to Oklahoma City.”

I’ll not spend more time refuting the theme that the tea parties are full of violent folks — or that they’re ‘anti-government’ (instead of anti-’Unconstitutional exercise of government’) — that’s been well documented already here and many other places.

But for the first time in a very long time, I want to agree with President Clinton and state that many people are ‘deeply troubled.’  In fact, I’m one of them, but clearly not in the sense that President Clinton was implying in his remarks.

I believe you can be ‘deeply troubled’ and not be a menace or unhinged kook who will blindly cause death and destruction.

I believe that you can be ‘deeply troubled’ when you observe lawmakers in Congress passing legislation that they have not read nor understand.  Anyone who is not troubled by the Speaker of the House declaring that ‘you have to pass the bill to see what’s in it’  is clearly not paying attention.

I believe that you can be ‘deeply troubled’ when you observe lawmakers in Congress seizing unprecedented control over private industry, banking and health care in an arrogant show of political power and complete disregard for historical precedent and the Constitution.

I believe that you can be ‘deeply troubled’ when you observe the President conducting foreign policy that demeans our most steadfast allies and accommodates our most recent adversaries without any tangible benefit to the nation.

I believe that you can be ‘deeply troubled’ when the President surrounds himself with advisers and ‘czars’ who hold the most radical, non-traditional views of what capitalism, liberty and private property rights mean to our continued prosperity.

I believe that you can be ‘deeply troubled’ when the President and the Congress together mount a campaign to spend trillions of dollars we do not have for programs which provide limited tangible benefit, leading to a very real prospect of runaway inflation, draconian levels of taxation, economic ruin, or a combination of all three.

I believe that you can be ‘deeply troubled’ when the President sweeps aside past policies of Presidents of both parties that served to prolong peace and stability with regard to nuclear weapons, in favor of an idealized view of the world and those weapons,  which can place our nation at greater risk in the future.

There are a whole lot more things about the way our government is managing affairs that can cause one to be ‘deeply troubled,’ which I won’t describe in favor of brevity.

But here is where I disagree with President Clinton:  I do not fear those who are ‘deeply troubled.’

Where he sees the potential for violence (curiously, only from those on the Right), I see the reality of engagement.  Tens of thousands of ordinary Americans are showing up at rallies and  town hall meetings to express their intent and dissatisfaction with the way the affairs of government are being run.  Hundreds of thousands of phone calls and letters have captured their thoughts and transmitted them to their Senators and Representatives.  And finally, as President Clinton points out, November is coming–where votes will be cast and the people will choose their future leaders.

Unlike President Clinton and President Obama, I trust the American people to do the right thing, once they have the right information at hand to inform their choices.  I realize that many people made choices in past elections based on misinformation and misperception — and that is where words and actions matter.  I will devote time, energy and money to bring the right information and messages to people, and trust that will make the difference.  That’s what we do here in America — and it usually works.

Dear Senators:

I want to thank you for your years of dedicated public service and your dedication to doing what’s right for America.

I have not always agreed with everything you have done — but that standard is unachievable and unrealistic. I realize that governing is a contact sport, and that your efforts in the Senate are subject to political compromise and judgement.  In the main, you have done a reasonable job.

But these are no longer reasonable times. The contortions that the Democrat leadership in the Senate and the House just went through to pass seriously flawed and probably unconstitutional changes to our health care should show you that.  The backroom deals, the duplicitous pronouncements, the callous disregard for the opinions of the voters and taxpayers should all demonstrate that.  The fact that they are now granting the President the power to effectively change American law by Executive Order, which by definition cannot have power over the private sector, is also troubling.

In the words of Representative Alcee Hastings, ‘they are making up the rules as they go along.’

Under these conditions it is impossible to deal in good faith with them.  Therefore, I urge you to stop any further discussions on Immigration reform.

Once again, with Immigration as there was with Health Care, there is broad consensus that the current system is not working as well as it should, and a stark and sharp distinction between the Democrats and Republicans as to the solution.  Negotiation and compromise can only be successful when there is a clearly articulated common objective.  It is already patently obvious to anyone with a pulse that agreement on a common objective is lacking here — so please do not waste your time or the nation’s time trying to craft an agreement.

The American public wants solutions to real problems — but as the millions of Tea Party members  and countless others have shown, the context of the solution must reside within the bounds of the Constitution.  It must also not bankrupt the Treasury or alter our free market based economy.  Three pretty simple ingredients.

Until Republican and Democrat leaders can agree to these basic premises, there is no benefit to continuing. Continuing the charade will only elevate tensions between the two sides and further entrench the special interests driving the process.

In addition, there is no point in negotiating with a party that cannot be trusted.  How many promises were made and broken along the way with Health Care?  Will you be able to ensure that Immigration Reform will be any different?  If not, stop.  Do not pass “Go.”

Do the right thing for America. Don’t add a disastrous 2,000+ page bill on Immigration that no one has read to the wreckage already created.

