Death Panels and the Revenge of Sarah Palin

John O'Sullivan, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, has a great, succinct piece up at the National Review  following the presidential debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney:

 Romney’s answer on Obamacare was a model one: crisp, clear, authoritative; the president’s initial statement and reply were not dreadful, just rambling and nervous. And the longer he went on, the less confident (and so persuasive) he was. His attempt to argue away the importance of death panels was the nadir — call it the revenge of Sarah Palin.

Governor Romney never used the phrase "death panel" that Governor Palin famously used, though had he done so, President Obama's reaction would have no doubt been priceless. However, Romney knew well enough that the message that Governor Palin has been hammering on for over three years is one that resonates with voters. People do not want greater government involvement, much less from those whom they can't even elect, at the risk of rationing of care to Medicare patients. Romney referred to what he instead called an" unelected board" five times during the debate. See below from the debate transcript:

 Number three, [Obamacare] puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people, ultimately, what kind of treatments they can have. I don't like that idea.  

 [..]  

 We didn't raise taxes. You've raised them by a trillion dollars under "Obamacare." We didn't cut Medicare. Of course, we don't have Medicare, but we didn't cut Medicare by $716 billion. We didn't put in place a board that can tell people ultimately what treatments they're going to receive.  

 We didn't — we didn't also do something that I think a number of people across this country recognize, which is put — put people in a position where they're going to lose the insurance they had and they wanted. Right now, the CBO says up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as "Obamacare" goes into effect next year. And likewise, a study by McKinsey & Company of American businesses said 30 percent of them are anticipating dropping people from coverage. So for those reasons, for the tax, for Medicare, for this board and for people losing their insurance, this is why the American people don't want — don't want "Obamacare." It's why Republicans said, do not do this.  

 [...]  

 But let's come back to something the president — I agree on, which is the — the key task we have in health care is to get the costs down so it's more affordable for families, and — and then he has as a model for doing that a board of people at the government, an unelected board, appointed board, who are going to decide what kind of treatment you ought to have. 

 [...]

 I used to consult to businesses — excuse me, to hospitals and to health care providers. I was astonished at the creativity and innovation that exists in the American people. In order to bring the cost of health care down, we don't need to have a — an — a board of 15 people telling us what kinds of treatments we should have. We instead need to put insurance plans, providers, hospitals, doctors on targets such that they have an incentive, as you say, performance pay, for doing an excellent job, for keeping costs down, and that's happening.

As O'Sullivan noted, when President Obama tried to defend his "death panel", he failed miserably. Obama's attempt at defending his plan is below:

So at — at Cleveland Clinic, one of the best health care systems in the world, they actually provide great care cheaper than average. And the reason they do is because they do some smart things. They — they say, if a patient's coming in, let's get all the doctors together at once, do one test instead of having the patient run around with 10 tests. Let's make sure that we're providing preventive care so we're catching the onset of something like diabetes. Let's — let's pay providers on the basis of performance as opposed to on the basis of how many procedures they've — they've engaged in. Now, so what this board does is basically identifies best practices and says, let's use the purchasing power of Medicare and Medicaid to help to institutionalize all these good things that we do.

Yep, that's right. President Obama tried to defend his "death panel" by referencing something that the private sector to make care better and more innovative. Later, President Obama claims " this board that we're talking about can't make decisions about what treatments are given. " However, the Cato Institute notes the uncontrolled power of the IPAB:

IPAB could deny access to care as it sees fit simply by setting Medicare’s prices for certain treatments and procedures so low that no providers will offer them.

This is rationing plan and simple, and it's doing exactly what President Obama claims the bill cannot do. However, Obamacare wrapped itself in so much rhetoric that it blurred the truth. Truth always wins, however, and as O'Sullivan said, this is the revenge of Sarah Palin. Much like O'Sullivan wrote regarding Sarah Palin following the 2008 election, "snobs are wrong about Sarah Palin". Crossposted here and here.

Where There is No Vision, the People Perish

"Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he."- Proverbs 29:18

Both in her appearance with Shannon Bream today and her Facebook post last night, Governor Palin noted this election's focus on vision, noting in her Facebook post that President Obama has stated this election is about " two fundamentally different visions of America". In her Facebook post, she also delineated numerous ways in which the vision of candidate Obama has failed when he came into office. In her interview with Shannon Bream, she referenced Thomas Sowell's discussion on the "conflict of visions" and how too often try to solve their own problems (i.e. their re-elections) rather than solve the country's problems. Politicians are too often expediently myopic.

