In 2010, Sen. Cunningham sponsored the Health Care Freedom Act, a referendum that sought to protect Missourians from the now infamous ‘individual mandate.’ The Act was placed on the ballot in August 2010 as Proposition C; the first time any Americans got to vote on the measure and they passed it with 71% of the vote. (Full disclosure: I managed the campaign to pass Prop C.)

Cunningham read HB 609 to basically gut everything passed by the voters of Missouri in Prop C.  Specifically, it yielded authority to the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, DC 46 different times.  Beverly Gossage provides a substantive case against insurance exchanges in The Missouri Record, and in it she draws attention to a statement by Micheal Cannon of the CATO Institute:

I am continually surprised by how many people around the country mistakenly believe the new law requires states to create an Exchange. The authors of the law knew full well that such a requirement would be unconstitutional. Instead, the law asks states to do the heavy lifting of creating these bureaucracies, offers them considerable sums of money, and as a fallback position allows the federal government to create an Exchange if a state declines to do so.

Appearing before the Senate Interim Committee on Health Insurance Exchanges, Director of the Missouri Department of Insurance, John Huff, testified several times that problems with the federal exchanges could be fixed if Missouri took the initiative (and the federal grant money) and just designed its own exchange.  Otherwise, he feared, Washington would just force us into a one-size-fits-all exchange.

Or not.

We learn from POLITICO that,

A quirk in the Affordable Care Act is that while it gives HHS the authority to create a federal exchange for states that don’t set up their own, it doesn’t actually provide any funding to do so. By contrast, the law appropriates essentially unlimited sums for helping states create their own exchanges.

In other words, if states do not set up their own exchange, the feds have no money to do it themselves.

Already Kansas and Oklahoma have given back their federal grants intended for state based exchanges.  Florida and Louisiana have stated they will not set up an exchange at all.

Given the overwhelming vote that Prop C received last year, Missouri legislators would be well advised to tread lightly around paving the way for an individual mandate that was flatly rejected at the polls. The specter of a federal exchange if we fail to act doesn’t seem so scary anymore.

The Missouri chapter of Americans for Prosperity, which—when led by Carl Bearden in 2009 and 2010—adroitly harnessed grassroots angst and helped organize voters and give them voice. Alas, Bearden has left AFP, and the organization recently held some non-ironically named “Running on Empty” rallies featuring a large inflatable gasoline pump… and little else. Attendance was anemic in Kansas City and it is not evident what, if anything, was accomplished.

The Freedom Jamboree slated for Kansas City was cancelled due to lack of interest. It was originally presented as the National Tea Party Straw Poll Convention, and guest speakers were to include Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum.  Less than 20% of the organizer’s attendance goal was reached, and so they pulled the plug.

And now we learn from the leader of the St. Louis Tea Party, Bill Hennessy, that the August 4 Tea Party in Kiener Plaza is likewise cancelled. In his post explaining the cancellation, Hennessy allows, “other cities have had a hard time getting people enthused about rallies since last year’s election.”

Not to be outdone, the Left has hopped aboard the Tea Party train just as it is running out of steam.

Rallies in front of the St. Louis offices of Sen. McCaskill and Sen. Blunt, urging both to protect the large unwieldy entitlement program that now have the country in a financial mess, were unimpressive. Even the siege of the Wisconsin Capitol in February—a launching point for the Left’s activity—failed to achieve it’s goals. Subsequent efforts to defeat state Supreme Court Justice David Prosser were also a failure. The Left’s imitation of the Tea Party may be the sincerest form of flattery, but it isn’t bearing fruit.

While the ‘rally in the park’ model of Tea Party expression is dead, smart organizers quickly moved beyond rallies to more conventional political activism.

In St. Louis, the same Tea Party that just cancelled their rally has stayed active in local politics, offered training to serious activists regarding registering voters and even has a registered lobbyist representing them in Jefferson City.  Activists from the Kansas City region likewise quickly offered training on activism, campaign management and candidacy.  The Franklin County Patriots have hosted meetings with representatives, training sessions and seminars.  The Missouri Precinct Project began as an effort to educate and train Missouri conservatives in increasing voter registration and turnout.  Activists across the state have kept in contact through organizations such as the Missouri Conservative Coalition and sympathetic bloggers are using social media to communicate with one another and push the conservative agenda.

