Now it is important that Republicans read the right message in the tea leaves: “You are on probation!”

It seems paradoxical that a political party could win such commanding victories, yet be held in such low regard by voters. A recent NYT/CBS poll (10/26) found the favorable rating for the Republican Party was 41% and a recent AP poll (10/18) pegged the job performance approval rating for Congressional Republicans at 28%. As my parents always used to say, “trust must be earned” – and it is earned with actions, not pledges.

Republicans have failed us miserably in the recent past by failing, among other things, to curb spending and debt, reform entitlements, or tackle illegal immigration.  In fact, they have bloated spending, increased debt and expanded entitlement programs.

Republicans cannot afford to play politics at the margins, focus more on maintaining their power rather than changing Washington, or return us to the business-as-usual approach of “plodding along.” It isn’t often that one can claim to speak for the entire tea party movement without swift rebuke, but I feel confident in saying that the tea parties will not tolerate timid or self-motivated politics.

The stakes could not be higher.  Americans are threatened with a disastrous fiscal collapse unless immediate and drastic action is taken to address the underlying causes.  Neither major party has had the political fortitude to offer such a plan.  The Republican Pledge to America released in September was plainly inadequate.  The tea parties demand courageous action – now.

Just so there is no confusion, here are the major demands:

1)      Repeal and defund the 2010 health care legislation: Even though this is in the GOP’s Pledge to America, recent news stories reported Republicans hedging on this pledge before the elections even had taken place. Make no mistake: the health care legislation was the single biggest factor in these elections. On Nov. 1, Rasmussen reported that 58% of Americans want Obamacare repealed. Republicans must do everything possible to repeal and defund the health care law. Equivocation will not be tolerated.

2)      Make significant spending cuts that are deeper than the target in the Republican Pledge to America: We are sitting on a $13 trillion debt, but Congress continues to increase spending.  The Pledge to America only suggests a return to 2008 spending levels. Rolling “all the way back” to 2008 spending levels is not courageous leadership. We need to see permanent spending cuts and the elimination of federal programs.

3)      Reform entitlements: We are on an unsustainable path guaranteeing catastrophic failure. If Republicans truly care for the elderly and sick they will make the necessary changes and empower the participants in these programs to make decisions that are best for their future.

4)      Cut taxes for job creators: If we are serious about creating jobs and getting out of this unemployment nightmare, then we must cut taxes for ALL private businesses and not just those the politicians deem worthy. Let’s face it: if you are without a job, you want as many doors open to you as possible. Why allow the federal government to narrow your choices?

The list continues: audit the Fed, enforce immigration laws, eliminate unfunded and unconstitutional mandates on states, and permanently kill cap-and-trade legislation.

The tea party movement was the political tsunami of 2010, and now we will be looking for results.  We hope for bold, principled leadership from Congressional Republicans.   If not, we will do our best to replace the perfunctory Republicans in 2012.  Make no mistake: performance will determine re-employment.

If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, your child is a natural born politician.  Now to ensure his success in the political world, send him to Camp Politics for a three-week intensive training program:

Once he gets elected to office, the most important thing for him to learn is how to stay there.  If he does a bad job, people will want to get him out of office.  So your child will need to learn how to silence those that want to speak out against him.

Of course, this violates basic free speech rights.  But Camp Politics has figured out a sure-fire way around the First Amendment that means politics will remain a game for special interests and political insiders.

It’s called campaign finance laws.

We all know that speaking takes money.  And the only way ordinary Americans can speak out effectively about politics is to pool their resources with their friends and neighbors.  But campaign finance laws limit the amount of money people can spend on political ads and organizing and they wrap people in red tape to the point that they can’t even speak!

When politicians can limit what people can raise and spend on political speech, and make the laws on political speech extremely complicated, politicians can effectively limit the speech of anybody that wants to kick them out of office.

Of course, there are nay-sayers.  Take Institute for Justice free speech expert Paul Sherman:

How much red tape should ordinary Americans have to deal with in order to talk about politics?  Under the First Amendment, the answer is simple:  None.  In America, the only thing you should need to talk about politics is an opinion.

Unfortunately, this country has moved far from this constitutional commitment to free expression.  Today, even simple acts like placing an ad in the newspaper urging the public to vote for a ballot issue or local political candidate can lead to fines or even jail time.