With Mitt Romney noting last week that he was seeking a vice presidential candidate with " vision for country" and with his selection of Congressman Paul Ryan who is known for his budgetary"roadmap"--a vision for the country, it has become more clear that the vision for the country, not change, is the keyword of this election. However, it is imperative that our leaders are visionary enough to accompany that vision with action and courage. The verse from the book of Proverbs at the beginning of this post comes from the Israelite king Solomon to whom God granted great wisdom. Unfortunately, Solomon too frequently misapplied the great wisdom he was blessed with, and it ultimately culminated in a divided kingdom in the next generation. His vision was a self-involved one, and it ultimately led to the centuries of political turmoil for his people.

In December 2010, Governor Palin was the first prominent conservative to provide support for Congressman Ryan's roadmap, writing in the Wall Street Journal:

In my view, a better plan is the Roadmap for America's Future produced by Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.). The Roadmap offers a reliable path to long-term solvency for our entitlement programs, and it does so by encouraging personal responsibility and independence.

In that op-ed, she noted that the fiscal reforms that Paul Ryan proposed would address the unsustainable problems with Social Security, Medicare, health care, and the national debt. He offered a vision to fix America's problems--not his own political problems. However, due to decades and decades of politicians who served only to further their own interest, pad their bank accounts, and solve their own problems, our nation has come to a tipping point. Our leadership has failed to provide a vision to prevent problems from happening in the first place, so instead, they are forced to solely solve problems--many of which could not have been prevented.

In order to deal with the massive problems our country faces, our leaders must realize that their vision must be one of both problem prevention and problem solving, but they also must realize that those who solve problems are ultimately the American people--not the government. Our problems can't be micromanaged, nor can they be solved solely because one party does a "better" job of managing the economy. Government's role is not to manage the economy. Solving the problems of "energy cronyism" won't end by replacing solar and ethanol subsidies with oil and coal subsidies. Our large deficits and growing debts won't be prevented if our leaders aim to cut taxes, but only cut spending around the margins.

Being from Alaska, a state whose motto is "north to the future" and who sees the north star as a guiding force, perhaps Governor Palin has a better sense of true vision than many other politicians--one that can be seen in her record and in her ideas. I wrote two posts at Conservatives4Palin in spring 2011 talking about Governor Palin's "forward focused leadership" on both energy and spending. Governor Palin's vision on energy set in motion the construction of a natural gas pipeline. Her vision on budgeting lead her to cut spending 9.5% during her tenure for the sake of Alaska's fiscal health, and due in large part to her policies, Alaska has had their credit upgraded twice since 2007.  Additionally, last year Governor Palin laid out a vision for America when she spoke in Indianola, Iowa. Her vision focused on ridding our political system of crony capitalism, stopping the expansion of the federal government, repealing Obamacare, reining in debt, becoming an energy superpower, and removing both corporate taxes and corporate welfare.

Governor Palin is a visionary political figure--in both her words and her deeds. When she chose not to run for the presidency last fall, many of the pundits wanted to relegate her to the role of political cheerleader, but the past ten months have shown she is no cheerleader in this political game. She is a visionary coach who has encouraged a game plan for this election cycle:

Our country cannot afford four more years of Barack Obama’s fundamentally flawed vision. We must now look to this new team, the Romney/Ryan ticket, to provide an alternate vision of an America that is fiscally responsible, strong, and prosperous – an America that understands and is proud of her exceptional place in the world and will respect those who fight to secure that exceptionalism, which includes keeping our promises to our veterans.  

[...] 

Please continue to focus on the presidential race and on helping Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, but it’s also imperative that we get involved in the nation’s important House and Senate races. These candidates need our help to ensure that our next president has a responsible and ethical Congress that actually gets things done for America. Now on to November!

The Obama presidency has provided ample examples of a failed vision. The Romney-Ryan campaign must provide fiscally sound, reform minded vision, and they must do so with courage and conviction. When their vision is being falsely blurred by the Obama campaign and the complicit media, as Governor called for in her interview with Shannon Bream,  let us have their back (something she has never fulled received from her GOP colleagues). Finally, a vision cannot be implemented with inadequate leadership; it's not solely about the presidential race, but Congress as well. A visionary coach would know how important it was for the success of the 49ers to have not only Joe Montana on their team, but also Jerry Rice. It doesn't matter what your quarterback is capable of if you have a poor wide receiver.

