Government welfare is addicting.  It creates dependency by the recipients and control for the government.  Federal welfare takes many forms.  We tend to focus on the part that is meant for the poor but that may be the least offensive version.  The program is ineffective and immoral but at least we can see the need.

From an economic point of view, many of the other versions are far more dangerous; welfare programs distort market signals.  They reward and encourage inefficiencies, wastefulness and even corruption.  These programs are not charity, they are vote buying.  Charity is when you give YOUR OWN money, not someone else’s.

But, the federal dependency has many more facets.  There are countless businesses lined up at the trough to get their taxpayer feeding.  Solyndra is but one example and even it is not the most egregious for the simple fact that it received a grant, a one-time thing.  These are bad enough and there are plenty of other examples but the real culprit in all of this is the entire dependency system that the federal government encourages and perpetuates.

The government’s perpetual intervention into the economy, mostly in the capital markets contributes to undermining the free operation of the economy.  Prices are a communication system.  We know what job to take based on the compensation offered; we know where to invest based on the profits and losses of the firms we are considering.  When the government intervenes, it distorts prices and then the communication system is full of static and false signals.  These interventions take several forms, all of which should be eliminated entirely.

Government Sponsored Enterprises

Exhibit A  are the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) and the foremost among them are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  They have been proudly screwing up the housing market for years, since 1938 and 1970 respectfully.  They have been serving as outplacement firms for displaced politicians for years and so naturally they are run much like the federal government; at a loss and begging for more taxpayer’s money.  Of the Fortune 100 for 2011, six firms report a net loss, Chrysler, Bank of America, Sprint, Rite Aid, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  The government sponsors two and “bailed out” two others.  All are a money pit of wasted capital.

Subsidies

But, the GSEs are only part of the issue and subsidies are more insidious.  The federal government hands out subsidies and money to so many it is hard to track.  Dairy, sugar, corn, wheat, barley, oats, cotton, rice, and many more agricultural producers get subsidized as do all the energy producers and countless other firms and industries.  Subsidies create an over-supply by propping up inefficient producers and thus wasting resources.  Subsidies push prices down to the over-supply thus creating a “need” for more subsidies.

Loan Programs

Then there are the loan programs.  Small businesses have loan programs, minority owned small businesses, women owned small businesses, small businesses owned by minority women, loan guarantees for big businesses and student loans to name a few.  I am a huge fan of small businesses.  I have written and done research on entrepreneurship and there is no bigger supporter of the entrepreneurial process.  But, I am an even bigger fan of efficient use of resources and if a business cannot make it without a government loan its resources should be bid away by better firms.  If we, as consumers choose not to patronize the business, why should we as taxpayers be forced to support it?

And then there are student loans.  The next bubble, the collapse in waiting.  I am a college professor, among other things.  A large portion of my income is dependent on people wanting and getting a higher education.  But the entire industry save Hillsdale College is dependent on federal grants and loans.  Want to know why the drop out rates are so high and college degrees are not that valuable, part of the explanation is that the student loan programs allow marginal students to attend.  Colleges, hungry for money lower academic standards to get a year’s tuition from a student that would not have gone to college fifty years ago.  And might I mention that at the bigger schools a potential faculty member’s prospects are partially dependent on how much federal research grant money he has.

State Aid

I spent five years as a senior budget analyst for the State of Maryland.  It is obscene how much money the federal government gives back to the states (with strings attached).  The states are dependent on federal programs for highway construction, national guard, law enforcement, all sorts of health programs, education, public broadcasting, environmental regulations, subsidized housing and on it goes.  In 2011, Maryland received almost 12 percent of its total budget from the federal government, over $81 million.  That may not sound like much but Maryland is a small state and the funds are not just blanket funds.  The federal government targets things that they want to control.  If a state wants its transportation money, it will abide by the federal guidelines on drinking age and speed limits and so forth.  There is a reason the states seemed to have lost their sovereignty and they all sort of look alike in policy, the feds have them all on the same string.  Brandeis’ laboratories of democracy have become craven teat suckers.

