This year marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the United Nation’s Brundtland Report, which defined Sustainable Development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” But aristocratic socialists have corrupted the sustainable development movement into a vehicle to achieve vast administrative power for themselves. Nations that adopt Sustainable Development are doomed to fail at meeting the needs of the present generation and through debt accumulation from deficit spending will consign future generations to a life as debt slaves.

Through the early 1980s, socialist Latin American economies powered growth by quadrupling their indebtedness from $75 billion to $315 billion. With aristocrats controlling government, while the poor had no voice in these loan matters, nor did they benefit from them as most of the loan proceeds were siphoned off to benefit the aristocrats and their crony amigos.

When Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980, the U.S. economy had suffered a decade of stagflation, turning our Midwest manufacturing base into the Rust Belt. Reagan was determined to regain international economic dominance by reasserting our Founding Father’s demand for limited government and maximum personal liberty. Reagan viscerally believed what John Adams wrote:

“ the moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence”

Reagan’s relentless focus overcame the bi-partisan drumbeat to continue the socialist expansion of the money supply to promote growth. He then leveraged monetary restraint with the largest income tax cut in American history to power the American economy to sustained growth with low inflation.

(more…)

Ronald Reagan was a classic. He broke the back of the Evil Empire and started deregulating an overburdened U.S. economy. It was Ronald Reagan in 1964 that told Americans we face a time for choosing — and if you haven’t watched the entire speech, you’re missing out.

Today marks the 101st anniversary of Reagan’s birth. If you miss him and wish for another like Reagan, join The Heritage Foundation in sharing your thoughts in their new Facebook app:

(more…)

As Obama basks in the warm fuzzy glow of positive recent jobs numbers, all the while avoiding the pesky shadow of the soaring national debt, which now has so many zeros I can’t even input it on my calculator. And the negative campaigning for the GOP race has become as messy as a molting Wookie; it’s very easy to become discouraged.

Put down the Ben & Jerry’s, it’s not over. As a matter of fact, it’s only just begun.

With the inundation of negativity abounding for conservatives over our depressing whimpers of lament, here are three reasons you should not give up hope for a big change in November of 2012.

1. “Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.” ~ Abraham Lincoln

It’s very easy to become convinced through main stream media that all hope should be abandoned.  However, you can always seek out evidence proving otherwise.

Rasmussen Reports produces Daily Presidential Tracking Polls.  Admittedly, this is similar to weighing yourself every day.  Certain circumstances on a day-to-day basis, like a late night left over pizza binge, can affect the numbers greatly.  As of Friday February 3^rd, current GOP front runner Mitt Romney was polling neck in neck with the President at 45% in a potential election match-up.  This is the first time Romney has polled this high against Obama since late in December.  The numbers are issued daily and you can have them delivered directly to your inbox each morning. Defeating an incumbent is never easy, but these numbers show it’s possible.

(more…)

I’ve come to a cross roads, and I believe many of you are with me. I no longer have faith that members of the Grand Old Party can represent me as a classical liberal or more specifically as a Conservative-Libertarian, and neither do I believe the majority of the members of the party share true forms of those ideologies.

This feeling began developing after the 2010 election when several friends and colleagues of mine and I developed ConservativeCongress.com to assess every single candidate self-proclaimed to be running as a conservative in the entire country. Thousands of unpaid and thankless hours were put into the project by myself and my friends. I myself put in roughly 2,000 to 3,000 hours alone. Then I watched as various state Tea Party groups and supposedly conservative minding groups signed off on the status quo. I became sick as state after state sent D.C. main stays and beltway insiders back to flap their gums about conservative principles while we all watched continuous compromise and a lack of any leadership with the House at their disposal.

The final blow personally for me was when I watched a man take my home district who had not lived in his home state in 18 years and also did not even own property in the state in which he was running for office. I’ve had the great privilege in my lifetime to travel extensively and live in various areas of our great nation. I remember very clearly living abroad in Australia some seven years ago and then upon returning spending the next four years moving around for graduate school and work. When I made it back home I hardly recognized the place in which I grew up. Everything had changed.