This election isn't about nebulous hope and change. It's about the vision that extends beyond the next election and leadership that extends beyond speeches. Both leadership and vision must work in concert with each other. As President Reagan once said, " to grasp and hold a vision--that is the very essence of successful leadership". Crossposted here and here.

Why Senate Races Are the Most Important Races of 2012

In an election year when there is a presidential election in addition to Congressional and statewide races, the presidential election often takes center stage. In some respects, this is understandable. The president comprises the head of one of the three branches of our constitutional republic.However, the focus on the presidency is indicative of a government whose balance of power has gotten out of whack. For starters, we have crept away from our Constitutional foundation where the federal government's power is limited, and the states' power is appropriate. Even in our federal government, the scales of power have been tipped. Congress has willingly abdicated its legislative powers to unelected executive branch agencies who legislate under the guise of regulation. Couple the extensive powers of agencies and departments like the EPA, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security with the increasing frequency of executive orders in the last 100+ years, it is clear that the branches of government have been twisted. Additionally, with each Supreme Court decision, judicial precedence becomes the new guiding force rather than the true precedence--the Constitution.

One of the reasons our Founders created this three branch system of government was to provide a check and balance, not only to provide a check to each branch's adherence to the Constitution or ideology, but also to each branch's power. The election later this year has the potential to re-elect an extremely progressive president or elect an unprincipled "Republican". This election year also will indicate whether we maintain a GOP House or flip it, Somewhat lost in the shuffle is that this election year also determines whether or not Republicans regain control of the Senate or at least pick up some seats. Regardless of who is elected President, there are several reasons why the Senate is especially crucial, as the Constitution has given Senators different powers or responsibilities than their counterparts in the House.

One of the responsibilities that the Senate specifically has is the ratification of treaties. In late 2010, we saw a Democratic majority Senate (with a good deal of moderate Republicans joining in) ratify the START treaty . This treaty with Russia was rushed through by America, only to have the Russians sit on the treaty before ratifying it themselves. With President Obama recently noting to Russian President Medvedev that he would have "more flexibility after the election", this would prove to be a motivator for conservatives if Obama were to be re-elected. A strong conservative Senate would be crucial in preventing the President from entering into more treaties that may not be in America's best interest, nor in the interest of an ally like Poland. Between President Obama scrapping a missile defense program in Poland on the 70th anniversary of Soviet invasion of Poland and his gaffes in discussing "flexibility" with the Russian President and in referring to Nazi death camps as Polish death camps, it would be important to have a Senate who would stand with America's allies and not aim to weaken our country. In the same vein, discussion has opened up again recently over the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) in the Senate. If this treaty were to be ratified, it would require that America pay royalties ,which would be distributed to poor underdeveloped countries, on energy development done in certain arctic regions. This would abdicate American sovereignty by implementing a global redistribution of wealth from energy production on what are really American seas. This is in addition to the limits on sea travel and naval activity. If this is ultimately not voted upon during this session, a conservative Senate would be a big deterrent in its ratification regardless of whether Obama's Secretary of State were to push for the treaty again or if a Romney administration were to advocate for its approval.

Another  important responsibility given to the Senate is the approval of judicial and cabinet appointments. A strong conservative Senate would help keep President Obama in check when he attempts to appoint a new Secretary of State, if he is re-elected. Current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, although quite liberal, was palatable enough to be confirmed by the Senate in 2009. However, she has opted not to serve in Obama's second term if he is re-elected. A conservative Senate would ideally help ensure that President Obama would appoint a more palatable liberal, rather than one who is a radical. We saw earlier in his term when President Obama attempted to appoint radical Donald Berwick to head Medicare, the blowback from Republicans and conservatives was strong enough to prompt President Obama to appoint Berwick during a Senate recess. Berwick later resigned from his post.  This check and balance would be even more pronounced if the Senate were to not only become more Republican, but more conservative as well. Additionally and probably most importantly, a strong conservative is needed when a new Supreme Court nominee is appointed. There is the potential for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg to retire. Would a President Obama appoint another justice to perpetuate judicial activism for even longer in that seat? Additionally, there is potential that if a Republican were to win, Justices Roberts and Scalia would retire in order for more justices to be appointed by a Republican president. For the most part, with the blocked appointment of Robert Bork being a notable exception, the Senate confirms the President's nominees to the bench. However, would Senate confirmation hearings of Obama's appointees be more rigorous with a conservative Senate, or would they be bold enough to block a radical appointee? On the flip side, would a conservative Senate hold a Romney administration accountable in appointing a true originalist judges to the bench, even in spite of his poor record of judicial appointments as governor? Romney often blames Democratic control in Massachusetts as a source of his failings. Would a conservative Senate hold him accountable to make wise decisions? Not only in potential judicial appointees, but also in his own cabinet, as again, he did a poor job with some other appointees as governor and even to date as the presumed GOP nominee.It is important that the Senate provides a conservative and constitutional check to whomever is elected President in November.