Conclusion

Dependency is becoming a way of life and it is destructive.  In a recent article former Obama official, Steve Rattner argues that capitalism is flawed and bailouts are the new normal.  To put it simply; he is wrong.  What is flawed is the government’s constant and persistent interventions into the market in ways large and small that distort incentives and lead to misallocation of resources.  Rattner argues that the government had to bailout the auto industry because there were no private funds but he never sees that there may have been funds if Freddie Mac was not losing an average of $25 billion a year here of late.  Maybe there would have been private funds if the government was not taxing and borrowing so heavily to finance its massive subsidy program.  Or maybe, just maybe some of these firms should have closed.  Here is a list of the Dow Jones 30 from 1928 and 2007 side by side.  Many of the nation’s largest firms in 1928 no longer exist and yet the country is wealthier and better off now.  A growing economy is dynamic, not locked into the stagnancy of dependency.  If we are to grow there MUST be creative destruction as the newest firms replace the older ones, as new methods replace old ones, and new technologies replace older ones.  One hundred years ago this administration would bailed out the buggy makers.  Thirty years ago it would have been saving the typewriter industry.  I think it is still considering a bank teller bailout.  .

This dependency culture leads to distorted incentives that often lead to perverse results.  The brilliant but underrated economist, Gordon Tullock observed on his trips to Asia that beggars often mutilated themselves to look more pitiful in the eyes of potential donors.  He also noted that Americans do the equivalent in order to look more needful to government aid granters.  Towns leave the main roads unrepaired and whenever a state is in trouble it threatens to end vital services and student loan applicants always look poor and destitute.  Americans must decide; are we dependents or are we achievers.  Right now we say we are achievers but many of our policies lead to dependency and it needs to end if we want to return to real and sustained economic growth.

Take Friday’s jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Nonfarm payrolls gained 200,000 and the unemployment rate slipped to 8.5 percent from 8.7 percent. It may well be that a seasonal quirk added 42,000 messengers and couriers to the totals, but that will be lost in the headline reporting. It will be given back next month. It’s inconsequential to the overall story. Likewise, a normal labor participation rate would yield much higher unemployment. But that’s academic.

Like any president, Mr. Obama will take credit for these economic gains. He’s doing that right now. And he has a case to make: A year ago the unemployment rate was 9.4 percent, and in 2011 it fell almost a percentage point. In the twelve months through December 2011, the economy produced 1.64 million new jobs, while in 2010, only 940,000 were created. On a monthly average basis, 137,000 new jobs per month were created in 2011, compared to only 78,000 a month in 2010. Things are getting better.

Now, whether this has anything to do with Barack Obama’s policies is quite another matter. After all, coming out of a deep recession, monthly jobs should be closer to 300,000 or 400,000, as they were during the Reagan recovery in 1983-84. The unemployment rate should be falling much faster. This should be the Republican message.

Ironically, while President Obama takes credit for better jobs today, his forecast at the time of the $800 billion stimulus package was for near 6 percent unemployment at this stage in the cycle. So the stimulus didn’t work. And in terms of recovery rates, pro-growth policies following a deep recession — as per the Reagan experience — might be creating 6 to 8 percent economic growth rather than the 2.5 percent tepid growth of the two-year Obama recovery.

Message to Republicans? Be bold. Adopt a 5 percent growth target. Don’t settle for less. Adopt a clear pro-growth platform that emphasizes aggressive fundamental tax-and-regulatory reform for individuals and businesses. Especially make the case for the energy revolution, where blue-collar employment is vitally involved. Deregulate Obamacare to zero. Work on a sound King Dollar.

Most of all, get government out of the way. Instead, open the door for the animal spirits of risk-taking that could torque the economy. And work harder to make a case for limited government spending and deficit reduction, as Sen. Marco Rubio has just done with a tough letter to the president. As Rubio put it: “It’s a tragic reality, but on [Obama’s] watch, more and more people have come to believe that America is becoming a deadbeat nation.”

Finally, avoid special preferences for individual parts of the economy that distort economic incentives and actually slow down economic growth. As Kim Strassel writes in the Wall Street Journal, the Reagan plan years ago was an optimistic growth message for everyone, not just targeted classes or economic sectors. So don’t mimic Obama. Mimic Reagan. Clarify the goal of growth, growth, growth.

How about this? Get rid of special tax deductions, corporate welfare subsidies, and cronyism. Overthrow the political establishment in Washington.

