Daily Archives: August 4, 2010
I looked at an iPad, and played with it a bit. I think I'd rather wait for an Android tablet. #
You know, there's an easy way to keep the nasty Muslims from building the Ground Zero mosque: Buy the property from them. #
That’s the question Rich Lowery asks and answers in a piece today at NRO. By "adult" in government he means, "political leaders who make tough choices, take on problems directly, and combine principle with pragmatism in a manner consistent with true statesmanship."
What he doesn’t mean is political leaders who push an extremist agenda regardless of the reality of the situation that surrounds them – such as what we have today.
Unsurprisingly, he finds his adults in government not at a federal level, but at the state level. Two in particular are making both waves and progress against daunting problems. And they should be the new proto-type GOP candidate for federal executive office:
Look in particular to New Jersey and Indiana, where Govs. Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels are forging a limited-government Republicanism that connects with people and solves problems. They are models of how to take inchoate dissatisfaction with the status quo, launder it through political talent, and apply it in a practical way to governance.
Christie has just concluded a six-month whirlwind through Trenton that should be studied by political scientists for years to come. In tackling a fiscal crisis in a state groaning under an $11 billion deficit, he did his fellow New Jerseyans the favor of being as forthright as a punch in the mouth. And it worked.
Christie traveled the state making the case for budgetary retrenchment, and he frontally took on the state’s most powerful interest, the teachers’ union. He rallied the public and split the Democrats, in a bravura performance in the lost art of persuasion. At the national level, George W. Bush thought repeating the same stalwart lines over and over again counted as making an argument, and Barack Obama has simply muscled through his agenda on inflated Democratic majorities. Christie actually connected.
He matched unyielding principle (determined to balance the budget without raising taxes, he vetoed a millionaires’ tax within minutes of its passage) with a willingness to take half a loaf (he wanted a constitutional amendment to limit property taxes to 2.5 percent, but settled with Democrats for an imperfect statutory limit). He’ll need an Act II to get deeper, institutional reforms, but New Jersey is now separating itself from those other notorious wastrels, California and Illinois.
What Chris Christie has done, if nothing else, is prove the point that a) voters want to hear the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, unvarnished and without the usual nebulous rhetoric. And b) tell them what is necessary to fix the problem in the same manner.
Voters, given the problem and his plan, have backed him as he’s tackled what was considered previously untouchable and insolvable. And he’s made progress – much more progress than anyone previously and against two powerful entities, the teacher’s union and the Democratic legislature.
It is my opinion, given the present situation in the White House, that voters are going to insist on two things. One is they’re going to want executive experience as a “must have or no deal” criteria for the next president. And two, they’re going to insist the media actually spend the time doing their job vetting the candidates vs. taking on a cheerleading role as they did in the last election.
Speaking to the first point, this new breed of tough, small-government conservative politician emerging in some of the states may be the prototype for the GOP’s next successful challenge. Mitch Daniels of Indiana may be another one to look at:
He inherited a $200 million deficit in 2004, which he turned into a $1.3 billion surplus — just in time for it to act as a cushion during the recession. He has reformed government services and rallied his administration around one simple, common-sense goal: “We will do everything we can to raise the net disposable income of individual Hoosiers.”
What most voters don’t want is the current crop of GOP front runners. Whether anyone viable (I’m even upbeat about Bobby Jindal again) will actually show up in 2012 remains to be seen, but the Romney (damaged goods), Palin (too partisan and not enough exec experience), Gingrich (too much baggage), Huckabee (scares the hell out of me) cabal is not what will win, or if one of them does, won’t keep it long.
Guys (and gals) like Christie and Daniels should be groomed carefully by the GOP and convinced to consider a run on a national level. And others who fit their profile should be identified as soon as possible and supported at the state level to get the experience, exposure and the resume together that will put them in a position to go national as well.
Thanks to Obama and friends, this is a real opportunity for the limited government, fiscally conservative majority in this country. And that’s plenty to run on, given this mess we’re in. What the GOP has got to do is stay away from the social con nonsense that always polarizes the electorate and drives independents to distraction and into staying at home (or voting for the other team) on election day.
The so-called "stimulus", upon closer examination, looks like most government spending – excessive, poorly targeted, poorly monitored and not at all accomplishing what was intended.