Suffice it to say, the 33 Senate seats up for grabs this November are extremely important, not only in working with their bicameral buddies in the House, but also in providing a much needed check to whomever occupies the White House and whomever may be placed on the judicial bench. In order to slowly but surely try to bring our nation back to its true Constitutional foundation, we must ensure that principled conservatives are elected in 2012. Most conservatives are disenchanted by our presidential prospects, but we have every reason to be inspired by the foundational principles found in our Constitution. We must remember, though, as the father of our Constitution, James Madison, once noted, "if men were angels, no government would be necessary". Men are not angels, and yet another blessing of our republic is that we get to elect our leaders from amongst our fallible selves. It is inherent in our human nature that our leaders will be flawed.Therefore, it is important for us to elect from among the flawed human candidates out there those who have the best grasp of our Constitution so that they may exercise those powers and responsibilities that they swear an oath to uphold to the best of their abilities. Let's remind our leaders that the Constitution still begins with "We the People", and let's ensure we have a Senate that lives that message out in their leadership.

Crossposted here and here.

Governor Palin's Message to the Donner Party--We Owe Americans a Better Discourse than This

...One of the left's favorite weapons is frivolous ethics complaints. That's what they used to bring down the architect of the 1994 "Republican Revolution", Newt Gingrich. 

Prior to the election of 1994, the Democrats had held a majority in the House of Representatives for nearly 4 decades. Working with a team of grassroots activists, Newt selected and trained candidates, shaped a political message, and became what [David] Horowitz called "something rare in Republican politics--a genuine movement leader." 

To the left, that meant one thing: he had to be eliminated. There are many fine Democrat public servants, but sadly many in the party have moved increasingly left, and often the beating heart of their political warfare had been the personal distruction of their enemies. Generally speaking, after decades of failed social policies and weak national security positions, the party doesn't have a strong base of success from which to win political arguments. So it targets people instead of ideas. 

Back in the 1990s, Democrats had Newt in their sights. And strangely enough, the more influential he became, the more "unethical" he became--at least if you count the number of complaints filed against him. Horowitz wrote, "Eventually, Democrats lodged seventy-four separate charges against Gingrich, sixty-five were summarily 'laughed out the committee'. 

Over time the cloud of ethical questions hanging over Newt reached critical mass. Instead of defending their own, Republicans on certain committees forced Newt to concede one charge. 

-Governor Palin in Going Rogue (page 363-364) (emphasis added)

Yesterday, Governor Palin wrote a scathing rebuke of the GOP Establishment, which based upon the title of that Facebook post, I'm going to now refer to as the Donner Party.Governor Palin has recognized the tactics of the left as they have been applied to both Speaker Gingrich and herself. The excerpt from her book that I shared above comes amid her discussion of the frivolous charges launched at her. What this excerpt and her Facebook post really boil down to is three things: 1) the savageness of the left 2) the passive and sometimes non-existent defense of the "right" and 3) the cannibalism that has been employed by the "Donner Party".

As Governor Palin wrote in that Facebook post:

But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterly clinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 who didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all.  

 [...]  