What’s really driving today’s better economy is the resilience of America’s free-market capitalist system. In spite of the future threats from excess tax and regulatory actions coming out of Washington, the self-correcting American economy is in fact improving.

And that’s going to make defeating Obama tougher. Face it. That’s the reality.

Here’s another point: With better jobs, consumer incomes and spending power are actually rising about 5 percent annually right now. Corporate profits at 13 percent of GDP are the highest since 1950. And both companies and households have deleveraged substantially. So the economy could grow by 3 percent in 2012. And if Europe ever settles down, that could turn out to be a 4 percent growth rate with 2 percent or less inflation.

So just complaining about the economy is not a good GOP message. Better to focus more on a reelected Obama who will raise tax rates on entrepreneurs and successful earners and regulate businesses more heavily (that’s what the NLRB and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau flap is really about). Argue against redistribution, and in favor of opportunity and growth.

The GOP message has to be “We can do this better.” Growth at 2.5 percent with 8 percent unemployment should be replaced with 5 percent growth and 5 percent unemployment. Say that. And then say: Here’s how we will do it.

And while it is widely acknowledged that the top 5% of earners pay over 50 percent of federal taxes, there has been a growing concentration of wealth within that top 5% of income earners during the last 20 years. Politicians love to define issues in a debate to gain popular advantage. The country is in desperate need of economic growth, which the Obama Administration has failed effectively to address. So, the White House has made increased taxes on “millionaires and billionaires” the cornerstone of their 2012 election strategy. Excessive spending, the growth of the federal deficit and the accumulated debt of the country threaten to snuff out economic growth in America just as it surely is doing in Europe. When Barack Obama became President, the federal debt was slightly over $10 trillion dollars. It has grown to more than $14 trillion dollars under his watch. If spending is not reined in, and/or revenues do not increase, servicing the nation’s debt will crowd out vital resources for private investment (where new jobs are created).

Elected officials are not leading; they talk past one another. The way out of this mess might be in changing the vocabulary of the debate so both sides can claim a victory. The Democrats could hoist the GOP on their own petard by shifting the debate away from tax increases, to cutting corporate entitlements and benefits. Note that the right complains about spending only when the beneficiaries are those who rely on government to help with retirement payments, medical benefits, or to finance their children’s education. Cutting specified corporate entitlements that really provide no economic benefit to the country would be easier for conservatives to swallow than increasing tax rates, which would retard economic growth.

Business Entitlements, or what the left likes to call “corporate welfare”, runs in excess of $100 billion a year according to the libertarian CATO Institute. These so-called incentives are often misallocations of federal spending on programs that simply do not work, or otherwise distort free enterprise competition. Let’s eliminate these wasteful programs and deflate, once and for all, leftist arguments that the rich are opposed to raising tax revenues. These misguided corporate taxpayer handouts are spread throughout the federal budget. The actual total expenditures are hard to quantify, but are larger than the entire annual budgets of many countries. Even conservatives have trouble agreeing on which programs constitute proper government spending or which amount, figuratively, to flushing government revenue down the drain.

Businesses that are darlings of both the left and the right happily feed at the taxpayer-subsidized trough. While the United States boasts the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, a variety of tax breaks assure that few corporations pay at the full 35% corporate tax rate. One study published by the left-leaning Citizens for Tax Justice found only 25% of companies paying more than 30%, while 35% were paying at an effective tax rate of 17.5% to 30% and 40% were paying less than 17.5%. And, of course, many profitable fortune 500 companies manage to pay no federal income taxes at all. Among those corporate luminaries paying no federal income taxes for the last three tax years were General Electric, PG&E, Baxter International, Verizon, Boeing, Mattel and Corning (to name a few).

