Posted by Greg L on 08/02/11

TEAd Off

The TEA Party, the fiscally responsible crowd, those in favor of a balanced budget, those who want to reduce the debt: they got rear ended yet again.

The spend and tax crowd gets more credit to keep spending. The Washington correspondents get to keep defining a cut as any time some bureaucrat doesn't get to buy everything on their dream list. The budget isn't getting any real cuts. This means the debt is still increasing. And the big spenders are complaining that they lost when the other side walked away empty handed.

Establishment Excuses

Some in the Republican establishment are trying to defend this as being good because both sides are unhappy with the compromise. This would be like saying you made a good compromise with a crack addict to keep giving him crack but you aren't going to increase his dosage as much as increased tolerance and appetite would desire. Our politicians are addicted to spending. Some may talk about wanting to cut but when all is said and done they decide to keep spending.

Some in the Republican establishment are trying to defend this by saying that they achieved their main objective of not raising taxes. I disagree with that completely. I have said that every penny government spends is a tax. I don't care what pocket it comes out of or how they define it every penny government spends it needs to get from its citizens so it is a tax. Spending is increasing, so taxes are increasing. Their hold on taxes is as phony as their spending cuts.

Some in the Republican establishment are trying to defend it as this is the best compromise they could be when they only have control of the House. One third is all they needed to keep anything from being passed. If nothing is passed wouldn't they win? If nothing is passed government wouldn't be able to barrow any more. If nothing is passed government would be forced to spend less. If nothing is passed government would be forced to close unnecessary agencies and offices. If nothing is passed we end up with smaller government. Isn't smaller government a platitude of the Republican Party? Wouldn't achieving one of their platitudes be a win for the party?

Republican Sellouts

What is most disappointing is the list of who voted for this. Wisconsin freshmen who attached themselves to the TEA Party label to get elected in Sean Duffy and Reid Ribble voted to increase the debt. Wisconsin career politicians: Ron Kind, Jim Sensenbrenner, and Tom Petri voted to increase the debt. Paul Ryan voted to increase the debt. Yes, even the Paul Ryan who attempts to portray himself as a deficit hawk despite voting for other big budget bills voted to allow spending to increase under the guise of phony cuts.

Voting for big spending is what Paul Ryan does he:

-Voted YES on TARP (2008)
-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional "anti-recession" stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)

Paul Ryan votes for big spending. Paul Ryan's big spending is the cause of increasing taxes. Paul Ryan is a member of the spend and tax crowd. This is the person we are told by the Republican establishment is the architect of their responsible plan to cut spending. I demand better.

Clean Sweep

I still want to remove anyone who voted for TARP, any stimulus spending, and bailing out failing businesses removed from political office. Now I am adding this debt ceiling compromise sellout to the list.

The only elected official from Wisconsin with a clean slate is Senator Ron Johnson and he's not up for election. This means Ryan, Baldwin, Kind, Moore, Sensenbrenner, Petri, Duffy, and Ribble need to get the boot. This means we need a clean sweep in Wisconsin. This means there is no excuse for anyone not to run or support a challenger in 2012.

Posted by Greg L on 07/17/11

As the debt ceiling debate heats up Ron Paul comes out with an ad criticizing compromises of past administrations. "Cut Spending, Balance the Budget, No Deals" the ad promises.

At the same time Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell offers his compromise plan.

McConnell argues that Republicans can't win the fight while Obama is the president. So his plan is to shift blame to Obama. This is to be done by giving Obama authority to raise the debt ceiling and then the Congress will have a chance to vote it down.

Even though; any raise in the debt ceiling would have to pass a Republican controlled House (A house with Presidential hopefuls Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul, who have both come out against any raise in the debt ceiling) The Republicans have no leverage.  Just give in to Obama - have a phony vote against raising the debt ceiling in the future.

Whereas Republicans putting forward a plan not to raise the debt ceiling unless there is significant corresponding cuts while the President opposes it unless taxes are raised is a lost battle.  Having a Democrat plan to raise the debt ceiling which is opposed by the Republicans (even though they initially proposed and approved the plan to allow it) is going to have mainstream media turning on their messiah, blaming him for destroying the economy, and shattering any hopes of an Obama reelection.

Whereas Obama's positions on stimulus packages, healthcare, and bombing Libya, ect. are not enough to drag down this administration caving in and giving him the ability to keep racking up debt will lead to his Waterloo.

Republicans need to lose this battle to gain political points by shifting blame for what they did because they'll be able to hold votes saying they oppose the president doing what they gave him permission to do.  I hope you follow McConnells backwards Washington insider logic.  They do this so they can then win the presidency and then be able to win the war.  Meaning if they control all the branches suddenly they will convert to being the fiscal conservatives they always claimed to be.  Remember all the spending cuts, roll backs in regulations, return of personal liberties in 2000 -2004 when the Republicans had control of both houses of Congress and the executive branch?