(more…)

That great phrase was coined by the late Jack Kemp, who believed that growth and opportunity for all is the answer to poverty. In fact, Kemp believed it was the answer to all things economic. And he was right. The best anti-poverty program is the one that creates jobs. The answer to large budget deficits? Grow the economy, create jobs, watch incomes rise, and let the tax revenues come rolling in.

Partly from Jack Kemp’s work, and partly from his own experience, Ronald Reagan believed the same thing. He knew that growth is the single best solution for our economic ailments. And neither Reagan nor Kemp saw the world in terms of specific income classes or categories. They looked at the whole economy and realized that everyone is tied together. Dragging down the top earners will not help the middle class. And providing an ever larger safety net will not solve poverty. Reagan believed in the safety net, and maintained it. But he knew it was a stop-gap, not a solution.

Does Mitt Romney understand this?

The worry stems from Romney’s ill-advised statement this week. He said, “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.” That raises doubts as to whether he understands the Reagan-Kemp model. Perhaps he does. But he will have to tell us more.

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Congressman Raul Labrador to discuss last night’s State of the Union address, how the Tea Party can impact the races for the House and Senate this year, and how Congressman Labrador’s path to politics began with Ronald Reagan.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Haven’t We Heard this Before?
FACT CHECK: Obama pushes plans that flopped before
State of the Union? More Like State of the Campaign

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Congressman Labrador on Twitter

Subscribe to The Transom

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

At the South Carolina GOP Forum on January 14, conservatism shined as Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and even former candidate Jon Huntsman, talked about shrinking the size of government, reducing taxes, repealing Obamacare, repealing Dodd-Frank, and eliminating the EPA’s regulatory overreach.

Yet during the event, moderated by FOX NEWS’ Mike Huckabee, the most memorable moment came from Gov. Perry, who asked the pertinent question: “Are you better off now than you were four [trillion dollars] ago?” The question was timely, and it not only harkened back to Ronald Reagan’s great 1980 campaign, but drew much needed attention to the hole Obama has dug for himself as well.

One week before voting took place in the contest between Reagan and Jimmy Carter, the Great Communicator looked into the camera and posed the following question to the American people: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” It proved to be a powerful question, because Americans as a whole weren’t better off. In fact, they were far worse off thanks to Carter and his economy-crushing policies.

Reagan followed that question with a series of others:

Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we’re as strong as we were four years ago?

On Saturday, Perry’s question was basically a synopsis of all these questions put together. And by including the dollar amount ($4 trillion) it makes the point that should stick with all voters as they head to the voting booth later this year. Namely, are you better off now that Obama has spent us into oblivion or were you better off before?

(more…)

The designer of Ronald Reagan’s economic plan is endorsing former Speaker Newt Gingrich for the Republican nomination for president. Arthur Laffer, chairman of Laffer Associates, and the Laffer Center for Supply-Side Economics, also co-authored “Return to Prosperity: How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status” (Threshold, 2010) with Stephen Moore, senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and a member of the Journal’s editorial board.

Mr. Laffer, who plans to join Mr. Gingrich in Iowa on Thursday for a formal announcement of his endorsement, said, “Newt has the best plan for jobs and economic growth of any candidate in the field.”

Mr. Laffer added:

Like Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts and pro-growth policies, Newt’s low individual and corporate tax rates, deregulation. and strong dollar monetary policies will create a boom of new investment and economic growth leading to the creation of tens of millions of new jobs over the next decade. Plus, Newt’s record of helping Ronald Reagan pass the Kemp Roth tax cuts and enacting the largest capital gains tax cut in history as speaker of the House shows he can get this plan passed and put it into action.