Until this year, the nation had spent over $50 billion to subsidize the production of ethanol to produce fuel from corn (at a taxpayer subsidy of about $1.50 a gallon). The rationale for this program was to reduce the nation’s reliance on imported oil. Of course, it has done no such thing. Instead, it is nothing more than a subsidy to farmers (mostly corporate owned) and ethanol refiners. The real result has been that corn available for human and animal consumption has dropped precipitously, and food prices have shot up dramatically. According to a 2006 USDA report, the indirect subsidy to ethanol on the 4.9 billion gallons produced in 2006 came to $3.9 billion. Together with the direct subsidies of $0.9 billion for corn and $2.5 billion for ethanol the grand total was $7.3 billion. That’s $1.50 per gallon of ethanol, or $2.28 per gallon of gasoline replaced. These subsidies have produced an enormous boom in ethanol. Between August 2006 and January 2007, the capacity of existing plants and plants under construction grew from 7.4 billion gallons to 11.4 billion gallons — a 54% increase in six months. One USDA official described the state of the market as ethanol euphoria. What did this do for the American taxpayer? Nothing other than increase the cost of living.

In June of this year the Senate voted to end this subsidy, it is not yet clear whether it will really end. As Yogi Berra famously put it, “It’s not over until it’s over”. Moreover, it has always been unnecessary since Congress already had required automobile manufacturers to reduce fuel usage under the 2007 renewable fuel standards. Another favorite of the left (and those businesses who are recipients of federal money) are high-speed rail projects. George Will (not exactly known as a leftist) in his February 28 column succinctly put it this way:

Generations hence, when the river of time has worn this presidency’s importance to a small, smooth pebble in the stream of history, people will still marvel that its defining trait was a mania for high-speed rail projects. This disorder illuminates the progressive mind.

Remarkably widespread derision has greeted the Obama administration’s “damn-the-arithmetic-full-speed-ahead proposal to spend $53 billion more (after the $8 billion in stimulus money and $2.4 billion in enticements to 23 states) in the next six years pursuant to the president’s loopy goal of giving “80 percent of Americans access to high speed rail.”

Criticism of this optional and irrational spending — meaning: borrowing — during a deficit crisis has been withering. Only an administration blinkered by ideology would persist.

Perhaps the biggest objective of the left is the cap-and-trade requirement of the Kyoto treaty (which liberals loved). The “treaty” had as its rationale a reduction in carbon emissions in the atmosphere. The effect on our economy if we joined the treaty would have been disastrous. EU nations signed on to the treaty, which is soon slated to expire. It has become so unpopular and costly that early indications are that the EU will not agree to a renewal.

Now let us return to the central point of this essay. Billions of dollars are spent every year by the government to subsidize corporations. Not all corporations benefit from every subsidy. What most conservatives and corporations do agree upon, to the point that it has become doctrine, is that they absolutely oppose any tax increase that would retard economic growth. Therefore, why don’t we reach a compromise by not raising tax rates (which is what the President’s own Deficit and Debt Reduction Commission recommended) and, instead, eliminate most or all of these subsidies? The result is likely to be the same: Much more revenue being contributed by “the wealthy”.

People with a central planner’s mentality have what renowned Austrian economist F.A. Hayek called “the fatal conceit.” As he stated the case:

I’d have thought the fall of the Soviet Union would have taught us that central planning is destructive, but the conceit of the central planners lives on. Maybe the problem isn’t merely economic ignorance. Maybe it’s something more sinister: a wish to keep the freeloading system going. After all, if politicians and business leaders admit that government cannot play a constructive role in the economy, what grounds would there be for subsidies, shelter from competitors and other privileges at the people’s expense? The anti-free-market ideology is a vast rationalization for favoritism.

Hayek’s celebrated 1947 prescient book predicted with great clarity what becomes of nations that worship at the alter of central planning. The book was titled “The Road to Serfdom.”

By Hal Gershowitz and Stephen Porter

Parked horizontally on the grounds of the Iowa Straw Poll throughout the weekend was a blade from a wind turbine. Prominently displayed on the turbine blade were the corporate logos of GE and TPI Composites. These two companies partner together to develop subsidized wind farms throughout Iowa. Representatives of this partnership provided magic markers to straw poll attendees and to politicians. People could then indicate support of the projects by signing the turbine blade. In addition, politicians were provided a speaking area to verbally express their support of renewable energy subsidies in front of the blade.

Both Mitt Romney and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), amongst other politicians, attached their signatures to the declaration of support for wind energy subsidies. Considering Mitt Romney’s portrayal of himself as a businessperson with an economic vision starkly opposed to President Obama’s, his apparent support for renewable energy subsidies for TPI Composites may give conservatives pause. Unbeknownst to most Republican primary voters, several other prominent Democrats strongly support corporate welfare for TPI Composites. In fact, President Obama mentioned stimulus funds provided to TPI Composites in a speech last year. Another Massachusetts politician, stalwart Leftist Barney Frank, recently proudly announced the placement of a TPI plant in Fall River, MA—a plant supported with a $250,000 grant from the government.

