Tag Archives: conservatives

Leftist arguments against right-to-work laws are emblematic of flawed liberal logic

Liberal ideology becomes more incoherent by the day.

Their latest crowing about right-to-work laws in Michigan are part and parcel of the degradation of the arguments in our political landscape.

Why, they’ll ask, should a worker be allowed to be a member of the union and reap all the benefits of membership without having to pay dues? That’s unfair!

You mean like the 50% of Americans who reap the benefits of being a citizen without paying taxes? That kind of unfair?

There is no argument being given by pro-union lefties as to why these laws are so painfully awful. According to Richard Hurd, a Cornell professor of labor studies, only about two-thirds of employees join a union in a right-to-work situation.

Oh the humanity.

You mean giving people the option to join a union means some people won’t do it? Remind me again how letting someone make a choice is infringing on their liberty.

When you get hired by an employer, you aren’t being hired by the union bosses, yet those bosses can force you to join a union and pay dues.

What are those dues for? Salaries of the union bosses, pensions for the union bosses and money to lobby legislators or even help fund campaigns.

Without those dues, you have fewer union bosses, smaller pensions and much less money to use for political gain. You can understand why the unionistas don’t like these laws.

According to State Budget Solutions, employment grew 8.2% from 2001 to 2010 in right-to-work states, while union states saw a .5% decrease.

Unemployment in the 23 states who have right-to-work laws is under 7%, while union states are facing nearly 9% unemployment.

Unions are part of the European model. Germany, for instance, is fine with contact unemployment in the 8% range or higher because those who are employed are getting higher wages and benefits. That’s not the way our system works, nor is it the way our system was set up to work.

But the left can’t come up with a good reason not to have right-to-work laws. They don’t want them because they think unions are the only thing preventing workers from working 20-hour days, shackled up in damp, dark, dungeons.

It’s not much different than their arguments for higher taxes on the rich. Ask a liberal to defend higher taxes on the rich and they’ll inevitably cite historical models to show how low taxes are right now. “Well under Clinton blah blah blah.”

That’s it. That’s all they’ve got.

Obama’s plan for higher taxes on the top 2% doesn’t do anything to reduce the deficit. In fact, 75% of Obama’s tax increases will go to new spending. These new revenues won’t pay down the debt and won’t spark economic growth. So what will they do? Make everyone feel better? Not when they lose their jobs.

If Obama’s economic model of massive deficits and debts amid gargantuan government spending worked, we’d have a booming economy. We don’t.

But the left is in charge and they like to wave their (rhymes with) stick around and punish those who have been successful.

Unless those people are teachers, or union heads, or actors, singers…well basically any liberal.

Liberals will fight at all costs to keep teachers’ unions in power, even while they’re bankrupting local communities, and state governments. Obama’s own right-hand man, Rahm Emmanuel, saw the destructive power of unions and their inability to stand for anything other than the greed of their own union members.

You can be in favor of right-to-work laws without being anti-union. If anything, people voluntarily joining unions actually strengthens the positioning power of that union because everyone in the union wants to be there and is more likely to be engaged as a result.

Conservatives are often portrayed as the party of tradition, of people who do things just because that’s the way it’s always been.

But liberals have lately been victims of their own ideological traditionalism. We should raise taxes because we always want to raise taxes. We should have unions because we’ve always had them and they always give us money.

Why should we give money to people who don’t serve us? Unions don’t serve union workers, they serve union heads. Taxes don’t serve the people who pay them, they serve the people who don’t.

As part of the social contract, we agree to be governed in order to gain additional liberty that the state of nature deprives us. Defense and the mediation of resources that we could not otherwise handle are the main functions of government. Anything behind that must be justified, but the left has no concept of its role as a governing party, nor any concept of what a government’s relationship ought to be with its people.

That’s why we get leaders like Barack Obama who, when the chips are down, has no coherent ideology to fall back on when trying to make decisions. That’s liberalism.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Redefining a party: Building Conservatism in the 21st Century

Mitt Romney was never the leader of the Republican Party, despite winning the GOP nomination for president. But an important questions faces the GOP and conservatism in this country: if not Romney, then who?

Certainly I won’t argue it ought to be the presidential failure of a Massachusetts governor who doesn’t seem to have an ideology of any kind outside of his Mormon faith.