(more…)

When Ronald Reagan was elected the 40th President of the United States the competition between nation states was defined along the political terms of communism, democracy, and fascism. But Reagan sought to redefine nation state competition in terms of the market. This capitalist worldview was powered by Reagan’s own American experience of upward mobility of the middle class. As President, Reagan pursued policies that reflected his personal belief in individual freedom, economic independence, and reduction of people’s reliance upon government. Reagan’s “market states” competition is broken down into America as the laissez-faire state, Europe as the managerial state, Japan as the mercantile state, and China a combination of the three. The Obama Administration sought to move America to embrace a post-Reagan managerial state. But with the U.S. credit downgrade and Europe facing financial collapse; the U.S. has no option other than a hard turn back to the laissez-faire market state.

The European advocates of the managerial state argue the core idea of government in a democracy is to provide services to the public through professional and political bureaucracies. The managerial state rationalizes that ethics demands only government can allocate society’s wealth to fund socially beneficial ends. The managerial state acknowledges that scientific management and efficiencies of the laissez-faire state maximize supply and growth; but they see these capitalist tools as leading to adverse outcomes of intense materialism and inequality of income. The managerial state demands control of healthcare: where death and pain cannot be priced without creating some very unhealthy social consequences and control of infrastructure where markets do not think in decades or would not properly price environmental damage as core state functions. University intellectuals are expected to embed therapeutic criteria to achieve right reasoning through public education.

Problems with these concepts according to Paul Gottfried of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, is that the managerial state will use its professional and political bureaucracies to sponsor a “series of social programs based on vague egalitarian spirit”. If anyone criticizes the bureaucracy’s lack of scientific management and efficient use of resources; they are attacked as unethical. If government loses popular democratic support for their policies, elites simply resort to ridicule, regulations, and litigation to maintain their monopolies.

C.S. Lewis remarked that every increase in man’s power over nature can turn out to mean an increase in the power of some men over others, with nature as its instrument. He stated:

“Given technological progress, we need to fight hard to retain our clarity about the nature and rights of human beings. We hear of human “autonomy” and of man’s “control of his own destiny.” But the autonomy is enjoyed by a select (or self-selected) few, and the control is exercised by a shrinking elite.”

Three years into America’s managerial state experiment, the middle class is in revolt over loss of upward mobility.

(more…)

This afternoon, the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)–a left-wing think tank based in Washington, DC–held a conference call to coordinate strategy among Occupy organizers, activists and supporters in the aftermath of the eviction of demonstrators in several cities.

From the Institute for Policy Studies website

IPS Executive Director John Cavanagh posed the following questions:

1. “How do we support the actual Occupy movement at this time… especially when some of the encampments have been shut down?”
2. “How do we expand the space for the ideas…that have been opened up by the Occupy movement?”

Cavanagh discussed the daily conference calls that Occupy organizers have been holding to coordinate strategy across the country, and urged participants to join in a national day of protest in solidarity with the activists who had been removed from Zuccotti Park in New York.

One of the sites providing information about local protests is november17.org, which is apparently affiliated with Van Jones’s Rebuilding the American Dream organization.

Cavanagh compared the Occupy protests with the Hoovervilles of the Great Depression, and suggested that both were protests against difficult economic conditions that the government failed to address. He also claimed that the Occupy movement was taking on the small-government, free-market legacy of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. (more…)

Greece is about to default on its public debt or ruin the European Union, or both. The Greeks are destroying themselves today much as they did during the Peloponnesian War. This looks like the inevitable result of the welfare statism and entitlement mentality that is destroying the entire Western world. We see similar forces of anarchy at work in the “Occupy” movements in American cities.

An important factor in these movements is the fundamentally anarcho-syndicalist tenor of the union movement, which demands an ever greater share of national income. Public-sector unions like the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees have been prominent in the “occupy” movement. Wisconsin AFSCME proudly sent pizzas “in solidarity” with the Wall Street occupiers.

Rutgers University labor economist Leo Troy calls public-sector unionism “the new socialism.” The old socialism was based on state ownership of the means of production. The new socialism involves the transfer of an ever greater share of the economy to the public sector. Government at all levels took about 5% of GDP a century ago and 13% on the eve of the Great Depression. The New Deal increased the proportion to one-third by 1960. We are in the forty percent range now, and the full nationalization of health care will put us over half.