Some groups still choose to use the rally format of expression, but most everyone understands—except a few national groups and the Left—that those methods won’t be as successful in 2011 and 2012. In short, it’s been done. Even worse, the method may be starting to wear thin on Americans. A recent Bloomberg poll found that:

Negative attitudes about the Tea Party are growing, with 45 percent saying they have an unflattering view of the political movement, the highest level since the poll first asked the question in March 2010. Among independents, 50 percent view the Tea Party unfavorably.

Successful activists are starting to look more and more like the formal, professional organizations that they resisted in 2009 and 2010. And that is a good thing. While the Tea Party as an event may be dead, the grassroots spirit that motivated it is alive and well in its many different iterations.

Unfortunately, in order to invest in his businesses and provide jobs for his employees, Jim must battle Kansas liquor laws. While some of Kansas’ neighboring states permit grocery stores to sell full-strength beer, his stores must make do with reduced alcohol content beer, or 3.2% beer.

How would modernizing Kansas liquor laws help Jim Puff and others like him? Right now, Kansas grocery stores may not sell full-strength beer. Consumers wishing to buy full-strength beer must go to a different store that is only able to sell strong beer, wine and spirits – no food items. This is a lose-lose situation. For consumers, it adds unnecessary time, effort, and money. For retailers, these regulations reduce profit potential. Current laws that prohibit what grocery stores and convenience stores can sell place a huge burden on Kansas retailers, especially when faced with escalating rent, and energy costs for lights and refrigeration. In effect, the state of Kansas is regulating businesses into oblivion.

Allowing grocery stores to sell full-strength beer, wine and spirits, and allowing liquor stores to sell grocery items will result in increased competition, benefiting both retailers and consumers in the form of increased economic activity and lower prices. Senate Bill 54 would do just that. Allowing retailers to sell additional items, such as beer, wine and spirits, would add an entirely new department to retailers; growing their product availability, increasing the need to hire new employees, and incentivizing customers to shop locally rather than drive to larger cities or bordering states where they can purchase products in one stop. SB 54 would provide sustainable economic growth for years to come.

So far, the opponents of the measure are most concerned about the chances that an increase in full-strength beer and liquor vendors will increase the likelihood that children can get access. But according to Kansas’ own Alcoholic Beverage Control Division, grocery and convenience stores have a better record of complying with laws restricting sales to minors (such as tobacco) than do liquor stores. Grocery and convenience stores have a long track record of responsibly selling age-restricted products.

In previous years, Kansas jobs and tax revenues have been traveling across state lines. A large percentage of Kansans live within driving distance to the Missouri border. Currently, many will cross the state line to take advantage of one-stop shopping in the Show-Me State, where grocery stores can sell wine and full-strength beer. And shoppers don’t stop there. Once they are in Missouri to buy groceries and alcohol, they are likely to buy other items such as gasoline and clothing. The jobs created to provide those products and services stay in Missouri, and the tax revenue from those sales go to Jefferson City, not Topeka.

Kansas is facing a budget deficit of $550 million, meaning that the newly elected governor and legislature will be looking everywhere to increase revenue and cut spending. According to a study by Dr. Art Hall, Director of the Center for Applied Economics at the University of Kansas, School of Business, ending these restrictions would advance the goal of increased competitiveness and productivity, adding an estimated 15,367 jobs, $343.6 million in wages, and $72.5 million in state and local tax revenue, after full economic adjustment to the repealed restrictions.

The 21st Amendment repealed Prohibition in the United States, but some states have held on tightly to their blue laws. Blue laws success at discouraging drinking is spotty, but their success at discouraging entrepreneurship and chasing away jobs and tax revenue is certain. It’s time for Kansas to get with the times, and update laws for the benefit of hard working Kansans across the entire state. If Kansas wishes to better serve its citizens, implementing policies such as SB 54 is one step in the right direction.