We are exhausted and tired from fighting the most convoluted and destructive legislation that I’ve seen in my lifetime.  We are on the verge of changing the relationship between government and the individual in a very detrimental way.  We are heading the country toward a cliff on a Sunday afternoon, and it’s time to ask a question or two before we press on.

Representatives in the House, objecting to the bill on many rational and worthwhile points,  have been urged by the President to vote YES in order to ‘save his Presidency.’

The question that rings in my ears is ‘Why should that matter to Congress?’  What great debt do they (and by extension, we) owe the President?  How does it benefit the country to ‘save his Presidency’ at the cost of Trillions of dollars we do not have?

If the President were an expert in health care, and had proven that ‘his plan’ worked anywhere else, it might be plausible to say that Congress owed him the opportunity to execute the plan.  But I have read thousands of articles and blogs and government websites, and the only thing clear to me is that the President’s ‘plan’ consisted of nothing more than vague platitudes and anecdotes.  If his plan existed, we would have been able to compare its features to the bills before the Senate and the House and judged whether the bills met the plan or didn’t.  Instead, we’ve had to have a free-form, chaotic, arm twisting, convoluted path to a 2,300+ page bill that is far from cohesive or coherent.

If the President were renown for actual leadership on any issue, it would also be plausible to say that Congress ‘owed’ him this bill to ‘save his Presidency.’  From what I can see, his record is tragically thin in this regard.  In fact, it seems that he has spent more time on Capitol Hill as President over the past year than he did as a sitting Senator.

If the President feels that ‘his Presidency’ is at risk, he must understand that what he is urging is contrary to the popular will and the sense of Congress.  Why does he feel that the needs of ‘his Presidency’ outweigh the needs of Congress?  How is the Executive Branch somehow more important than the integrity and capacity of Congress as a co-equal branch of government?

I just don’t get it.

Congress should act according to its Constitutional role and vote for legislation that it believes best serves the American people. Period.

Cooperation with the Executive Branch, while important on many issues, such as national defense, is important but not required.  Remember when Senator Clinton, Senator Kerry and others insisted that obstructing the war in Iraq, after they voted for it, was the highest form of patriotism?

So why is it now vital to ‘save the Presidency’ over health care?

Some members of Congress and the President have insisted that health care was in ‘crisis,’ while then taking over a year to bring legislation to the floor.  They have stumbled and mismanaged the process all along the way, giving us very little assurance that they actually know what they’re doing.

They are bringing the legislation to the floor in a chaotic, crisis-filled atmosphere for a very rare vote on a weekend.  All to ‘save the Presidency’ while saddling the country with the most unpopular, costly legislation in decades.

Again, I just don’t get it.

The Constitution of the United States provides the basis for the relationship between the citizens and the government.  Because the founders believed in the concept of inalienable rights, or those that could not be taken away by government, they framed the Constitution as the powers granted to the government by the ‘consent of the governed.’  The founders of our country believed in freedom and the power of free markets to provide the basis for prosperity. Their intent was to empower the government with the minimum set of powers necessary to govern the interactions between citizens, while providing for the common defense and general welfare of all.  They believed that individuals and the free market would most effectively develop goods and services that the country needed.

They also created a federal form of government to allow individual states to have freedom of action to meet the needs of their citizens more effectively, because they would be more accountable to the public.  They created a federal system that was meant to move slowly and deliberately, with the exception of national defense (even then requiring the consent of Congress for action).

In stark contrast to the original vision, the Obama Administration has been moving at blinding speed to insert goverment control over virtually the entire American economy.  Government control is nothing new to the current generations of citizens, having begun in the early 1900s with the Progressives, accelerating through Roosevelt’s New Deal and Johnson’s Great Society.  President Obama is striving to complete the takeover, and he has been incredibly swift and effective.

The banking crisis in late 2008 provided the first opportunity, followed by the auto industry problems and the real estate sector crash.  The President has insisted on adding health care and now, even education and student loans are being swallowed by the federal government.

None of these actions are provided for in our Constitution.  The founders of our government knew that freedom and liberty would encourage individual action.  The founders clearly believed that when these myriad actions are coupled with the responsible and restrained use of the rule of law, prosperity for all who worked for it would result.  They also believed that the free market would move faster to meet needs than government could (or should).

There is no doubt that the size of government has grown well beyond that envisioned in our Constitution. Statistics show that all levels of government now employ about one seventh of the total workforce in the country.  The federal government alone employs 3 Million workers to expend about $3.8T annually, which works out to about $1.3M per employee.  With a total government workforce of over 20 Million adults who are also voters, how likely is it for that workforce to want less government spending? fewer programs?

The takeover of financial institutions, mortgage lenders and student loans by the federal government is another area of concern.  Financial services companies employ over 5 Million workers, now under increasing levels of federal control and intervention.  Where will their independence be when the government bureaucrats threaten them, as Secretary Paulson so famously did during the fall of 2008?