Unions have been a primary force in the expansion of state power. Even the reputedly “conservative” American Federation of Labor called for “the abolition of the wage system.” A.F.L. President Samuel Gompers put organized labor’s goal as simply “more” — exactly what Johnny Rocco, the Al Capone-like figure portrayed by Edward G. Robinson in the 1939 film “Key Largo,” explained as his ultimate end. The New Deal’s expansion of state power was based principally on private-sector unionism that began with the “occupy Flint” sit-down strikes of 1936.

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Francis Cianfrocca to discuss Rick Perry’s resurgence after his debate stumble this week, the new leaders of Greece and Italy, and we pay tribute to Veteran’s Day.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Ronald Reagan: The Boys of Pointe du Hoc
Rick Perry Appears on the Letterman Show for the Top 10 List
Poll: Cain tops 3-way race with Romney, Gingrich
Who is Greece’s new prime minister?
Italy’s Senate approves austerity plans
Stock Futures Jump After Italian Senate Vote
Now For the Battle of France

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Francis on Twitter

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

Forty seven years ago this week, Lyndon Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater in the biggest landslide since 1936. Today, both left and right see in Goldwater’s defeat the beginnings of the conservative revolution that would bring Ronald Reagan into office in 1980. Missed in this thesis, though, is how 1964 was a prime example of modern Democratic campaigning with its allies — the mainstream media — that we suffer under today. It was also a historic turning point that might have been avoided.

It is fashionable for the Left to co-opt Barry Goldwater as they have Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton called him a “patriot” and James Carville characterized him a “principled conservative,” at odds with today’s “loony right.” But this was not so in 1964. The mainstream media, not called that then, labeled him a fascist. Walter Cronkite said of him that “Goldwater was going places, among them Nazi Germany.” Psychiatrists lined up behind the Johnson campaign, declaring Goldwater “emotionally unstable.” Reporters were aware that LBJ was heightening the conflict in Vietnam, but said nothing while LBJ promised not to send “American boys nine or ten thousand miles from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.”

Journalists on the campaign trail saw Johnson drunkenly board a plane armed with nuclear weapons and then accidentally drop them on the United States. Luckily, by the grace of God, they did not go off. None of this was reported, while newspapers editors worked in overdrive to portray Goldwater as eager to push the button. Today, pundits argue that dirty tricks by Carville and Begalia were something new on the horizon for Democrats and were borrowed from decades of Republican campaigns. But Johnson was a pioneer of the Clinton War Room. He used the FBI to wiretap the candidate, bought political information from Goldwater defectors, and in an eerie foretaste of Watergate, put domestic CIA chief Howard Hunt on the White House payroll to infiltrate, even burglarize, Goldwater headquarters (with Democratic blessing, Hunt filtered his findings and received cash through a dummy corporation called National Press). What is striking about these tactics was how unnecessary they were. Johnson beforehand knew he was going to win, but he wanted “to crucify” Goldwater nonetheless.

(more…)

While Obama tours the country promoting his personal donation plan, the Republican Presidential hopefuls are in a pitched battle for the nomination and arguing which tax simplification plan is best. Threatened with the possibility of rate cuts, the Media and politicians trot out the usual suspects of lies about tax hikes and tax cuts.  This is a battle Republicans must win and, to do so, they need to expose those lies.

Keep in mind that the battle between those who create wealth and those that want to redistribute it, mainly politicians, is as old as civilization itself.  We read of tax battles and even reform in every age, like Urukagina’s tax reductions in Babylonia/Sumer in 2350 BC.  Equally venerable are the constant set of demagogic lies by those against tax cuts and simplification.  It is important to note that politicians like complicated tax codes and high tax rates because they control those rates and dispense the loopholes and regulations that complicate the tax code.  Tax simplification means they lose power.  As a result, resistance to tax reform is more often the rule than reform. As for the lies, they abound, so let’s consider just a few:

Lie # 1: Tax cuts cause deficits/Tax hikes balance the budget.  The Media and the Left often say that the Reagan and Bush tax cuts led to deficits while Clinton’s tax hikes led to a balanced budget. In truth, according to the IRS, federal tax revenues rose dramatically after the overall Reagan tax cuts/reforms (98%) and the Bush tax cuts (a record $700+ billion). This is just as they did after the Harding/Coolidge cuts (61% revenue increase) and after the Kennedy/Johnson cuts (62% revenue increase).  Those are the four major income tax reductions we have had since the inception of the income tax in 1913 and every time revenues rose after they were in place – every time.