A new report by University of Missouri economist Dr. Jeffrey Milyo, Keep Out: How State Campaign Finance Laws Erect Barriers to Entry for Political Entrepreneurs, shows that campaign finance laws are effectively silencing speech all across the country.

What explains the proliferation of these laws? As Dr. Milyo concludes, these laws are designed by political insiders, for political insiders.  And by shutting out political entrepreneurs, incumbent politicians and entrenched interests are able to shut out competition.

The Institute for Justice has gone so far as to launch a major national Citizen Speech Campaign to restore free and unfettered political debate.

Camp Politics urges you to send your kids to us right away.  Otherwise, Paul Sherman and his buddies at the Institute for Justice may secure free speech nationwide.  According to Paul Sherman:

Free speech is the birthright of every American, not a privilege to be enjoyed at the whim of political insiders.  With your help, we will win the fight to restore the protection that the First Amendment so richly deserves.

So watch out for the Institute for Justice!  And send your kids to Camp Politics today.

As much as we appreciate the content they have provided us over the past year, we will be happy to see some of them go back to their civilian life.  And remember, even if you don’t live in their districts, you can still cast a vote against the party that gives these congressmen such influence over our lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness.

Rep. Hare Doesn’t Care:

Rep. Etheridge ‘Who Are You?’

Rep. Stark Says Federal Gov’t Can Do Anything

Rep. Rodriguez Yells at Constituent

The campaign pits freshman “Blue Dog” Democratic congressman Frank Kratovil in a rematch against Republican Dr. Andy Harris. Given the political tilt of the district, coupled with the Tea Party tsunami gathering force this year, one would think that this race should be a slam dunk for Harris.

A tall, affable family man, Harris is an anesthesiologist, Navy veteran, hardcore free-marketer, and constitutional conservative. By contrast, Kratovil, a former attorney, tries to portray himself as an “independent” who distances himself from Nancy Pelosi and the House Democratic majority. However, the Washington Post reports that “Frank Kratovil has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 84.6% of the time during the current Congress.” Among his least popular votes since taking office: support for the “cash for clunkers” program, for the near-trillion-dollar “stimulus” spending orgy, and for the hugely expensive “cap-and-trade” energy bill. Plus, of course, his vote to elevate the widely reviled Pelosi to the Speaker’s position.

Yet, despite all that, a recent poll finds Harris holding only a statistically insignificant three-point lead over Kratovil. This, while other GOP candidates are faring much better even in usually “safe” Democratic districts.

What’s going on here?

One of the most infuriating spectacles this election season is supposedly “Republican,” “conservative,” and “pro-business” individuals and groups supporting entrenched liberal incumbents against free-market, limited-government challengers. For many special-interest “insiders,” even on the right, philosophical convictions are far less important than sharing a “seat at the table” with the politically powerful.

With a hat tip to Angelo Codevilla, let me label these fair-weather friends of freedom “the Ruling Class Right.”

Frank Kratovil is one of the undeserving beneficiaries of their favoritism, just as Andy Harris is one of their undeserving victims.

There is history here: We’re witinessing a virtual replay of the Kratovil-Harris race of 2008. Though the Republican-leaning district went handily for John McCain, Kratovil managed to squeak out a plurality of votes to win by less than one percent. Harris’s surprising defeat occurred only because he was betrayed by those who should have been his allies.

Harris had won the GOP nomination by challenging and defeating incumbent Republican congressman Wayne Gilchrest in the primary. Gilchrest — one of the most liberal Republicans in Congress — retaliated against the primary voters’ verdict by endorsing Kratovil over Harris.

Moreover, despite Harris’s long record as an anti-tax, pro-free-market state legislator, a Libertarian Party candidate entered the race, in one of that party’s futile vanity campaigns. But the Libertarian managed to siphon off 8,873 votes, many of which otherwise would have gone to Harris. As a result, Harris lost by only 2,852 votes.

In 2008, establishment Republicans and self-styled “advocates of liberty” turned their backs on a proven legislative champion of freedom. Now, this year — while a Tea Party tidal wave is sweeping even liberal Democratic districts — Andy Harris is being betrayed by “the Ruling Class Right.”