 As I said in my speech in Iowa last September, the challenge of this election is not simply to replace President Obama. The real challenge is who and what we will replace him with. It’s not enough to just change up the uniform. If we don’t change the team and the game plan, we won’t save our country. We truly need sudden and relentless reform in Washington to defend our republic, though it’s becoming clearer that the old guard wants anything but that. That is why we should all be concerned by the tactics employed by the establishment this week. We will not save our country by becoming like the left. And I question whether the GOP establishment would ever employ the same harsh tactics they used on Newt against Obama. I didn’t see it in 2008. Many of these same characters sat on their thumbs in ‘08 and let Obama escape unvetted. Oddly, they’re now using every available microscope and endoscope – along with rewriting history – in attempts to character assassinate anyone challenging their chosen one in their own party’s primary. So, one must ask, who are they really running against?

Governor Palin has seen the nature of the tactics of the left and some in the Establishment first hand. She saw her family attacked, her maternity questioned, and her record misrepresented by an Obama campaign machine and a complicit media. The media still employ individuals, like recent Newsweek cover story author Andrew Sullivan,  who question that she is the mother of her youngest son. The 2008 election and beyond brought a whole flurry of attacks on Governor Palin and her record. A legislative inquiry, billed as an "October surprise" for the 2008 election, was launched into whether or not Governor Palin pressured a commissioner to fire a state trooper for personal reasons. This was led by a Alaskan Democrat who later was rewarded with a cushy job in the Obama Interior Department, and the Obama campaign kept in contact with the trooper's union during the proceedings. Her record--from funding for special needs education as Governor to funding for rape kits while mayor--was lied about.   Additionally, when the barrage of frivolous ethics complaints were levied against the Governor in 2009, many of them came from the DNC's official Alaskan blogger for the 2008 campaign. The McCain campaign in 2008 and few if any Republicans in 2009 came to her defense when her record was misrepresented, her character was attacked, and unsubstantiated charges were levied against her.

As an electoral defeat seemed imminent and eventually came to be in 2008, anonymous McCain staffers (many of whom were former Romney staffers) were thought to be the ones who disparaged the Governor--who was a candidate on the very ticket they were working for--by saying she "went rogue" against the McCain campaign's direction, didn't know that Africa was a continent, and answered the door of her hotel room with nothing but a towel on during the campaign. All this happened while, as Governor Palin stated in her Facebook post, "[m]any of these same characters sat on their thumbs in ‘08 and let Obama escape unvetted". Senator McCain's staff was kneecapping their own candidate while Senator McCain was unwilling to effectively focus on candidate Obama's associates and lack of a record.

 In 2010, anonymous Romney staffers would dismiss Governor Palin as "not a serious human being", and even as recently as last fall, other anonymous staffers joked that they would be trilled with a Palin (and/or a Bachmann) candidacy because they could run against  those "crazy women".   Not juxtaposition of records or ideas, but personal attacks, not by Romney himself, but by anonymous staff. His hands stay clean while his potential opponents get knocked.

It's not just about Governor Palin, though in spite of the fact she isn't running for President this cycle, the Donner Party still sees her as a great threat. It is the Tea Party movement.When Christine O'Donnell won the GOP primary race for Senate in Delaware, GOP Establishmentarian Karl Rove and others spent the remainder of the campaign bashing O'Donnell and the Tea Party movement and essentially serving as an across-the-aisle surrogate for Chris Coons, the Democratic candidate and later victor of the race. To be sure, O'Donnell was in many ways a flawed and perhaps out-of-depth candidate, but the level of vitriol launched at her by her own party was hurtful to their chance to potentially regain control of the Senate. Although like O'Donnell,  Nikki Haley is seen by some as a traitor to Tea Party principles following her endorsement of Mitt Romney, she was one of the many who came into office under the wave of the Tea Party. Haley won her race in spite of sexist and Establishment lies about alleged affairs launched at her.  Again, the South Carolina Establishment, rather than supporting their party's gubernatorial nominee, levied attacks against her. To his credit, Governor Romney did support Nikki Haley in this, though the same could not be said of the next attack on Tea Party conservatives when the tragedy of the Tucson shootings occurred a few months following the 2010 election.  Romney and others said little if anything in defense of the Governor Palin, specifically, and the Tea Party, more broadly, when they were essentially deemed to be essentially accomplices to murder. Governor Palin is absolutely right. These folks are political cannibals, or at the very least, political pacifists unwilling to defend the people of their own party.