The apparent endorsement by several Republican presidential candidates of this particular corporate welfare recipient will likely raise questions with conservative primary voters.

After all, TPI Composites has also received accolades from Barney Frank, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and President Obama. Iowa companies have received more than $160 million in Department of Energy stimulus grants. How unfortunate that some Republican contenders chose to endorse more of the same instead of taking the opportunity to explain the senselessness of such a system.  One would think that the Iowa Straw Poll would have been the optimal event to explain the free market perspective rather than acquiesce to the demands for more corporate welfare.

Republican presidential candidate signatures attesting support for renewable energy subsidies

The Battle For Brooklyn, a documentary about one man’s fight to stop a private developer from using eminent domain to take his home, recently opened in select theaters in New York City after a successful film-festival run.

In 2003, billionaire real estate developer and New Jersey Nets owner Bruce Ratner decided to move the team to Brooklyn, with the intention of building an arena, an affordable housing project, and bringing desperately needed jobs to the borough of Brooklyn. Ratner’s friend and fellow billionaire, Michael Bloomberg, enthusiastically put the weight of top-down government planning behind the project. That included using the city government’s extensive powers of eminent domain, despite the fact eminent domain is supposed to be used only in cases where development is for public uses such as schools and roads. And despite the fact that the construction of what became known as the “Atlantic Yards” project would displace many thriving businesses and homes.

Graphic designer Daniel Goldstein fought for nearly seven years to keep his home out of the hands of Ratner’s company, Forest City Ratner. Goldstein’s quixotic struggle is the centerpiece of The Battle For Brooklyn.

Reason.tv sat down with co-directors Michael Galinsky and Suki Hawley to discuss eminent domain abuse and political perceptions of their film. Galinsky and Hawley insist their film is not a polemic, but rather an all-too-common story of a single person fighting an injustice against figures whose power and influence drawf his own.

Produced by Anthony L. Fisher. About 4.40 minutes.

Go to http://reason.tv for downloadable versions, and subscribe to our YouTube Channel to receive notifications when new material goes live.

Related video: Billionaires vs. Brooklyn’s Best Bar: Eminent Domain Abuse and the Atlantic Yards Project.

[Lead in to Rep. Benishek]
The debate over the budget for the remainder of this year was very contentious. There’s been a tremendous amount of pressure; from the media, to the President and the Democrats (including a great deal of rancor within the Republican caucus itself), the Continuing Resolution (H.R. 1473) to fund the Government through September 30 had the attention of the entire country.

Many people have been very critical of Speaker Boehner and the process that got this deal done as well as what it actually contains. A great deal of attention has been paid to this fight by Tea Party folks and many others. A lot of Americans, both left AND right, believe they were “played” by Leadership on both sides of the aisle – sold a bill of goods filled with what we once called “fuzzy math” – and they are not happy. But the vote is done now, the bill has passed, and we’re moving ahead.

Q: In 2010 Americans sent a lot of new faces to Washington to change the direction of the country. Right now, people are feeling they’ve been sold out. Were they?

Congressman Benishek: People should not feel sold out. They can be frustrated. I am frustrated that the cuts were not bigger, but we have to remember Democrats still control the Senate and White House. I believe the Speaker did the best he could with the resources he had. I was not directly involved in negotiating with President Obama and Senator Reid, but I can tell you that as long as I am given the opportunity to vote for significant reductions in spending, I will be a “Yea” vote every time.

Q: What happened, how are you going to handle negotiations differently going forward, and what do we all need to be paying closer attention to?

Congressman Benishek: The biggest thing to keep in mind is that we were dealing with last year’s spending bill. The fact that we were cleaning up the last Congress’s mess in the middle of the fiscal year made it difficult. Also, I think the troops potentially not being paid was the biggest factor in the CR passing. I would like to see some sort of priority for what gets paid in the event of a government shutdown — that would strengthen our negotiating position.