Republicans are now being pulled in so many directions, it’s like the party is being drawn and quartered. And if the Grand Old Party doesn’t choose its leadership wisely, it may just be pulled apart at the seams.

As one Reagan biographer put it in the Daily Caller, “People say this is a fight for the heart and soul of the Republican Party…“That’s bullshit. This is a fight for the mind of the Republican Party.”

Craig Shirley, the biographer in question, told Matt Lewis in the DC that conservatism has yet to be established in the 21st century, a scary idea given that we’re 12 years into the century.

Mitch Daniels believes we ought to solve economic crisis before dealing with social issues. In theory, this is congruent with the way we think about priorities. Our most basic needs must be met first and that includes food and safety, neither of which people have with unemployment hovering at 8% and 50 million people on food stamps.

But the left would never allow it, nor would the media. People don’t want to hear about the dire straights of the U.S. economy, they want to hear zingers about Big Bird and lady parts.

Conservatives can’t win the arguments surrounding fiscal and economic policies, in part because Republican social policy is viewed so negatively.

It’s why Marco Rubio is pushing to create a new Republican platform on immigration, one the entire party can embrace.

The issue with the Republican party is that the loudest voices are heard and those voices tend to be the most extreme. Todd Aiken and Richard Mourdock get headlines, when Aiken in particular is a looney, radical voice that don’t represent mainstream GOP thinking.

But there are fractures in the party on abortion policies, on gay marriage, on defense spending, on taxes, and all sorts of places.

In the wake of so many election defeats, the Democratic party coalesced. They’re the gay marriage party, the pro-women’s health care party, the part of the poor, the sick and the weak.

That’s not my opinion, that’s how they’ve branded themselves and they’ve done it through united opposition to Republicanism.

Republicans, if they hope to survive, have to find similar common ground and they have to find that common ground to connect with mainstream voters. Immigration policy under Rubio is an excellent place to start.

The perception of the party has to change if the conservatives hope the outcome of elections are to change. That starts with strong leadership from men like Rubio in deciding what 21st century conservatism looks like and what the country believes they stand for – the distinction is important because what the Democrats say they stand for is actually counter to many of the policies they’ve actually implemented.

We’re now building 21st century conservatism and if we don’t choose the right architects, the foundation will crumble.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Why Obama can’t run away from ‘You didn’t build that’ blunder

Despite the President’s best efforts, the “you didn’t build that,” flack isn’t going away.

His plan of attack from here will be to defer the conversation away from his comments, rather than double down.

Obama and lefties insist that the comments were “taken out of context,” despite the context being exceedingly clear.

Liberals have taken to defending the president by saying, “Well, that’s just not really want he meant.”

Except anyone who has been paying attention knows that the president meant every word of his collectivist nonsense.

Charles Krauthammer penned an excellent rebuttal to Obama where he insists that if its infrastructure and collective will which makes us successful, then everyone ought to be successful.

Leftists are saying that the president wasn’t talking about bridges and roads, except that’s exactly what said. Literally, those were the words he used.

Furthermore, even if he’s just talking about other people, the president couldn’t be more wrong. His argument that no one builds anything on their own is an obvious reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

It’s like saying Steve Jobs couldn’t have been successful if people didn’t buy his iPads. Well, of course not, but that’s the very definition of success.

Put another way, it’s like saying Apple wouldn’t be profitable if it didn’t have people in the factory to put together those iPads.

Well, no, but that’s why they have jobs. If there were no Apple or no iPad, there’s no one needed to put them together.

Obama’s logic is reversed. Ideas and innovation create jobs, not the other way around.

It’s Obama’s belief in this collectivism, the idea that we all are beholden to each other, which drives his ridiculous notion that I somehow owe you for my success or vice versa.

I can think of myriad examples of small business owners who literally built their business on their own, not taking paychecks so they can pay their employees, or perhaps they can’t even afford employees.

That sacrifice is not for me, it’s for him or her.

Those who believe the president isn’t a collectivist and a socialist will say my argument is a strawman, propped up to be knocked down.

However, the argument I made is based entirely on the president’s position on the role of government in the lives of citizens dating back through the entirety of his public life. He underscored it recently by trying to undercut the bipartisan legislation that enhanced work requirements for welfare signed under Bill Clinton in 1996. Look at the slideshow of the Life of Julia, a campaign Krauthammer calls “most self-revealing parody of liberalism ever conceived.”