So if the McConnell surrender plan is approved Obama is sure to lose and the Republican establishment will get behind the most anti-tax, anti-spending, anti-government ticket they can find.  They will not tell us we need to compromise and get behind some squishy moderate because they are the most electable.

I doubt that!!!

Why compromise in now in debt negotiations if we'll have to compromise again when it comes to our President? Let's win this now!
No compromising flip-floppers!  We want elected officials who are fiscal conservative with principles based on the Constitution.
No compromise!  It's time to quit playing political games of compromise and start taking a stand for the taxpayers.
No compromise!  Either we get actual reduction in spending from this budget, or do nothing and let the debt limit force Obama act.

Posted by Greg L on 01/05/11
Last updated 01/05/11

Pay for Play

In the past it has also been acceptable for a politician to withhold their consent on close legislation until they receive a form of compensation.   Obamacare was one of the closest watched pieces of political legislation in recent history .  This didn't stop pay for play politics.  Payoffs used to get votes received names like "Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase".

Even with the attention and negative press this horse trading received it continues.

Obama and lame duck Democrats sold their votes for not raising taxes or "extending the Bush era tax cuts".  In return they attached an obscene amount of pork and were able to ram though a record amount of liberal legislation for a lame duck congress.

TEA Party and other conservatives groups have voiced objection.  At one time I agreed with them, now I'm rethinking my position.

Should Conservatives Sell Their Votes?

One of the first items the new congress is going to take up is whether or not to raise the debt ceiling. 

In the past when it is time to raise the debt ceiling is an almost unanimously passed.  There is small handful who vote against it most just for the opportunity to grandstand.  

This time with pressure of TEA Party's and other Fiscal Conservatives there is talk that this may meet resistance.  

I think it may be a good idea for them to agree to vote with Democrats and moderate Republicans - that is if they get the proper political payoff. 

Proper Payoff

I think that any vote to cut taxes without having corresponding spending cuts is phony tax cut.  This is because every penny the government spends comes from us, and therefor is still a tax regardless of how they dress it up.  

I say if liberals and moderates want to raise the debt ceiling the fiscal conservatives should hold out and one at time agree to vote for it in return for $250 million in spending cuts being passed.  This means that if they need 40 votes they need to pass $10  Billion in spending cuts to get their bill passed.

Hold up pieces of legislation all the time and make the liberals and moderates propose where to cut spending.

They want to spend money make them have corresponding cuts in other areas.  They want to hire workers and grow the bureaucracy in one area make them shrink others.  The price is always that they cover any spending proposed (by our not their estimates), plus extra for any possible overruns, then they take an extra bite out the deficit.

Play politics with the employees unions.  Threaten cuts then instead of their usual automatic pay raises offer them incentives similar to profit sharing bonuses given in the private sector.  If a department ends the year under budget with the current system the workers gain nothing and the managers lose the ability to ask for more money in the next budget.  Update this so that if they come in under budget the workers receive a bonus based a percentage of that amount.  Now rather than having to have legislative aids trying to find how to cut projects form the bureaucracy; bureaucrats, rewarded for working more efficiently, will have the incentive to make these cuts on their own.

I think that this congress has the potential to be one of the best in a long, long time.  On the surface it appears that fiscal conservatives are in control.  I have reservations.  I think there are many wolves in sheep's clothing, old school opportunistic politicians who rode the TEA Party wave into office.  They will not hold to principles they only used as talking points.  They will cut deals and seek out ways to vote with the establishment.  Let's give them an out.  That out is that they received a payoff for us the taxpayers.

Posted by Greg L on 12/14/10

Educating the Republican Base

There are those who say that the best way to get liberty candidates elected is to win over Republicans. If we are going to win their votes in the 2012 elections we need to familiarize them with our ideas in 2011.

Usually I don't care to get involved in formulating party platforms. They are nonbinding, party officers and elected officials have no obligation to pay any allegiance to the party platform. In many ways it is a waste of time. I can almost guarantee that the final version of the Republican Party platform will call for tax cuts, spending cuts, an end to abortion, supporting the troops and all the other issues which are long settled talking points for the party.

There are those who take the process very seriously. They read and study every proposed resolution and argue over every word the way we wish our representatives would attack legislative proposals. There are also those who sit back and take up space. Regardless we have an audience who is available to introduce to our ideas. Despite the success of TEA Parties we still have many in the Republican base that have not learned what we stand for and believe.
At best we open some minds and win a few converts. At worst we send a message that we are still engaged and ready to hold our newly elected group of phony conservatives accountable when they revert to their old habits of expanding government and eroding liberty.