Dede Scozzafava was chased out of the race by conservative Tea Party activists. Her campaign may have been inept, and local GOP leaders may have erred in selecting her, but activists had no business dictating terms from afar. Despite her flaws, Scozzafava was ahead in the polls before the Tea Party brouhaha. (So much for respecting local control.) Their result was to actually shrink the Republican caucus in the House of Representatives.  (Moreover, the newly-elected Democrat Congressman Bill Owens may provide the deciding vote on passing Pelosi Care, up for debate tonight in the House.) Just as conservative Democrats voted for Speaker Pelosi, liberal Republicans like Scozzafava would have supported the Party’s leadership. A RINO is better than no R at all.  The good news is that the district is likely to support the Republican candidate in 2010 after what I suspect will be a vigorous primary.

The most laughable criticism of Scozzafava was that she showed no loyalty to conservatives by endorsing the Democrat in the race–this from Tea Partiers who showed no loyalty to the Republican Party by pushing a third party candidate in the first place.

Here in Missouri, activists were pleased with national results.  Twitter was rife with self-congratulatory chatter.  One wrote, “Obama’s most significant accomplish? Re-awaking the conservative movement.” Even Missouri’s Lt. Governor Peter Kinder emailed, “This was a referendum on the direction Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama are taking our nation. Voters are upset with the failed stimulus, the government’s proposed takeover of our health care system, and the national energy tax known as ‘cap and trade.’”

My fear is that Tea Parties will be so enamored with national politics that they will miss opportunities to win real and lasting victories in state and city races. In Missouri smoldered the ruins of what could have been Tea Party victories: a quarter-cent sales tax in Jackson County won renewal (with 71%) despite the funds once being the subject of a grand jury investigation; usually conservative Springfield passed a new sales tax during a recession (with 55%); and St. Louis passed a smoking ban (with 65%) generally regarded by us righties as an affront to liberty. If this is the “re-awakening of the conservative movement” in a red state that voted for McCain, I fear for the future.

There is a year left before the 2010 elections–and Tuesday should offer a powerful lesson to activists everywhere. Namely, there is no substitute for hard work in smaller local races that actually have an impact on people and their pocketbooks. Activists need to identify potential candidates and campaign staffers in their own neighborhoods, focus on the issues and races where they are best equipped to make a difference and not let small differences overshadow what we have in common.

A national coalition of Tea Party activists called Thursday for rallies in several states to announce their dissatisfaction with the Grand Old Party.  In an October 22 press release they state:

We are extremely disappointed that the Republican Party (and leaders like Newt Gingrich) has missed the message of the Tea Parties and continues to take conservative voters for granted. We applaud all courageous statesmen (Fred Thompson, Michelle Bachmann, and Dick Armey) and call on other GOP officials to put America’s values over traditional, often corrupt and morally bankrupt, power structures.

This is nothing new, and it is certainly nothing good.  I am no partisan apologist, mind you, and would not support Ms. Scozzafava.  My first significant political activity was on behalf of Pat Buchanan in the 1992 Republican primary in New Hampshire against a sitting Republican president.  You may remember how that ended: Buchanan lost the primary, and President Bush lost the general election.

That election saw another significant split among conservatives.  Ross Perot earned the votes of one-fifth of the electorate.  While he did less well in 1996 (8%), he significantly split fiscal conservatives from Republicans.  Bill Clinton never achieved 50% of the vote in either election–but took office nonetheless.  (This didn’t seem to bother Al Gore at the time.)  Perot’s organization eventually collapsed amid its own internecine struggles.

Grover Norquist, in remarks to the 2009 Conservative Heartland Leadership Conference, offered this about working together:

[The Right] should work to nominate and elect the most Reaganite Republican we can in any given district or state.  Now, we need to understand that that’s going to be a little bit different in Maine than Texas, and so it’s like grading on a curve.  I want the two Republicans out of Maine.  They are much better than the D’s we would have had out of Maine. Okay?  We’ve been disappointed in their votes from time to time.  There are two teams, there are two major Parties in the United States.  They are heading in completely different directions.

By picking a fight within the GOP and calling for an inquisition against RINOs, Tea Party activists are sowing the seeds of all our defeat.  There are plenty of people within the Republican Party with whom we disagree.  But reducing our current 218 members in the US House and Senate to a more pure 200 or 190 is no victory at all.