So did the tax rate cut cause a deficit? The lie, of course, is to blame the revenue gathering mechanism (tax code/rate cut) instead of the revenue spending mechanism, i.e. Congress/Presidents.  The spenders kept spending – often at an accelerated rate when they saw the new revenues.  Thus, the fault for continuing deficits lies not with tax rate cuts, which produced higher revenues, but with politicians who spent too much.

(more…)

Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA) made the following statement to the House Chamber on October 26, 2011:

Mr. Speaker:  The government’s continuing failure to address our nation’s gut-wrenching unemployment stems from a fundamental disagreement over how jobs are created in the first place.  We are now in the third year of policies predicated on the assumption that government spending creates jobs. We have squandered three years and trillions of dollars of the nation’s wealth on such policies, and they have not worked because they cannot work.

Government cannot inject a single dollar into the economy until it has first taken that same dollar OUT of the economy. True, we can SEE the job that is saved or created when the government puts that dollar back into the economy.  What we can’t see as clearly are the jobs that are destroyed or prevented from forming because government has first taken that dollar OUT of the economy.  We see those millions of lost jobs in a chronic unemployment rate and a stagnating economy.

Government can transfer jobs from the productive sector to the government sector by taking money from one and giving it to the other.  That’s at the heart of the President’s plan to spend billions of dollars to hire more teachers and firefighters and police officers.  But these temporary government jobs come at a steep price: every dollar spent sustaining one of these jobs is a dollar taken from the same capital pool that would otherwise have been available to productive businesses to invest in creating permanent jobs.

Government can also transfer jobs from one business to another by taking capital from one and giving it the other. That’s how we got Solyndra.  We put a half-billion dollars at risk to create 1,100 jobs (that’s $450,000 per job).  Now that half-billion dollars are gone and so are the jobs.  And who pays for these losses?  Other businesses and their employees – meaning fewer jobs created.

(more…)

So just when everyone had concluded the Chris Christie matter — saying “Great speech at the Reagan Library, but he’s not gonna run for president” — the New York Post comes along with a story that says the New Jersey governor is seriously considering a 2012 run. Apparently the Reagan Library experience had a big impact on Christie, and others. He’s now being urged to go for it by Nancy Reagan, Henry Kissinger, former president George W. Bush, and former first lady Barbara Bush.

According to the Post story, even Christie’s wife Mary Pat is warming to the idea.

I don’t have anything to add to this in the way of a forecast. But it does give me a hook to weigh in on Christie’s speech. It was uplifting and inspiring. As many have commented, it was a Reagan leadership speech on exceptionalism, or “earned American exceptionalism,” as the Wall Street Journal editors put it. I agree.

There are a couple a points that I want to emphasize, though.

First, Christie gets the linkage between domestic economic growth, national security, and foreign-policy influence. This was an absolute key Reagan principle.

Reagan’s firing of the PATCO workers was heard around the world by the old Soviet Union. But it was Reagan’s tax cuts, limited government, deregulation, disinflation (with Paul Volcker), and free-trade policies that grew the economy by nearly 5 percent annually during the recovery period of the 1980s, with nearly 20 million new jobs added. That ultimately knocked out the Soviet Union. (Throw in deregulated oil prices, too. They decimated Soviet coffers.)

Second, at the Reagan Library, Christie talked about the New Jersey model, where in a tough war against government unions and teachers, divided government worked to reform the state’s pension and health benefits, cap property taxes, and hold down arbitration awards for union salaries. (Christie didn’t mention this, but he also stopped the millionaire’s tax in New Jersey.)