The problem is, it’s not parody, it’s Obama’s actual ideology.

Julia is a woman who succeeds thanks to the government. It’s literally as if he believes we are doomed as a people if we don’t have a government to hold our hands through the process.

It’s very clear about how someone becomes successful. His argument is as follows, “My plan is to use government to give you every chance to succeed, whereas my opponent doesn’t like government.”

That’s actually EXACTLY what he’s running on. ObamaCare is another perfect example. Obama’s solution to every problem is based on government intervention.

I’m not at all misrepresenting Obama’s positions in order to cut them down (the definition of a strawman), but rather using his own positions and words to concisely and effectively communicate his platforms.

Anyone who has followed American economic history knows that almost no major innovation or business was grown based on being on the government dole.

The obvious exceptions are companies who actually work for the government, defense contractors being an example.

Unfortunately, Obama supporters will insist, despite obvious evidence to the contrary, that the president didn’t really mean what he said, or will buy the line that it was taken out of context (which it wasn’t).

Conservatives and independents (and even some liberals) though, have seen it for what it really is: a glimpse into the truth behind Obama’s ultra-leftist agenda and his mantra that government is the true way to prosperity.

Krauthammer’s most salient point is made when he discusses the difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe there ought to be help for the orphans of the world. Liberals want everyone to be orphans (hyperbole of course).

It’s not that conservatives don’t believe we ought to help those who cannot help themselves. We do.

It’s that we see government as an impediment to growth and progress, not the vehicle. Only those who truly cannot help themselves ought to get something for nothing. Liberals don’t think this way and that’s why we disagree. There’s a philosophical difference between the way we view government as interacting with its citizens.

We see it more starkly in the 2012 Presidential Race than perhaps at any time in the last generation.

Tagged , , , , ,

Democrat’s hollow criticism of GOP in fight over economy

Government spending, for liberals, must take place in a vacuum: No responsibility, no accountability, no sustainability.

In their minds, these things must just happen and since we know government is the way to eternal happiness, when it comes to government spending, if some is good more is better.

That’s why no one ought be shocked that after creating the most reckless fiscal administration in American history, Democrats are eschewing the blame for the lack of economic progress.

Instead, it’s the Republican’s fault.

I received two identical e-mails to my work account titled ‘5 Ways Republicans Have Sabotaged Job Growth.’

This has become the marching beat to Obama’s campaign, despite the fact that he said that if he couldn’t get the economy turned around in three years that he’d be a one-term president.

Blame the GOP.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s see if what they’re saying has any actual validity.

The line of the e-mail seems straight-forward enough “New numbers released yesterday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the economy added a mere 80,000 jobs in June. That’s down from an average of 150,000 jobs a month for the first part of the year, and far too little to keep up with population growth.”

We know, and people should be pissed. The economy is getting worse, not better despite insistence from the White House that the trillions in debt we’re incurring is going to spur economic growth.

“Republican intransigence on economic policy has been a key contributor to the sluggish recovery.”

And there we are. So, despite the fact that the Democrats had a majority in both chambers for two years, only to lose the House because they were doing such a heinous job, it’s the GOP’s fault things continue to go badly because they’re being so stubborn.

The Democrat-controlled Senate doesn’t seem to care that they haven’t passed a budget since Obama was elected, nor have they passed a single one of the Republican reforms passed in the House including a number of job-creating measures, budget cuts or tax cuts.

Democrats insist the stimulus failed because it simply wasn’t big enough. Apparently $800 billion wasn’t sufficient, what really would have jump-started the economy was $1.2 trillion.

Maybe, except that the money that was used didn’t at all serve it’s intended purpose and keep unemployment down and the reason is simple: simply throwing money at a problem isn’t a way to fix it.

Republicans are blamed for killing the American Jobs Act, despite the fact that it had bipartisan disapproval, especially among Democrats who faced contested elections.

Just to drive home how incredibly misguided this plan was, the Treasury Secretary (!!!) actually said that at a cost of about $200,000 per job, the Jobs Act was still a good deal.

The e-mail I received had a myriad of other reasons: stonewalling quantitative easing, threatening a debt default, cutting spending (they used that one twice).

