Brian Garst is an independent writer and blogger. He works in public policy in Washington, DC.
As an activist he fights to promote limited government and fiscal restraint. He writes frequently about economics, education and health care, and has a particular interest in issues of federalism and the restoration of state sovereignty.
He blogs regularly at Conservative Compendium, and also contributes at Right Wing News.
Brian Garst
Big Government Is No Victim
by Brian GarstNo tragedy is beyond exploitation by the left. When census worker Bill Sparkman was found dead and it was leaked that “Fed” was scrawled across his chest, the entirety of the conservative and Tea Party movements were immediately convicted by the online left. They were wrong, and we now know that Sparkman committed suicide. Despite significant evidence to the contrary, the left also tried to hang Joseph Stack around the neck of the Tea Party. Again they failed.
They are now doing the same song and dance with Pentagon shooter John Patrick Bedell. Despite the fact that he’s a registered Democrat and 9/11 Truther, the left and their media sycophants are stretching to tie him to the Tea Party movement, though the best that they can honestly come up with is that he distrusted government.
That’s what it really boils down to. At the end of the day, they know none of these guys will hold up as right-wingers. Their real objective is simply to shame anyone who thinks government should be smaller, rather than bigger. Anyone who thinks that the IRS is often used to bully Americans isn’t simply wrong, you see, but is also dangerous. Anyone who thinks that a limited government would better promote prosperity and ensure individual liberty isn’t merely antiquated, but also a potential shooter of government employees.
They are essentially trying to use the acts of these lone nutjobs – which were despicable in every way – to make big government into the victim. The magnitude of this Orwellian endeavor is so unbelievable that it’s hard to describe in a manner that doesn’t sound over-the-top. It’s better just to remind you of some of big government’s greatest hits.
The 2005 Kelo decision ruled that government can take property from one private person or group and give it to another in order to raise tax revenues. Such abuse didn’t just start with Kelo, however. In the 4 year period from 1998 to 2002, over 10,000 properties faced at least the threat of condemnation in order to benefit another private party, according to a report by the Institute for Justice. These are individuals being threatened and bullied by a massive government to give up their fundamental human right to administer their lawfully owned property as they see fit.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Health Care Freedom Act Featured at CPAC
by Brian GarstThe Conservative Political Action Conference isn’t all fiery speeches and political red meat. Following the rousing speech by Rep. Mike Pence on Friday, a much more subdued presentation by Dr. Eric Novack described the efforts of states to pass a version of the Health Care Freedom Act, which I previously discussed here. Much has happened since I last talked about the efforts of states to protect individual health care rights.
The number of states advancing legislation to protect individual choice from federal mandates has increased since December from 24 states to 35. But merely introducing legislation isn’t enough; we need victories.
Virginia delivered a first step toward just that, as its state House recently passed a version of the Health Care Freedom Act. Elsewhere, the Tennessee Senate passed the bill 26-1, while other states, such as Idaho, have successfully advanced the bill out of committee.
These bills offer to protect citizens in two crucial ways. First, they would guarantee the right to purchase care directly, so that bureaucrats cannot be forced between patients and doctors against their will. Second, it would assure that citizens are protected from unconstitutional mandates to purchase insurance by allowing them to opt-out from any such federal program.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
A Year of Hyper-Racialism
by Brian GarstBarack Obama came into office with a promise of ushering in a new post-racial era. One year into his term and Chris Matthews has already declared, “Mission Accomplished!” He forgot Obama was black, you see. America is now post-racial! Sadly, the facts tell a very different story. Over the last year, we have witnessed a proliferation of indiscriminate accusations of racism, or a period of what I like to refer to as hyper-racialism.
Paul Krugman insured that 2009 got off to a fast start when it came to race-mongering, writing on January 1st that the GOP is the “party of racial backlash.” It turns out, according to the Nobel Prize bearing economist, that skeptics of big government aren’t concerned about upholding the constitution or protecting liberties. Oh, no. Our real motivation for opposing liberalism is that it means giving money to “Those People.” Wink, wink.
Paul Krugman must have been on to something, because as we saw throughout the rest of the year, pretty much everything said by the right turned out to be code for racism.
MSNBC’s Carlos Watson wondered whether “socialist is becoming a code word.” CNN questioned whether there were “racial overtones” at the Tea Parties, while David Shuster dubbed them an “intolerance festival.” Janeane Garofalo out and out pronounced all Tea Party attendees as racist.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
Understanding Liberal Rage Over Citizens United
by Brian GarstOn paper the Citizens United case has all the makings of a solid liberal issue. First Amendment protections, considered sacrosanct by the left when a reporter is leaking classified information, are strengthened for those speaking truth to power. Both the ACLU and AFL-CIO support the decision. So why are prominent liberals speaking out so vehemently against it?
It would be easy to chalk up liberal outrage to a general hatred for all things corporate. But is that enough to overcome what otherwise seems like a tailor-made liberal issue? After all, the ACLU said “[the prohibition on corporate speech] is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it permits the suppression of core political speech.” Moreover, the corporate gains, which liberals might feel benefit the right, are offset by those of the unions and other liberal issue groups that benefit from the ruling just the same. The net political impact is thus neutral, suggesting that their opposition isn’t political in nature. Neither is it based on the merits. Rather, it is philosophical.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
Barack Obama’s Land of the Mostly Free
by Brian GarstFreedom took a hit in 2009. One year into the Obama presidency and America is no longer classified as having a “free” economy, according to the 16th annual Index of Economic Freedom, a joint report by the The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal. The land of the free and the home of the brave is now only “mostly free” for the first time in the report’s history.