And while the governor said there was compromise on a bipartisan basis, and while he emphasized leadership in compromise several times in his speech, he noted that he balanced two budgets with over $13 billion in deficits without raising taxes.

So there’s compromise, and there’s compromise.

(more…)

Do you believe in American exceptionalism? I do and while President Barack Obama may not I believe a great many of you also do.  In fact some of you who are reading this article at this very moment might yourselves be shining examples of American exceptionalism.

If so then your story has the opportunity to possibly be included in my upcoming new book on the lives and stories of ten people who are shining examples for the rest of us of American exceptionalism. Those chosen will also be offered to appear as guests on my radio show.

To submit your story for consideration simply email me your name, contact information and a brief (less than 3-4 paragraphs) description of  your story of American exceptionalism.

In his farewell speech President Reagan urged us not to allow our values to slip away and to once again make them a part of our pop culture.

So whether you were born elsewhere and immigrated to America or if your family’s roots date back to the Mayflower landing I want to hear your stories of American exceptionalism!

The first known person to write about the United States as being exceptional was a Frenchman named Alexis de Tocqueville around 1831. Tocqueville believed America’s exceptionalism was a result of the American Revolution and a uniquely American ideology based on liberty, self reliance, the common person free from a ruling class and private business free from over-regulation.  He marveled at how our democracy infused into every nature of our society and culture at a time when it was not popular elsewhere in the world.

(more…)

When Ronald Reagan proclaimed in his first inaugural “We are a nation that has a government—not the other way around,” he was not taking off on some libertarian tangent or making an obscure philosophical point. He was following in the footsteps of the Founding Fathers who erected a frame of government that began with the words “We the People.” He was also trying to return government to its important but limited role in people’s lives—a role that both political leaders and the people understood until 1912 but has been mostly misunderstood and abandoned since then. At Philadelphia in 1787, the Framers of the Constitution created a national government that would be effective—even energetic—in its functions but also limited to those functions. The people were to be the ultimate guardians of both the effectiveness and limitations of government. The only way such a republic—unprecedented in modern history—could work would be if the people acted as a vigilant and constitutionally-minded sovereign jealous of their rights.

The authority of the people is made clear in at least three respects in the Constitution, and their vitality is powerfully suggested in a fourth. First, the Constitution holds both the lawmakers and the executive accountable to the people through elections, whether direct or indirect. The foremost depository of the people’s will is obviously the House of Representatives, whose members are directly elected every two years. According to James Madison writing in The Federalist, every constitution is designed to find rulers with the wisdom and virtue to pursue the common good and to make sure those rulers remain virtuous while holding the public trust. Elections are the means to both of those ends. In other words, if those in office lose their virtue, they can be thrown out of office by the people through regular elections. The people are the true source of term limits.

Second, the Constitution embraces, indeed creates, the system known as federalism. Not only can the people exert their authority through elections at the federal (national) level, they can also throw their support behind the state governments against federal encroachment. The chief means of doing so in the original Constitution was through the Senate, whose members were elected by state legislatures. Indeed, the Framers of the Constitution originally thought that the people’s loyalties would lie overwhelmingly with the states, not the remote national government. Their opinion owed to the history of the Revolution—in which the states were extremely jealous of their powers; the confidence that men of great talents and ambitions at the national level would devote their energies to the high pursuits of “commerce, finance, negotiation, and war,” to quote Hamilton in The Federalist, not with local concerns; and the general tendency of human nature to prefer the things closest to us. (Not many people living in Dallas root for the Steelers.) To this end, should the national government extend its powers beyond those enumerated in Article I, section 8, the Senators—whose loyalties lie, and whose careers are made, not in the national capital but in the state capitals—would defend the prerogative of the states and thereby the liberties of the people.

Third, for the Constitution to be adopted, it was imperative that the first Congress adopt a Bill of Rights to be appended to it. The Bill of Rights, authored mostly by Madison, was meant to serve as an education to the people in what their rights are and an encouragement to them to guard those rights jealously. It is also abundantly clear what would be the greatest threat to their rights. The Bill of Rights begins with the words “Congress shall make no law respecting” and ends with the words “or to the people.” That is, the greatest threat to liberty would come from government—though republican—exceeding its constituted authority and encroaching on the rights of the people.