This entrenched elite first threw their endorsements and money behind liberals Arlen Specter, Charlie Crist, Mike Castle, and Lisa Murkowski, and against the insurgencies by free-marketers, constitutional conservatives, and Tea Partiers fed up with the Beltway’s corrupt old-boy network. Since then, supposedly “conservative” pundits within the Ruling Class Right have joined party apparatchiks to do everything possible to mock and undercut the campaigns of primary victors such as Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle, and Carl Paladino. Having first pronounced them “unelectable,” they now are working to make their assessment a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But the Ruling Class Right is not only centered within the GOP.

For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce proclaims on its website: “As the voice of business, the Chamber’s core purpose is to fight for free enterprise before Congress, the White House, regulatory agencies, the courts, the court of public opinion, and governments around the world.” Yet, in the face of the most far-reaching assault on our free-enterprise system since the New Deal by the current Democratic Congress, the Chamber has issued endorsements of at least ten Democrats.

And these endorsements include Frank Kratovil. Yes, the same Frank Kratovil who voted for Pelosi, for the “cash for clunkers” clunker, for the pork-packed “stimulus” flop, and for the “cap-and-tax” energy catastrophe. Nonetheless, he received the election endorsement of “the voice of business,” whose “core purpose is to fight for free enterprise before Congress.” And not only did the Chamber bestow its influential blessing upon Kratovil; it also granted him $168,841 to buy advertising to defeat consistent free-marketer Andy Harris. (“The new advertising,” reports the Baltimore Sun, “is part of a national buy of some $2 million by the Chamber on behalf of Blue Dog Democrats like Kratovil.”)

You might think the Chamber is rare in its unprincipled expediency. Guess again:

The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), which generally aligns with the GOP, has given its signature “Guardian of Small Business” award to 29 House Democrats in 2010, more than twice as many as it did in 2008. The recipients include some of the party’s most vulnerable incumbents, boosting their standing with a politically popular constituency. . . .

Democrats are touting the awards as evidence that counters Republican attacks that the vulnerable incumbents are lapdogs for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Obama administration. The party has similarly trumpeted endorsements for centrist and conservative members from groups like the National Rifle Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that traditionally back Republicans.

One of those “Guardians of Small Business” is — you guessed it — Frank Kratovil. Like the Chamber, the NFIB spurned Andy Harris to back a Democrat incumbent who supported Pelosi’s agenda 85 percent of the time.

It gets still worse.

The National Rifle Association, viewed by millions as a stalwart defender of constitutional principles, has endorsed a whopping 58 Democrat incumbents. Once again: “In Maryland, the NRA has endorsed freshman Rep. Frank M. Kratovil Jr., who will be one of the most vulnerable Democrats in November.” This, even though the group also gave Andy Harris an “A” rating on gun-control issues. However, to keep its “seat at the table” with Washington’s power elites, you see, the NRA prefers to support incumbents over challengers, in cases where they have similar voting records.

But in doing this, they fail to appreciate that the Second Amendment is part of a larger project known as the Bill of Rights, and an even larger one known as the U.S. Constitution. Torn from the context of the broader protections that this venerable document affords us against unlimited government power, the Second Amendment becomes far more endangered. Selling out the rest of the Constitution by supporting its political enemies, is not the path to protecting gun rights: You can’t defend the individual’s right to bear arms if you demolish the entire legal edifice that protects individual rights generally.

But to “pragmatic” lobbyists, this talk of principles is all “abstract theory.” They live down in the “practical” weeds of day-to-day political machinations.

Just as the NRA wears blinders concerning the “single issue” of the Second Amendment, business lobbies suffer from appalling myopia on “single issues” centering around production and trade. Indeed, too many business groups have become completely detached from the free enterprise system. Instead, they are run by and for “crony capitalists”: corporatist schemers who line up at public troughs for taxpayer subsidies and political favors, and who back or buy any politician willing to grant them.

That’s why these congressional mid-terms are such pivotal elections for our nation. This may be the last opportunity we’ll have to roll back “the statist quo.” But to do that, we’ll have to roll over, not just progressive adversaries, but alleged “allies” from the Ruling Class Right. We’ll have to defeat their efforts to keep vulnerable Democrats in power, by supporting truly principled candidates like Dr. Andy Harris.