Chris Wilson of Wilson Research Strategies–and a fellow brigand from that 1992 Buchanan campaign–published a similar concern:

I don’t necessarily disagree with how the Tea Party members are expressing their anger and backing a candidate they believe in; however, their work will split the Republican vote and give NY CD23 to the Democrats.

The reason I believe the Republican and Conservative party candidates will fail is because they draw support from the same vote base.  If you split the conservative and moderate Republicans in just about any race in the nation, the base erodes and the candidate will lose.

I understand the urge to clean one’s own house, but as I learned from Morton Blackwell, “don’t make the good the enemy of the perfect.”  The issue in New York’s 23rd may very well be resolved due to pressure from national conservatives, but a campaign of eating our own is not something we should relish.

Observers of national policy may want to look at other countries’ experiences to see how they have fared with efforts to improve environmental policies.  Previous research on green jobs policies in Spain showed that costs were high and benefits short-lived.  But what of the President’s example of Germany?

The Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (RWI), an independent German economic policy think tank founded in 1926, has released its report on the matter entitled, “Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies: The German experience.”  To readers hoping for a government solution to  energy problems, page 4 delivers a devastating indictment of the German model:

German renewable energy policy, and in particular the adopted feed-in tariff scheme, has failed to harness the market incentives needed to ensure a viable and cost-effective introduction of renewable energies into the country’s energy portfolio.  To the contrary, the government’s support mechanisms have in many respects subverted these incentives, resulting in massive expenditures that show little long-term promise for stimulating the economy, protecting the environment, or increasing energy security.

The German experience has resulted in plenty of government spending with little to show for it.  Here are some of my schadenfreude favorites:

• “The amount of electricity produced through solar photovoltaics [or PV which are solar panels] was a negligible 0.6% despite being the most subsidized renewable energy, with a net cost of about 8.4 Bn € (US $12.4 Bn) for 2008″ (page 5).

• “The real net cost for all [solar panel] modules installed between 2000 and 2008 account for about 35 Bn € (US $ 48 Bn) (in prices of 2007).  Future PV installations in 2009 and 2010 may cause further real cost worth 18.3 Bn € (US $ 25.5 Bn) (Table 4).   Adding both figures yields a total of 53.3 Bn € (US $ 73.2 Bn) for PV alone” (page 15).

Nobody said adopting a new energy model would be cheap, and Americans have certainly taken on large and expensive new endeavors because of the subsequent economic payoff (e.g. the Interstate Highway System).  Even if the cost is no object, the RWI study indicates that the benefit is no incentive.  The report tells us that, “currently, the feed-in tariff for PV is more than eight times higher than the wholesale electricity price at the power exchange” (page 5, emphasis added).  This is after years of government support of the solar power industry.   “Even on-shore wind [energy], widely regarded as a mature technology, requires feed-in tariffs that exceed the per-kWh cost of conventional electricity by up to 300% to remain competitive” (page 5, emphasis added).  In other words, even when green energy industries are up and running for a while, their costs remain several times higher than conventionally produced energy.

Page 9 of the RWI report addresses the German experience as far as it relates to job creation:

In the end, Germany’s PV promotion has become a subsidization regime that, on a per-worker basis, has reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per worker subsidies as high as 175,000 € (US $ 240,000).

It is most likely that whatever jobs are created by renewable energy promotion would vanish as soon as government support is terminated, leaving only Germany’s export sector to benefit from the possible continuation of renewables support in other countries such as the US.

Furthermore, the report states that estimates of green job creation due to the German energy regime are flawed because they fail to account for any job losses at less-favored (and likely cheaper) forms of energy.

As Chinese manufacturers produce PV cells cheaper than Germans can, the subsidies end up as a giant transfer of wealth from German taxpayers to Chinese companies.  Because of this, even Germany’s leading PV manufacturer is calling for the subsidies to be cut, both to make the industry more efficient and to reduce energy costs to consumers.  That’s right, the Germans are concluding that reduced subsidies mean greater efficiencies and lower costs!