In Governor Palin's post, she articulates that this is also not about Newt Gingrich. In fact, Gingrich's support of liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava in the special election in NY-23 indicated that he was willing to go along with the Establishment, and he even criticized Governor Palin for supporting conservative candidate Doug Hoffmann. Gingrich has indeed been in Washington for many years and isn't without fault, but at this point in the election, poses the greatest threat to the Establishment's golden boy, Mitt Romney. As with any election, the candidates are imperfect. Herein lies the beauty of the American electoral experience! James Madison once said, " if men were angels, there would be no need for government".  The beauty of the America lies in the fact that  we choose are leaders from among ourselves. By default, they are going to be imperfect. That's not to say that their faults are to be excused. Quite possibly the only thing that Mitt Romney has not flip flopped on is the topic of Romneycare, among his other faults. Newt Gingrich has supported efforts on climate change with Nancy Pelosi and education with Al Sharpton among other liberal notions he's espoused over the years. Rick Santorum has voted against national right-to-work laws  and has some issues with using taxpayer money to fund his children's "cyber school" education. Ron Paul has a dangerous approach to Iran, and in spite of his strong stand against massive government spending, has requested millions in earmarks, even at a time when the GOP has called for a moratorium on earmarks. Like Governor Palin said, Newt Gingrich is an "imperfect vessel". Any candidate would have some level of imperfection.

The problem with the Donner wing of the GOP is that a double standard is applied. Earlier during the presidential primary, Romney hit then candidate Rick Perry from the left on Social Security without a peep from the Establishment, but when Newt Gingrich hit Romney from the Left on Bain Capital, it was seen as an inexcusable attack on capitalism. Romney, the candidate who said that he didn't want to return to the ways of Reagan, have been inaccurately and malevolently trying to paint Newt Gingrich as anti-Reagan. To be sure, Gingrich has perhaps been critical of Reagan's state department and had suggestions for George HW Bush's campaign, but to paint the man whom Nancy Reagan said carried President Reagan's torch, is an underhanded tactic. One could only imagine the tactics the Establishment would use against Governor Palin had she chosen to run. Attacks on her resignation and the frivolous ethics complaints would likely be used to try to paint her as not up to the pressure of the job of leader of the free world. Who knows? They may have even tried to paint her as anti-Thatcher as well!

The Establishment wants a coronation; the electorate wants a nomination. Generally it has been the "next-in-line" who has gotten the support of the Establishment. In 2008, it was John McCain, and in 2012, it is Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney has gotten the support of the those in the conservative media--Jennifer Rubin and Ann Coulter. He has received the support of the likes of John McCain, President George HW Bush, and Bob Dole--candidates who took the phrase "everything in moderation" and turned it into a political ideology. Whoever has been the biggest challenge to Mitt Romney has been disparaged by the Establishment. Jennifer Rubin started writing negative pieces about Governor Palin 8 days after she started writing for the Washington Post. At the time, Governor Palin's potential candidacy was the biggest threat to Romney's nomination. The Establishment knocked Rick Perry when his candidacy peeked and was a threat to Romney's nomination. Tom Ridge, moderate Republican and former Bush Cabinet member, hit Michele Bachmann as inexperienced when she was at her peak. While Newt Gingrich is seen as a Washington insider, he is not necessarily the Establishment's choice, and has therefore been in many ways unfairly attacked.

 To be sure, campaigns are cutthroat. Records need to be exposed. Policy plans will be scrutinized. Character will be tested. This is all for the benefit of the electorate and the refining of the candidates' mettle. Same standards must be applied to all candidates. People who cry foul on Gingrich's misrepresentation of Romney's immigration stance can't try to sweep Romney's misrepresentation of Gingrich's ethics record under the rug. Our country was founded in part because the settlers wanted representation; they didn't want a distant king calling down orders and levying taxes from on high. Similarly, the conservative electorate, or any American electorate for that matter, does not want an oligarchical "Donner Party" to determine the outcome of election.  Here in Illinois, some of Mitt Romney's delegates are challenging Rick Santorum's ballot petition signatures to potentially keep him off the Illinois primary ballot. Mitt Romney's Illinois campaign manager is also our state treasurer.  Never mind that in the interim, Illinois credit was downgraded to the worst in the country. Getting a political opponent off the ballot is far more important than hunkering down and addressing a major fiscal crisis to those backing Romney. In other words, Romney's supporters would rather not give Illinoisans a choice of candidates rather than win the battle of ideas.