Senators Tom Coburn and John McCain have issued a report that details some of the most dubious "stimulus" spending. That’s over and above the money that just disappeared after being sent to non-existent congressional districts and zip codes.
$700,000 for a researcher to study improvised music. For a project on interactive dance, 44 percent of the money goes to "overhead."
The $1.9 million spent to photograph ants in foreign countries has created two jobs created so far. That’s better than other ant research stimulus projects: $451,000 has created one job,
$276,000 spent on another created six one-hundredths of a job, and the $800,000 spent on a different one created no jobs.
The $144,000 spent to study the behavior of monkeys on cocaine created four-tenths of a job. To study why monkeys respond to unfairness cost $677,000 – and has created no jobs yet – except maybe for the monkeys.
And my guess is that they will find that monkeys react to cocaine much the same way humans do. Of course the White House claims, most likely through some model in which they plug in a factor (something like x number of jobs are created when y dollars are spent), that 3 million jobs have been "created or saved". But at what cost? Note the amounts spent above to "create" each job. And then there’s the ironic side of the story:
In the state of Washington, another stimulus project may be hurting those it was designed to help. Construction began one year ago today in front of the Archery Bistro Restaurant. The owner says it’s shut off business like a fly in a bowl of soup. He’s had to stop serving lunch, close two days a week and, ironically, lay off 12 workers.
The "stimulus" has been an expensive bust.
What positions have been “created” are temporary at best and will disappear when the tax dollars run out. Additionally, much of the money is consumed in bureaucratic overhead – certainly “saving” and perhaps expanding those non-productive jobs.
But as for “stimulating” the economy – well, look around. As my mom used to say, “the proof is in the pudding”.
In the most telling poll of all – a vote – the citizens of Missouri overwhelmingly voted not to participate in ObamaCare. 71% voted for Proposition C which prohibits Missouri from compelling people to pay a penalty or fine if they fail to carry health coverage.
Of course that obviously doesn’t mean that percentage isn’t going to or doesn’t carry health coverage. Instead it is a grassroots rejection of the premise that the federal government has either the power or authority to make them. And they’ve just prohibited their state from enforcing such a law.
The Missouri vote is likely to have little immediate practical effect because the mandate doesn’t take effect until 2014. If federal courts uphold the federal law as constitutional, it would take precedence over any state law that contradicts it.
And, of course, I loved this:
Opponents included the Missouri Hospital Association, which said that if the mandate isn’t enforced some who can afford insurance will get a free ride and pass the costs on to those who are insured.
Really? You mean like what is done now under Medicare and Medicaid?
But I think this Missouri state senator may have the best point:
“This really wasn’t an effort to poke the president in the eye,” said State Senator Jim Lembke, a Republican. “First and foremost, this was about defining the role of state government and the role of federal government. Whether it’s here in Missouri with health care or in Arizona with illegal immigration, the states are going to get together on this now.”
States have been getting the short end of the mandate stick for decades. Yet many of them work under two constraints the federal government doesn’t. One, most of them are required by law to have a balanced budget. Unfunded mandates of the sort imposed by ObamaCare take a wrecking ball to that sort of requirement. Secondly, the states can’t print money at their whim. Therefore they must borrow any money to fulfill the mandates.
This and the Arizona law may be the first shots in a long war that sees the states again asserting their rights. It will mostly be fought out in the courts and its outcome is going to be critical to the America we are a part of in the future.
If the courts side with the Obama administration, then there’s just about nothing the federal government can’t do or which it can’t involve itself. And as we’ve seen in the last 18 months, it doesn’t take long, if the circumstances are right, for it to intrude to levels never before seen.
But regardless of the outcome in court, the Missouri vote is important. The “Show Me” state is a rather purple state, so I think most expected the vote to be somewhat close with those rejecting ObamaCare winning out. Instead, we see a huge margin rejecting the premise.
It should send a signal to both parties, and it should certainly have Democrats quaking in their boots about November.
Whether or not the parties will heed the message remains to be seen, but the voters of Missouri have pretty much voiced what I think the majority of this country feels – “thanks, but no thanks”. Back off, downsize and cut spending. And stay out of our lives and our health care.