What we all need to pay attention to is the information, or misinformation that is out there. For example, I have made a pledge that I will not vote to reduce the Social Security or Medicare benefits of anyone 55 or older, yet the DCCC and the liberal groups out there continue to run ads saying that is exactly what I am voting for. This is the same fight that we had back in November, and people didn’t fall for the lies then. We need to be aggressive with our message.

Q: Do you think the Leadership fully understands just how strongly the American people feel about jobs, the economy (including the crisis with fuel prices), the need to reduce spending, put an end to Corporate Welfare, the Ethanol scam, unconstitutional lawmaking power in the cabinet departments, endless trillion dollar deficits, and the need for Congress to restore the rule of law?

Congressman Benishek: Through the many meetings and one-on-one conversations with Speaker Boehner, Representatives Cantor and McCarthy; I can assure folks, they get it. They are proud of our freshman class and look for our input and recommendations. They will push as hard as they can to achieve the best deals they can. A lot of people wanted to see a shutdown this time around, but I don’t really know if that was the route to go over the CR. Realistically, had we cut $300 billion from the CR, we’d still be running a trillion dollar deficit so I’m not sure that this was the right time and place for a battle of that magnitude.

Q: Ryan’s proposed budget has already been rejected by the President and the Democrats, and is being demagogued by them and the media. What is your position on Ryan’s plan, and what do you want your constituents (and the American people) to know about the contents of the plan itself?

Congressman Benishek: I am a big supporter of Rep. Ryan’s budget. His roadmap was one of the first documents I turned to when considering my run for Congress. Talking about his plan created a lot of the backlash during my campaign, and it hasn’t stopped since. I voted for it, and I won’t be backing away from it. It’s important that the online community through the bloggers and social networking continue to get the word out. We should be asking everyone, including the President, “if Ryan’s budget is so bad, where is your plan?”

Q: We know entitlements are going to necessarily be affected by whatever “final” version of Ryan’s plan is presented to you for a vote. Is there anything in your mind that (as the President continues to insist) is “off the table”?

Congressman Benishek: My promise is that nothing will change for those 55 or older when it comes to Social Security or Medicare. Everything else remains on the table. These are the biggest drivers of future debt and need to be dealt with.

Q: The debt ceiling fight looms. There is overwhelming support across the country for a firm NO vote against any increase to the National debt. Will you vote against raising it? Under what circumstances will you vote “yea”?

Congressman Benishek: The debt ceiling will be a crucial test for this Congress. I have said in the past that I am against raising the debt limit unless we get something huge. Speaker Boehner said “something really, really big.” I just hope that his “really, really big” and my “huge” turn out to be the same thing. To me, the things that fall into the category of huge; a full repeal of Obamacare; a Balanced Budget Amendment; a cap on spending set below 20% GDP. I am sure others will be bringing ideas into the conversation and I am willing to listen. But like I said, this is a crucial test, one I believe the freshmen have to pass.

Q: There has been an ongoing movement to get more grassroots people involved, at the local level, by actually taking back the GOP from RINOS who too often side with big government liberals. This “Precinct Committeeman” strategy has made great gains but still finds far too many PC slots vacant. Have you heard about this initiative? What are your thoughts on the idea of engaging more people at the activist level and encouraging them to take seats inside the Party? What will you do in your District to get more people active and involved, and help get those slots filled?

Congressman Benishek: I have heard about this and think it’s a great way to get involved. Using my district as a reference point, I can tell you that many of our new County Chairs are involved in the “Tea Party/grassroots” movement. When I meet with people in my District and they suggest that I am not doing enough here, this is where I take the conversation.

I ask them if they think we like having to compromise with the Senate and the President. I am here in DC fighting for everything I can, but we need people to get involved. The Republican Party is what it is because of who is willing to invest their time and energy. I will leave it to those that decide to get involved what they want out of the party, but I think we have bigger issues to worry about – 2012 for example. The grassroots pouring their hearts and souls into the November elections is what got us started, but the job is not finished. The road to we need to go down will be smoother if we have a Senate and White House that will work with us.

Q: The Republican Party has a serious messaging problem. What concrete plans do you and the rest of the Membership have for getting out your message if/when the Leadership refuses to confront media distortions? How are you and your fellow freshmen in the House, going to get out the Conservative message more effectively and preemptively?