Possible Planks

Commodity Backed Currency: Debate over gold, silver, or some other commodity is secondary. We need to demonstrate how our paper money is essentially worthless. That the best hedge against inflation and economic instability is hard money.

Emanate Domain Abuse: The basic theory is an easy sell. Practice has been entirely different.
Our municipalities have no problem teaming up with the Chamber of Commerce to push new plans for economic development. These plans involve using the city government to reward the Chambers favorite members with favors from the tax payers including land that condemn so that businesses don't have to negotiate with the actual owners over the price needed to get land that isn't on the market.

End the Fed: Thanks to unpopular actions from the Federal Reserve and Ron Paul's Audit the Fed bill this notion is gaining in popularity. We need to keep pushing. Force those who favor the Fed to make a defense of why having a private bank control the creation of our currency as well as profit from loaning it back to us.

Eliminate the Rain Tax: In most municipalities your water bill includes a line for a stormwater runoff fee. This is a tax on the fact that rain falls on your property. I can think of nothing more egregious than being taxed for an act of God.

The money collected is usually used to fund an agency which fights soil erosion from stormwater runoff. Soil erosion is nothing new. The Grand Canyon was created by soil erosion. The Mississippi River Delta was created by soil erosion. The Mississippi River was created by soil erosion. Every river on this planet was created by soil erosion.

I for one do not want to be funding the EPA's war against Mother Nature.

Instant Runoff Balloting: Instant Runoff would help get more Republican candidates elected. That is if their claim that all third parties do is take votes away from their conservative candidates allowing liberal Democrats to win.

The logic is that wing nuts could vote for their extreme third party and independent candidates with their first place votes. Once those votes are tossed their second place votes are awarded pushing the Republican over 50%.

Would the Republican base rather win an extra seat or two in districts which had a strong third candidate or keep the two party lock on elections in place?

Raw Milk: Raw Milk was the battlefront for the food freedom movement in Wisconsin. Politics and compromise muddied the issue. With a new group of legislatures this is an issue which deserves another try.

Tax Simplification/Ending All Deductions: Republicans say they are for tax simplification - yet they have never succeeded.

The reason is twofold. First, they don't want to do away with tax code the tax code that benefits them and their donors. Second they don't understand the need to do away with all deductions. They fail to understand that our earnings are ours and not a government entitlement.

They see a deduction as money they get back, or a reward for doing what government wants. It is actually a money that is taken for not behaving the way government wants. The lack of a deduction is a penalty. Didn't buy a car which qualified for "Cash for Clunkers" you pay a penalty. Didn't buy a government approved energy star appliance you pay a penalty.
The tax code should not be used as a way to reward ones friends. The tax code should not be used to punish ones enemies. The tax code should not be used as way to coerce behavior. The only way to prevent this from happening is to do away with all deductions.

Unlimited Liquor Licenses: The state of Wisconsin limits the number of liquor licenses a municipality can hand out. Every community I know of has a waiting list for liquor licenses. I know of none with unused licenses.

The supply of alcohol distributors is kept artificially low. The price is artificially inflated. The Tavern Owners Association benefits from the lack of competition.

Since there is not a Tavern Nonowners Association legislatures lack the incentive to back free market principles. Can we use the Republican voters to provide the motivation our legislatures need to support the free market?

Posted by Greg L on 05/04/10
Last updated 05/05/10

Republicans are Predictable

Most years Republican primaries are over before they start.  Candidates are selected months in advance by steering committees.  Their candidate usually fits one of two profiles either they have seniority at their current position, have been faithful to the party and are next in line at being promoted to a more prestigious office, or they are wealthy donor who has a willingness to finance their own campaign.  

Those who try to run against the system are cut off at the knees and denied access to party assistance and resources.  The only way to survive is to have the ability to run independent of the party or to toe the party line.  This ability to force allegiance, an over reliance on tradition, and a reluctance to accept change have led to a party that is not just predictable but out of touch.

Such is their view of third party and independent candidates.  When the support for third party increases you begin to hear the same predictable argument from the Republican loyalists "A third party candidate could potentially take away just enough votes for the Democrats to win" or "If you don't vote Republican your essentially voting for the Democrats".

The third candidate is always the spoiler.  Usually portrayed as an naive fool who is being tricked by the "left" into siphoning off votes from the legitimate candidate on the "right".  Those who don't belong to a major party have no chance of winning.

What if Republicans are Wrong?

What if they are the spoilers?  What if they are the ones who siphoning off votes?  What if the people want principled leadership and bottom-up representation, not the party-first top-down mentality currently in place?  What if the Republican elites are the naive fools standing in the way of what the majority of anti-Democrats want?