Now ranking as just the 8th freest nation in the world, the United States saw scores decline in seven of the 10 measured categories, including government spending, property rights and business freedom. These results are significant because freer nations have proven more resilient and thus fared better during the current global recession.
The study also vindicates the Tea Party movement. Despite the attacks lodged by the likes of Chris Mathews, racism and intolerance toward our nations first black President are not needed to explain the movement’s sudden emergence. Rather, the loss of freedoms feared by Tea Party participants is real, and more than explains the anxiety so acutely expressed at rallies and townhalls throughout 2009.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
Budget Busting Compensation Packages Plague States
by Brian GarstThere are two distinct sectors in the economy: the private sector and the government sector. The private sector is the productive part of the economy. Competition in the private sector promotes greater efficiency, productivity and innovation than the public, or government, sector is capable of. Yet it is government employees who are the highest paid and have the most job security. This helps explain why so many states are facing acute, budgetary crises.
A new report by Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute highlights the sharp disparity between public and private compensation. Despite producing very little compared to their private counterparts, public sector employees of state and local governments averaged 45 percent more per hour in wages and benefits. And because government never shrinks, public employees are “rarely terminated for cost-cutting or job performance reasons.”
\Unionization appears to be a factor in public sector pay. With a few exceptions, Edwards shows that the states with the highest public pay advantage also have the highest share of union workers. But whatever the cause may be, the excessive pension plans provided by states has placed taxpayers in a virtual stranglehold. Unless cuts are made, they are the ones who will have to pony up to provide for public sector workers.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
Study Shows Partisan Influence On Stimulus Spending
by Brian GarstDemocrats are feeling stimulated these days. In a recent study, Jerry Brito and Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center tracked stimulus spending in all 435 congressional districts plus the District of Columbia. They found that the amount of stimulus money received by a district was influenced by its partisan representation, rather than economic need. Districts with a Democratic congressman received almost twice as many dollars as those with Republican representation, whereas there was no relationship between a district’s unemployment level and the amount of stimulus money it received.
Barack Obama has broken many campaign promises since taking office, but when it comes to the comparisons to Franklin Delano Roosevelt saddled on him by his adorning followers in the media, he has worked hard to live up to the hype. We already knew that both dishonestly campaigned against the excessive spending of their predecessors before breaking the bank on their own watch. Now we also know that President Obama, like FDR, has abused a crisis atmosphere to direct economic relief funds for partisan purposes.
Patronage was instrumental in protecting the incumbent Democratic Party in the first mid-term election under FDR, despite an unemployment rate that surpassed 20 percent. His administration targeted swing districts for infusions of federal dollars – spending money not to increase employment, but to maximize electoral gains. He succeeded. Democrats expanded their majorities by nine seats in both chambers.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
A Value-Added Tax Won’t Solve the Deficit Crisis
by Brian GarstAs Congress prepares to raise the debt ceiling by $1.8 trillion, there are renewed calls from political elites for a value-added tax in America. The New York Times all but campaigned for the idea while touting it as a possible “cure for deficits.” But a VAT would do nothing to solve our deficit problem. Rather, it would supply new fuel to big government bureaucrats addicted to spending.
Supporters of a VAT mistakenly assume that increasing government revenues will lead to reduced budget deficits. While raising additional revenue may be part of any long term budgetary solution, it is not sufficient by itself – and probably not needed at all. Unless systemic changes are made, there is every reason to believe that additional revenues will simply be used to provide additional entitlements, pork barrel projects, and other wasteful government spending initiatives designed solely to enhance the reelection prospects of politicians. So long as deficit spending provides tangible benefits to the political class, they will continue to run deficits regardless of the amount of revenue raised.
Even in the midst of recession, federal revenues exceeded $2 trillion in fiscal year 2009. Can anyone really argue that $2 trillion is not enough for the federal government to perform the duties outlined in the Constitution?
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
The States Will Be the Next Battlefield in the Fight Over ObamaCare
by Brian GarstRight now the battle over government-run health care is centered in Washington D.C. Numerous protests have been held at the Capital, including the massive 9.12 Project march, where hundreds of thousands traveled from all over the country to protest excessive spending, bailouts, and big government proposals for reforming healthcare. Another ten thousand showed up in November for a “House Call” protest, arranged on very short notice, specifically targeting healthcare legislation pushed by Democrats. These same activists are also burning up the phones before every major vote. Despite the unprecedented strength of this small government uprising, we must face the very real possibility that, while these protests will no doubt keep participants motivated leading up to the next election, they may not be enough to stop passage of ObamaCare. Depending on the outcome of today’s fight, tomorrow’s could very well be at the state level, and eventually in the courts.
According to the American Legislative Exchange Council, lawmakers in 24 states have at least pledged to introduce legislation modeled after their Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, which nullifies an individual mandate to purchase federally approved health insurance. This amounts to a bold reassertion of the 10th Amendment, that long ignored protection of state sovereignty against federal infringement. Thirteen of these states have already filed or pre-filed constitutional amendments to protect the rights of individuals to make their own healthcare decisions.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?