[Note: Answer combined with next question, below]

Q: What do you, in particular, and you as a group (Freshmen Congressmen) need from all of us, not just those from your district, to enable you to go against Leadership when it is the right thing to do? How do you think that these interviews will help further the goal of returning to constitutional, limited government? What are the issues you are focused on this week, month, and year, and what kinds of support from us would help the most?

Congressman Benishek: I want to address the last two questions together. Let’s talk about the “messaging” problem the Republican Party has, but let me explain why I put that in quotes.

Is it really a problem with messaging, or is there a problem with what gets delivered via MSM? I think that if we expect our message and our ideas to get out through those that don’t agree with our message and our ideas, we are fooling ourselves. The best way to get our message moved forward is just like this. For obvious reasons, blogs, internet news sites, twitter, and Facebook is where the grassroots goes to get information. The problem that we run into with this strategy is that it’s like herding cats. Our belief in the individual means that not everyone is going to follow the leader because there isn’t one.

Case in point, after the CR was agreed to, we had half of the online community voicing concern that the freshmen caved, and we had the other half saying that the freshmen got the best deal they could. We had some saying that they are going to primary those that voted yes, and we had others saying let’s move on from billions to trillions. The whole time we had the MSM talking about the divide on our side. This is not an effective strategy for us. I would encourage those of you that have an online audience to make sure that you contact the freshmen and ask to be added to their distribution list for press releases. Attempt to establish a relationship with their press shop and request interviews such as this.

For many of us freshmen, this is all new and while we are the same people that were elected back in November, we still need your help. One of my favorites, Winston Churchill said, “This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.” Let’s not overlook what we’ve done so far. President Obama asked for mulligan for his earlier budget proposal. Even after Ryan teed it up for him, he still couldn’t hit the short grass. The conversation has changed here; we are now talking about reducing spending. Not only are we talking about it, we are doing it.

I don’t know how much this freshman class is going to be able to accomplish, but I do know we will be able to accomplish a lot more if we have a Senate and a White House that doesn’t fight us every step of the way. If there is one message that needs to get out there, that would be the one.

[Wrap]
I appreciate Rep. Benishek taking the time to respond to my questions, and thank him very much for his honesty and forthrightness in the answers he provided. The take away from this conversation is straight forward enough; engage and participate, and work together with your elected Officials rather than just yelling and screaming or blindly cheering them on without a close and thorough inspection of the issue(s).

They need an honest dialog with the American people; one that is open, constructive, and forward thinking. There is never going to be universal agreement on matters of politics and policy, but the better educated we (and our readers) become, the more likely it is for us to accept whatever outcomes our Politicians produce precisely because we helped them to produce it.

Both Houses of Congress will reconvene on May 2, 2011 and begin their work again in earnest. Let’s find our Reps, follow their activities, and engage them (constructively) as they set about trying to do the People’s business and bring sanity back to a broken economy, a crushing debt, an unsustainable spending spree, and an unacceptable over-reach by the Federal Government.

[Freshman Congressman Dan Benishek represents Michigan's 1st Congressional District in the US House of Representatives. In this capacity, Dan serves on the Natural Resources, Veterans Affairs, and Science, Space and Technology Committees.

"Dr. Dan" gave up his successful surgeon's practice in the Upper Peninsula to run against Bart Stupak in the wake of Stupaks "yes" vote on Obamacare. He and his wife, Judy, currently live in Crystal Falls. They have five children and two grandchildren. Dan is also an avid hunter and fisherman and a proud member of the NRA and the GOA.]

CrossPosted

It’s interesting to note that while Ronald Reagan cracked down on GE in the mid-1980s—he overhauled the tax system after learning that G.E. was among dozens of corporations that had used accounting gamesmanship to avoid paying any taxes—President Obama has taken the opposite approach. CEO Immelt and Obama have appeared joined at the hip of late, with the President even appointing him chairman of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

Among the actions Immelt has taken over the years to preserve GE’s preferential tax treatment, was to bribe Charles B. Rangel in 2008 (then Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee) with a $30 million “donation” to New York City schools, including $11 million to benefit various schools in Mr. Rangel’s district.

It’s all here in this devastating indictment of GE by NY Times reporter David Kocieniewski.