This is the mantra of the left: if they don’t do it our way, they’re being intransigent.

It takes two parties to make our system work. It takes two houses to pass a bill and a president to sign it. That’s the way this has to be.

The Republicans have approved bill after bill while the Senate has passed nothing, yet it’s the GOP who stand in the way of progress.

Democrats are content to drive up the debt ceiling without austerity measures, yet it was the President himself who criticized Republican leaders under Bush for irresponsible spending driving up the debt ceiling.

But the left sees the world through its own lens, one where tax payers ought to be grateful that the government is providing for them, even if it’s through wildly unsustainable programs and mechanisms.

It’s ok, they’re the government. They know what they’re doing.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Wisconsin is ground zero in conservative fight over ideals

If you aren’t paying attention to the battle between conservatives and pyschos  liberals going on in Wisconsin, you ought to be.

Going back a year, the battle over collective bargaining rights has received national attention as Republican Gov. Scott Walker spear-headed a national push among GOP state legislators to roll back the collective bargaining practices that had lead to oppressive government spending for decades.

Now, Gov. Walker is fighting for his job in a recall election against Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, a Democrat he trounced in the 2010 election and who used the collective bargaining roll back to save millions for Milwaukee.

But this is about more than just Walker vs. the unions and their flaccid Democrat politician puppets.

There is a much bigger ideological war being fought in this country, and Wisconsin is ground zero.

In the red corner is limited government and free enterprise, and in the blue corner is burgeoning government power and spending.

What the Republicans in Wisconsin did is nothing short of archetypal when it comes to conservative policies and it shows just how effective limited government can be.

Facing a $3.6 billion (that’s billion with a ‘b’) deficit, Walker rolled back collective bargaining for anything but wages for public employees, insisted they pay SOMETHING toward their pension (going from 0% to 5.6%) and 10% of their health care.

Private employees across the country are lucky to have less than 20% of health care costs on their plate, not to mention the joyous occasion when an employer offers to match up to 3 or 4% of pension contributions.

He slashed spending on school aid, welfare and municipal aid, and in its place he offered those bodies to be in charge of their own spending.

No longer would public employee unions have a stranglehold on government purses.

The Republicans and Walker passed a budget that closed the budget deficit WITHOUT raising taxes and prevented thousands of layoffs.

A recent study by the Beacon Hill Institute found that Gov. Walker’s reforms saved between $775 and $1.2 billion in tax-payer dollars.

As many as 6,500 public sector jobs would have been lost with the state cuts had Walker not restricted bargaining rights, which, by the way, he did to balance a budget that hadn’t been balanced this millennium.

The budget crisis in Wisconsin, per capita, was as bad as California and some of the most financially dire states in the union (no pun intended).

But more than that, and this is particularly important in this ideological discussion, the governor’s actions had profound impact on private sector vitality.

BHI estimated that as many as 14,000 private sector were saved by lowering, in many cases, taxes – revenue caps and tax freezes actually lowered local property tax bills in many communities.

Real disposable income from lower taxes came out to over $1 billion in the hands of Wisconsin taxpayers. To anyone who doesn’t believe trickle-down economics works, how’s a billion big ones in the hands of the people who earned it?

That increase even includes the nearly 500,000 public sector workers who had to take a pay cut.

More than that, tax revenue did a funny thing (at least to liberals), it’s gone up. According to BHI, tax revenue is up 3.6% over last year and the answer is obvious: people still have their jobs and their taxes went down.

Furthermore, an estimated $350 million was re-invested in the state as a result of this extra cash.

This is exactly what liberals don’t want to see and that’s why you haven’t seen it in any mainstream media outlets in the Wisconsin.

Conservative fiscal policy works and the Republicans in Wisconsin are proving it.

There’s a reason Democrats have flooded the money with union dollars to fight Gov. Walker: they don’t want anyone to see the overwhelming success.

Tagged , , , , , ,

ObamaCare, Budget set up paradigm altering election

Not every election is a referendum on any particular issue, particularly in presidential elections where major legislation or action may not be part of the election narrative.

Rep. Paul Ryan wants to make this election about fiscal responsibility and the House, controlled by Republicans, passed his budget which would make sweeping financial reforms including a Medicare overhaul.

But the election in November will be about more than that.