Likely to surpass the touted $165 billion it is estimated to cost, Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act (S. 3157) was introduced on March 23rd by Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) and is designed to bailout unions’ underfunded pension funds by transferring the liability of those funds onto the backs of the taxpayers.

Under these bills, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) would, at the request of the plans, have the authority to take over the pension obligations of employers who have withdrawn from the plans, and pay the benefits out of taxpayer dollars, says Furchtgott-Roth:

• Once the PBGC shoulders that obligation, it would keep making payments until the last retiree or designated survivor dies.
• Since many multiemployer plans are in financial difficulty, this legislation, if enacted, could dramatically increase the federal deficit, putting even more pressure on the American taxpayer and the economy.
• Depending on events, it might add billions to government spending — current underfunding levels are estimated at $165 billion-bumping up future deficits.

According to a June 24th article published in the Bureau of National Affairs Construction Labor Report (subscription required):

If enacted into law, the bill would convert a private funding shortfall for collectively bargained multi-employer plans into a public obligation, said Brett McMahon, vice president of Miller and Long Concrete Construction and an ABC member.

The legislation would transfer a portion of multiemployer pension funding obligations to a new insurance program that would be operated by the PBGC and paid for with taxpayer dollars instead of employer-paid premiums, F. Vincent Vernuccio, a spokesman for the trade group’s advocacy organization, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said during the call.

At the heart of the union pension problem are companies that, in many cases, agreed to put retirement money for union workers into “multi-employer plans” but have since gone out of business. As the unionized workers in multi-employer plans are still entitled to a pension, the remaining employers are left funding the pensions of workers who, in many cases, they never employed.

Over the past few decades, as more and more unionized companies have gone out of business, this ponzi-scheme has only grown, leaving many union pensions severely underfunded—an estimated $165 billion underfunded.  Now, with so many plans in critical status, many companies that remain in union multi-employer plans are facing an insurmountable burden that may eventually drive many of them out of business.

What’s Really Behind the Democrats’ Push for the Union Pension Bailout

Liberal talk-show host Ed Schultz proclaimed last weekend that America is in an ideological fight for the country.  The problem for many on the Right is that they are only beginning to understand that the Left’s vision for America is a long-range vision—and it is a fight where the Left is playing for keeps.

Democrats need unions to be their foot soldiers on the march to a socialized progressive America which is why the entire Left establishment has been pushing for the horrifically-misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) for the better part of a decade.

In fact, at 2009’s Netroots Nation (the left-wing blog event for socialist progressive bloggers), one of the panel discussions held was  The Secret Plan to Defeat the Right Forever and how EFCA was key to the plan’s success.

Modernizing the nation’s labor law is critical to expanding union membership—which in turn, will ensure conservatives become a permanent minority, as newly-empowered workers actively engage in political action and demand a new way of doing the nation’s business, like creating an economy that rewards Main Street and not just Wall Street. The freedom to form unions and bargain is critical to the progressive movement—when workers have the tools they need to build a better life, they have the power to improve their communities and the solidarity to make progressive political change throughout the nation.

In other words, the Left has been relying on EFCA in order to have one-party rule in America permanently.  The problem is, EFCA has been temporarily stalled and now the train-wreck of union pensions is barreling down on the Democrats.  In order to save the Democratic Party, they must save the unions (or more specifically, the unionized companies) from failing.

While Democrats will tout the union pension bailout bill as another way to “create or save jobs,” it is misleading. The union pension bailout bill will save Democrat politicians’ jobs and it may also temporarily save some union jobs, but at what expense?

There are no guarantees that bailing out the union pensions at the expense of taxpayers will save the unionized companies.  Moreover, if the union companies are allowed to fail, the markets and industries that these companies operate in will likely absorb the work, creating jobs in other (albeit non-union) companies.

On the other hand, even though Democrats know that another union bailout will likely make them even bigger pariahs with the American people, the very survival of their party rests on their ability on passing this poisonous piece of legislation. If they fail, the ramifications for the Democrats are disastrous.

Failing to bailout the union pensions would likely cause the failure of a fairly high number of unionized employers.  If unionized employers fail, unions will lose members.  Without union members, unions would have no union dues with which they can fund Democrats’ political campaigns and would not be able to mobilize effective Get Out the Vote (GOTV) efforts.