The influence of the government on other sectors of the economy have been a concern for at least 50 years.  President Eisenhower, in his farewell address is well known for cautioning against the influence of the ‘military-industrial complex,’ a phrase that anti-war and peace activists have hurled at the Pentagon since the Viet Nam war.  Less well known is Eisenhower’s warning about technology in general, from the same speech:

…The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.  Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

The nation has a workforce of 7.5 Million professionals who are the legal, consulting, scientific and engineering community which has become increasingly dependent on Federal funding for their work — or at least the policy which enables that work to be done.  Does the phrase “green jobs” ring a bell?  How independent will this community be in the face of government dictates?

The proposed health care reform acts before Congress will directly influence the healthcare workforce, which the government lists as having about 16 Million workers.  This represents over 10 per cent of the national workforce, and goes a long way toward explaining why health care costs are high and why it represents about one sixth of our total GDP.  With the government exerting now almost total control over this sector, how independent do you think the workforce will be politically?

The Obama administration is working feverishly to exert more control over primary and secondary education in this country.  Again, from government statistics, there are over 4 Million in the primary and secondary education workforce.  With increasing levels of federal intervention in local education, what is the likelihood that these workers will be independent politically?

Vice President Biden let another truth slip from his lips last week when he said ‘We are going to control the insurance companies’ as a result of the current health care reform.  Recent statistics show that the entire insurance industry employs about 2.3 million people.  The top 10 Health Insurance companies collect about $300 Billion each year.  If we assume that about half the employees are involved with health insurance, this means that VP Biden wants to extend control over a workforce that is about one third the size of the current federal workforce.  Again, how independent will these people be in terms of wanting to limit the power of government?

The media and the left have been demonizing ‘big corporations’ for decades, and have successfully convinced a large portion of the public that corporate fat cats and their lobbyists are the main cause of problems in the country.

So now, they have nearly succeeded in gaining effective control over the livelihoods of well over 35 milllion American workers (I’ve just listed the major areas here).  Add to that the over 40 million that receive some sort of government payment (social security, disability pensions, welfare), and it is easy to see the scope of control that federal government has.

The government, instead of arising from the ‘consent of the governed’ now controls a huge portion of the electorate through benefits and employment. Rather than ‘big corporations’ being the main source of problems, it is easy to see how Ronald Reagan could conclude that ‘government is the problem.’

We now have a system where the Senate and Congress, directing action through the Executive branch of government, control huge amounts of the total economy.  This centralized, elitist form of control makes the free market disfunctional, and constrains the freedoms of individuals and individual states.  In short, it is ‘too big to succeed’ and will inevitably fail, as it has in the Soviet Union, European Union and China.

The only hope for future prosperity is in restoring the government to its proper Constitutional role.  This is going to be a massively difficult thing, given the influence that government has over individual lives. But there really is no choice.  As Margaret Thatcher has said, “The trouble with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”  Our mounting deficits are testimony to that truth.

This struggle must be waged, and we must never give up.  To do so will rob our children and grandchildren of their future, and end the ‘last best hope for mankind.’

The proposal by the administration to have the government take over the ENTIRE student loan enterprise is worrisome on a lot of different levels.  But the greatest concern should be the loss of freedom of the recipients.

Student loans burden graduates with huge amounts of debt that must be repaid when they can least afford it — in the first ten years after graduation. Instead of using the money to start businesses, buy houses, or start families, it is increasingly typical for young graduates to delay ‘growing up’ in order to pay for their loans.

Owing a bank can be a pain in the butt, and the rules for handling student loans are onerous and invasive as it is– but they can be deferred for hardships, so they are not completely unreasonable.

Owing the government, on the other hand, is a real problem.  Government can reach in and take the money in ways that it sees fit: garnishment, income tax refunds, etc are within its reach.  Government can also ‘incentivize’ repayment through programs that provide services to ‘underserved areas.’  You can get student loans forgiven by teaching in the inner city, serving as a medical doctor in a clinic, etc.

In the hands of a government run by a ‘community activist,’ it’s easy to see where else this could head:  incentives for buying ‘green products’ that the market can’t sustain; incentives for using public transportation vs having a car; incentives for lifestyle choices that the government deems more useful — the list is practically endless.

Because education continues to be more and more expensive, having the government control the flow of funds to students and then ‘forgiving’ portions of the debt based on these incentives will become yet another massive transfer of wealth from those paying taxes to those who don’t.

It will also control the behavior of the recipients in ways they do not realize (see incentives above), making it more likely that they will choose options that benefit the government rather than pursuing their own path. If the government is responsible for your educational level, what is the likelihood that you will be critical of its policies in the future?  One only has to look at the fierce loyalty of Depression Era working folks to FDR and the Democrats to see what lies ahead with the coming cadre of college graduates.

If we are serious about liberty and freedom, we Conservatives need to figure out a better way, and do so quickly!  We need to figure out ways to deliver quality education through new channels (iTunes U anyone?) and reduce the cost.

As Dave Ramsey is famous for quoting the Scripture, “the borrower is slave to the lender.”

This is not the relationship between citizen and government envisioned by the Constitution — we need to give this a really hard press NOW!