It’s more closely related to the case the Supreme Court will be deciding on in June.

More than whether or not the court’s ruling on ObamaCare hurts our soon-to-be-former president, the outcome of that case will be part of the political narrative set to shape the November election.

As has been stated innumerable times over the last week or so, Obama’s health care plan would fundamentally alter the way the government interacts and coerces the citizen.

That is what the 2012 Presidential election is about.

How do you want your government to interact with its people?

Do you want a government that will force you to pay for things you can’t afford, take money from you that you need and call it democracy, or do you want a government that mandates you pay only what the government absolutely needs and allows you to make choices about how you spend the rest?

This is the referendum we have.

President Obama and whomever the Republican candidate for president is, will have fundamental differences in the way they view the government’s role in our lives.

President Obama is the classic tax and spend liberal, only with an authoritarian, totalitarian and even fascist sense of socialistic “justice.”

Romney, the likely candidate, supports the sweeping reforms of Paul Ryan’s budget and recently received Ryan’s endorsement as a candidate.

Romney has stated repeatedly that he would grant waivers to every state in the union on his first day in office, protecting them from having to institute the costly and unconstitutional intrusion of government that Obama calls a health care “reform.”

The straw-man argument about RomneyCare versus ObamaCare is weak at best, since under Madisonian conservatism, the sort of ideology on which this country’s core principles were created, the states have the right to enter these markets, whereas the federal government does not.

If anything, Romney should be applauded for having the courage to take bold action in creating a solution to a broad problem and doing it within the confines of the law.

Perhaps not since Ronald Reagan defeated the embattled Jimmy Carter has there been such a disparity in candidates as we have in 2012.

This is a referendum election, not just about fiscal responsibility, but about the very foundations of our democracy.  Fox News has, for the last 15 years, been talking about every election like it was the election of our lifetime.

Finally, in 2012, they get it right.

Tagged , , , , ,

Conservatives acting hypocritically in adding burdens to women seeking abortions

Conservatives and liberals alike should be outraged at the abuse of government power in the contraceptive rights battle being waged against pregnant mothers.

What has transpired over the past few years, particularly the last 18 months, is a slew of laws have been passed to try to curb abortion.

Abortion is a treacherous topic to be sure, but social conservatives have clouded the issue with an overstep of state’s authority.

Virginia is the latest state to try and shape our behavior (well, ‘their’ behavior. I don’t have a uterus)  by proposing a law to mandate an invasive ultrasound before having an abortion.

Other states require less invasive measures, but are no less threatening to our liberties.

By law, women are allowed to get abortions.

You can agree with the law or disagree with the law, but if you disagree, it can’t be your platform as a conservative, to use the long reach of the state’s arm to infringe on a woman’s rights.

If you don’t like the law, change it.

The problem is you can’t, on the one hand, be a champion of religious freedom and personal liberty in the contraceptive mandate from Obama and then disallow a woman who, claiming no religious affiliation, intends to exercise what are her legal rights.

We’ll call it the Ron Paul stance (although Paul has changed his mind on this issue a number of times it seems).

At various times, the Texas Congressman and GOP doubtful  hopeful has expressed that while he believes abortion is wrong, the government has no right to interfere with the rights of a woman to manage her own body.

Social conservatives and Pro-life advocates can certainly come up with plenty of rights-based arguments to disagree with the latter portion of his argument.

If abortion were not legal, it’d be much easier for conservatives to make the case that all of these extra procedures  should be mandated as part of the law because, frankly, the government has the right to limit freedoms not already established.

I’m not saying that’s right or wrong, just that the government has that right, and small-government conservatives would have firmer grounds to oppose abortion. In other words, if the government is offering a measure of freedom, in this case an abortion, it has the right to add stipulations to that freedom without being draconian because at the end of the day, it’s still a net positive freedom.

Given that abortion is already legal and Roe v. Wade has little chance of being overturned, it’s a conservative’s responsibility to protect those freedoms from the government.

If you don’t like the law, make an argument based on the freedom of the fetus and the importance of protecting life, and change the law.

A conservative can, in good civic conscience, reduce the liberty of some in favor of expanding liberty for others, particularly in a case like this where the group losing liberty has considerably more freedom than those receiving it.

It’s not hard to have considerably more freedom than a group with none.

Tagged , , , ,