There are a couple of reasons Democrats and their union handlers are pushing this poisonous bill now:  Union bosses and Democrats know there is likely going to be a major upheaval in November.  As a result, what they have not been able to accomplish in the last 18 months in Washington will presumably be stalled for another few years (at least until 2013).  They cannot survive that long.  The union pension bailout bill is the lifeline to ensure their survival until they can regain dominance again.

In the coming months, watch for more push from the Democrats to bailout the union pension plans. If it doesn’t happen before the mid-term elections, it could very well happen immediately after.  However, for any Republicans considering supporting this legislation, they do so at their own peril, for the Democrats are only pushing this to save their party by making sure they have foot soldiers in future elections.

__________________

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.”  Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

The Wall Street Journal is reporting:

The AFL-CIO plans to roll out its biggest political campaign ever, surpassing the $53 million spent in 2008 to help elect President Barack Obama, to try to avert a repeat of the 1994 midterm election when Democrats lost a majority in Congress.

If that sounds a bit aggressive, that’s nothing compared to the powerful head of the AFSCME public employee union, who is saying “The time has come to draw a line in the sand…Regardless of your party affiliation, if you’re not with us, you are against us.”

(We’re pretty sure we’ve seen other people get hammered for using the same language, but we digress…)

It’s certainly interesting that unions are doubling down on their failed bet. But anything can happen when you wish upon a star…

Mixed results you say?  If so, is there anything to be learned from these elections?  The answer is no, because we should have learned these lessons already.   In case they have been forgotten, however, here they are:

5.   Off year Elections Are Hard on the President’s Party.  The President’s party loses 20 seats, on average, in the House in the mid-term elections.  When President’s approval rating is below 50%, that number doubles.  So it can be of little surprise that voters dealt the Democrats losses this November.

4.  Deficits Worry Voters.   Ross Perot made a 3^rd party career out one issue back in the 1990’s – deficits.  Polls show deficits worry voters to this day and weighed on the minds of these voters.  As the former Democrat Governor of Virginia Widler said: “This is no time for the spending that they’re doing.”

3.  The Number One Issue In Virtually Every Election is the Prosperity issue.  Long before James Carville said it was “the economy stupid,” the state of people’s fortunes was the number one determinant of their vote.  Hoover didn’t lose to Roosevelt over their looks – it was the state of the economy.  In this case, the “in-party” was subject to a bit of a backlash because they are the party in power during bad economic times.

2.  Higher Taxes Really Bother Voters.   Taxes remain an enduring issue – from the original Tea Party to today’s.  New Jersey imposes the highest tax burden in the Nation on its citizens and Democrat Gov. Corzine held out the threat of more.  He lost.  The Democrat candidate for Governor in Virginia waffled on new taxes.  He lost.  Heck, even the voters of Higley Unified School District in Arizona turned down the continuation of a school parcel tax estimated to be only $59.50 per household.  Oh, and Nancy Pelosi offered a bill right before the election featuring higher taxes -  not to mention the impending threat of the same from Obama.

So with those time-honored factors working against the Democrats, why were the results just mixed?

Because of the #1 lesson.

1.  Without A Clear Agenda – Republican Gains Are Limited.  Ask yourself how many times the Republicans have taken the Congress WITHOUT A CLEAR AGENDA during the 60s, 70s, 80S, 90s and 00s?  Of course, the answer is not once.   Keep in mind, during that time, the Democrats had some really bad or troubled Presidents, i.e.  Lyndon Johnson refused to stick out a re-election run and don’t forget a peanut farmer named Jimmy Carter.   The Republicans even had a great President, Ronald Reagan and didn’t take back the House and the Senate.

Why is that?  Because Republican voters are far more finicky than Democrat voters.  Democrats will vote for (D) by the name of a candidate with far more regularity then Republicans will do for a simple (R).   Quite plainly, Republicans demand more of their candidates.

In 1994, that demand was answered with the Contract with America, i.e. a clear agenda standing in sharp contrast to where the incumbent President and his party were taking the country.

In 2010, because of the poor policies of the Obama Administration since it took over, unemployment will be above 10% and the deficit could well be in the $2 trillion range.  The conditions for Democrat candidates will not be good.  No doubt – Republicans will pick up seats.

By clearly standing for something, they can do more than that.  They can lead the nation and take back the Congress.