Lastly, die-hard environmentalists may say that green energy production is more important than the cost of energy or number of jobs it creates (or destroys).  But even on its own merits as an environmental energy, solar is a failure.  The report states on page 19:

PV is among the most expensive greenhouse gas abatement options: Given the net cost of 41.82 Cents (Cents 63.00 US $) per kWh for modules installed in 2008 (Table 4), and assuming that PV displaces conventional electricity generated from a mixture of gas and hard coal with an emissions factor of 0.584 kg carbon dioxide (CO2) per kWh (Nitsch et al. 2005:66), then dividing the two figures yields abatement costs that are as high as 716 € (1,050 US$) per tonne.

The European Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) is about 13.4€  per ton, or 53 times less than those for solar production.  In other words, if you’re looking to be green with your greenback, solar energy production is the worst way to go.

Notwithstanding the current climate, the United States is by far the largest economy in the world.  The choices we make have far greater global impact than any other economy.  While it is right to look to other countries for examples of policies that work, the fact remains that so-called green energy production is a failed experiment.  Even those who pioneered it are looking for a way out.  There is simply no reason to think that even US Rep Peter Hoekstra’s magic bureaucrats in Washington, DC can deliver efficient and economic energy from solar power.

It remains to be seen if the political activity that this summer generated hundreds of Tea Party protests and capacity crowd town hall meetings turns into a lasting political force.  Many will participate in one event and go back to the daily grind.  A few will remain active, and some may even use their outrage to invest their time and treasure into political campaigns.

For those who seek to become active, there are plenty of resources.  Citizens In Charge and Ballotpedia.org are both aimed at informing citizens of ballot initiatives and expanding the rights of citizens to petition government directly.

There are also organizations that will train candidates and campaign staff.  Since 1979, Morton Blackwell’s Leadership Institute has worked to train candidates and activists to run effective campaigns for office, mostly on the statewide and federal level.   But traveling across a state or a large congressional district for weeks and months at a time can be too great a sacrifice for most.

For those who want to stay closer to home and still be involved there is American Majority.  Founded just last year by brothers Drew and Ned Ryun (sons of the former Congressman from Kansas), American Majority focuses on identifying community leaders and encouraging them to play a role in local and state politics where they can have the greatest effect.  Its website declares:

American Majority specifically advocates for a reversal of the seat of government power and a return to true federalism, wherein states and localities hold the great majority of everyday government exercise.

This is a great goal, especially when too many political figures who should know better have been lured to Washington just to offer us one-size-fits-all Washington-based policies.  In an interview with Ryun during a Kansas City training session, he stressed the organization’s desire to focus attention on small and local governments.  He tells Tea Party activists:

Let’s move beyond the protesting and the rallying to doing something about implementing.  Let’s move from protesting freedom to implementing on behalf of freedom.  Take over your local communities.  If you have 5,000 people showing up at your Tea Party, I’m betting out of those 5,000, there are a couple people that should be running for school board or city council. The rest of the people should be helping those people win.

To that end, American Majority has developed school board manuals explaining how a school board works, among other resources.  Ryun explained, “ We have a city council manual. We are offering a county commission seminar this fall laying out how the system works and offering ideas for what reform items need to take place in a given state.”

And while Ryun’s American Majority may focus on smaller political districts, the focus is still national.  “I am going to the state and local levels, just getting people involved,” said Ryun.  “I want people to be engaged in the process.  I want to talk about grassroots action, explain to people that if they take over their local community as best they can, they are going to cause national change.”

But Ryun has no illusions about what it takes.  “A lot of these people are realizing that the work ahead is harder than turning out for two hours and protesting.  But if you really want to see change, if you really want to see something effective happen, you have to implement.”  Despite this, he says that some Tea Party organizations have taken up the challenge.  Many have become bloggers, keeping a watchful eye on politicians.  Some groups have focused their attention to taking over the city counsel.

And when will American Majority’s work be done?  Ryun responds:

There are 15,000 school districts. There are over 3,000 municipalities.  There are 50 state legislatures. The work is probably never going to be done because there are so many positions that need to be filled—and because we need so many people committed to principle running and winning.  It’s going to take a long time.

This echoes Benjamin Franklin’s famous reply to a woman asking what the Constitutional Convention had wrought.  His answer, “A Republic, if you can keep it,” continues to challenge us to this day.  American will only have the freedoms they are willing to work to defend.