Recent History:

(vs TEA Party)  In December of 2009 a Rasmussen Reports poll made splashes when it gave asked about a hypothetical 3 way race between the Democrat Party, Republican Party and the TEA Party. The Democrat won with only 39%, but the TEA Party with 23% beat the Republicans, who had 18%. In a Poll later that month from NBC/Wall Street Journal the TEA Party lead both major party's.

The general consensus of the polls since then has been: the Democrats do not do not have a majority support, more people identify themselves with the TEA Party than the Republican Party, and if the Republican Party would work to unite with the TEA Party rather than split the vote there would be an easy victory, if there is a 3 way race it could be a close race between Democrats and the TEA Party.

(New York)  In New York's special election for the 23rd district.  The Republicans chose Dede Scozzafava.  The anti-Democrat, pro-reform, TEA partiers chose Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman. Due to lack of support the Republican dropped out and endorsed the Democrat.  However, Dede Scozzafave's name was still on the ballot and absentee ballots couldn't be recast.  The Democrats ended up winning the seat for the first time in over 100 years.

It was the Republican who was the spoiler not the third party candidate.  The Republican was closer to the tax and spend Democrat the the TEA party supported Conservative Party candidate. It was the Republican who allowed the Democrat to win.  It was Republican who stood in the way of a candidate for traditional American values.

(Florida)  In Republican party of Florida has tried to purge itself of TEA Partiers.  Republican Party of Florida chairman Jim Greer led an effort that ended in several members of the Republican Party Liberty Caucus being removed from various leadership positions.  Reasons included attending Campaign for Liberty and End the Fed Rallies, or speaking out against elected Republicans.

This proved unpopular so Jim Greer was paid to resign and in as closed door meeting of the state committee James Thrasher, the successor hand picked by Florida's Republican governor Charlie Crist was installed.  Crist needed Thracher to help keep the party in line during his nest political endeavor a run for the US Senate.

Things don't always go according to plan.  Those liberty minded patriots in Florida found a different candidate.  Crist found himself trailing in polls by a 2-1 margin to Marco Rubio.  Crist recently dropped out of the republican primary to run as an independent.

Crist the choice of the republican establishment was so out of touch with the voters he ended up getting booted out of his own party. Why didn't he just concede to the better man?  Is he staying in the race as an independent just to siphon off votes?  Is he splitting the vote so the Democrat can win? Is this another case of the Republican Party's old guard being happier with a tax and spend statist in office than some "End the Fed" radical?

Benefiting from Large Primaries

If anything the biggest obstacle to the TEA Party/anti-establishment movement has been it's success.  They have motivated too many people to run.  In many races establishment candidates are facing multiple opponents.

In Kentucky Trey Grayson the establishment candidate was the early favorite.  There the movement was able to unify behind a single candidate, Rand Paul.  This has allowed Paul to become the clear leader in this race.

In Indiana we saw a different story.  Dan Burton, an incumbent who has spent 28 years in the house, survived his primary battle with just 30 percent of the vote. He faced six challengers in the primary for Indiana's 5th congressional district, who divided the anti-Burton/anti-Washington-establishment sentiment.  In their senate race Dan Coats, was recruited to run by the Republican Senate Committee and had held the seat before Evan Bayh  won with less than 40% of the vote.  Thats because the vote was split between Marlin Stutzman and John Hostetter. 

Coats and Burton each would have lost if weren't for the vote being split.  This almost makes the Republican argument that splitting the just results in big government liberals winning.  Do you really believe that the 60% who voted for Stutzman or Hostetter will turn around a support a candidate who has spent the last 12 years living in Virginia working as a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs, and Chrysler?  Coats is a Washington insider who's out of touch with ordinary Hoosier.  It's almost like the republican faithful are driving the TEA Party vote to Libertarian Party candidate Rebecca Sink-Burris.

Conclusion

The Republican Establishment has a history of blaming third partys for there failures.  Ross Perot split the vote and got Bill Clinton elected, Ed Thompson split the vote and got Jim Doyle elected.  They mock, belittle, and bully third party, independent and outsider candidates and their supporters.  They call for them to moderate their views and join the big tent for the good of the cause.

Now the current has changed.  They are the ones who are resisting tide for limited government, and a return to the Constitution.  They are the ones who should be stepping aside for the good of the movement.  The wise know that at some point they have to be willing to turn things over to the young.  The Republican establishment should embrace the opportunity to have fresh faces who can revitalize the electorate. The old guard should be willing to mentor, and guide those who are less experienced in the art of politics.  Help them to win, help them to govern, help make this nation great.