Finally, there is the latent suggestion in the Constitution that the people will be doing the vast majority of the work in civil society, and the government will be needed chiefly to establish the rule of law, to protect the society from internal and external enemies, and to set up a system of uniform commercial exchange.

(more…)

[Ed Note: This is the first post to run at BigGovernment. It was published two years ago today. It still seems relevant.]

In 1995, President Bill Clinton stood before the nation and proclaimed, “The era of big government is over.” The following year, the federal budget deficit stood at 1.4% of GDP. Thirteen years later, in 2008, the deficit had doubled, to just over 3% of GDP. This year, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the federal budget deficit will equal 11.4% of GDP.

As George Will would say, “Well.”

This is the real source of our “summer of discontent.” Yes, millions of Americans spent the month of August holding Tea Parties, attending town halls, organizing, marching and protesting against ObamaCare, i.e. Congressional and Administration proposals to reconstruct the entire health care sector. But to suggest that health care alone is at the root of this backlash is to miss the forest for the trees. To paraphrase Democrat strategist James Carville, “It’s the big government, stupid.”

Since last September when the financial markets stumbled, we’ve seen a Wall Street bailout, government takeovers of AIG, Citigroup, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, Chrysler, and numerous banks. The Federal Reserve has opened its discount window to almost all-comers and has taken the unprecedented step of aggressively buying up the federal government’s own debt. Congress rushed through a “stimulus to nowhere,” moved closer to a “cap-and-trade” remake of the energy sector and openly talked about higher taxes and more regulation.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel famously said that, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Ronald Reagan said, “Government isn’t the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.” The administration has turned this observation upside down, proclaiming that Big Government will lead us to a better world. In August, we heard America singing, “Enough!”

The mainstream media and politicos from both parties were caught flat-footed by the push-back from average citizens. Each news-cycle brought a new theory for the protests: “astroturf,” angry “mobs,” distortions and misinformation, kooks and conspiracy nuts, and, inevitably (and perhaps most offensively) racism (MSNBC amazingly even cut the head off a black man holding a gun to make the point that white racist extremism was behind the entirety the protests).  The elites have convinced themselves that, once Congress is safely cocooned on Capitol Hill, and engaged in some Kennedy-esque legislating—a tweak here, a nip-and-tuck there—ObamaCare will be back on track and the Administration can continue its march to reshape America.

The elites are whistling past the graveyard. The ground has shifted. It could just be that deficits above 10% of GDP are the new $4 a gallon gas, i.e. the tipping point that awakens the silent majority and recalibrates political dynamics. Americans are setting aside parochial self-interest and reaching to reclaim the legacy of the Founders.

(more…)

Of all the political figures in history, Ronald Reagan is the target of the most contempt by people on the left. Reagan, through his personality, vision and actions is the one person who has done more to undermine the flimsy ideas that liberals hold than any other.

Reagan was born in 1911 so 2011 has been a year celebrating the centennial of his birth. Many of the events commemorating the centennial have been held at the Simi Valley California, Reagan Presidential library.

A flagship event at the library for the centennial year is obviously the Republican Presidential debate scheduled for next week. It was revealing that Obama would make a bid to upstage the debate by scheduling his own “urgent” jobs speech to a joint session of congress on the same night. It revealed the Olympian level of contempt that Obama and his democrat cronies have for Reagan’s legacy and memory.

Sure, it is true that Obama may have sought simply to undermine the momentum Rick Perry and others in the GOP field have garnered against him in the last few weeks as the president has suffered political stumbles on myriad issues but there is no way that team Obama was ignorant of the bigger issue surrounding this particular GOP debate which was the specific stage and location it was being held at as well as the specific year it is being held in.

This is not the first time Obama has gone after Reagan’s legacy or family in word and deed.

(more…)