 Thankfully, there are people like Governor Palin who are echoing the words of President Reagan when he said, "those voices don't speak for the rest of us" when speaking about the Elite whether it liberals in elected office or those in the political power at a party level. During her gubernatorial run in 2006, a pivotal point came when Governor Palin's opponents were bickering, and she interrupted them and calmly said, "we owe Alaskans a better discourse than this".  Governor Palin has essentially said the same thing on a national level.  The GOP owes the electorate a discourse, not an Establishment monologue, on the issues, and they owe us a better one. Eleanor Roosevelt once said, " Great minds discuss ideas;average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people". This primary election must be a discourse of ideas, not a barrage of personal attacks. As an undecided voter, a discourse of ideas, not an Establishment command, is what I would like to see in the coming weeks and months of this upcoming election. I'm glad to see that Governor Palin has continued to hold the Donner Party accountable for their tactics.

 Crossposted here and here.

The Misplaced Argument against Romney's Bain Capital and the GOP Primary Fight

This past July, I wrote a post where I made a minor point about Governor Romney's association with Bain Capital:

Between lobbying efforts and campaign funding, it seems that too often the government allows itself to be beholden to special interest groups and only certain institutions, and, thus, legislation is often crafted to benefited favored institutions, rather than the American people. This is a bipartisan problem. In fact, it is interesting to note that in the last three months, Governor Romney received far more campaign funds from Goldman Sachs employees than even President Obama. Romney has also accepted more than half a million dollars in campaign funding from lobbyists during that period of time. Additionally, in 1994, Romney’s Bain Capital actually has partnered with Goldman Sachs in purchasing Dade International, a medical diagnostics firm. In doing so, 1,600 Dade employees were laid off between 1994 and 1999, but Bain Capital and Goldman Sachs would later cash in selling back their shares to Dade for more than $350 million. So when Mitt Romney tries to tout his job creating skills as a businessman, it should be noted that he has also destroyed jobs while partnering with a company that would later give him loads of campaign money.

To be sure, Governor Romney's time with Bain Capital also afforded opportunities for company restructuring and indeed job creation in some situations, as the Wall Street Journal indicates that Romney's time at Bain had mixed result. At the same time, as I mentioned during the summer, there are some potential issues with his campaign funding that likely came as a result of his time at Bain. Since Romney helped bring in the cash for Goldman Sachs, they have reciprocated with campaign funding. What will this mean for them if he wins the White House? Is Goldman Sachs anticipating that Romney would sign bills into law that would be favorable to them? It seems so. This really is the only criticism that can be launched at his time at Bain. Does it prove to be the foundation for a crony capitalistic presidency?


 This isn't to say that Romney was wrong in his involved with Bain. He was acting as a businessman. Isn't capitalism all about the market picking winners and losers? As Jim Pethokoukis writes:

Of course, Romney and Bain weren’t in the game to create jobs. They were in it to make money for their investors and themselves. Then again, the same would go for Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, Warren Buffett, and just about every other successful entrepreneur and investor you could name. But that is the miracle of free-market capitalism. The pursuit of profits by creating value benefits the rest of society through higher incomes, more jobs, and better products and services. This isn’t “destructive creation”—like, say, crippling U.S. fossil fuel production before “clean energy” sources are viable—but “creative destruction” where innovation and efficiency sweep away the old and replace it with a more productive and wealthier society.

However, the fact that some candidates are choosing to attack Governor Romney for his business decisions is misplaced, and Romney's primary opponents have a lot more than can go after rather than attacking his business experience. As Michelle Malkin has written today:

Mitt Romney’s chronic flip-flopping political career is teeming with reasons to oppose his nomination — from his support for racial preferences, to government funding of abortion, liberal judges, global warming enviro-nitwittery, TARP, auto bailouts, the Obama stimulus, gun control, and of course, individual health insurance mandates that presaged Obamacare.Instead of focusing on his long political record of expedience, incompetent non-Romneys have morphed into Michael Moore propagandists — throwing not just Bain Capital under the bus, but wealth creators of all kinds who take risks in the private marketplace. 

We’re screwed.

Please read the entirety of Malkin's piece because, as usual, she is spot on. There is much to oppose Governor Romney on, but if the candidate choose to attack capitalism it shows a sense of desperation that is unhelpful. All of the candidates are flawed, and as James Madison," if men were angels, there would be no need for government". One of the many beauties of America is that we get to choose our leaders from amongst ourselves.  Our leaders are going to be flawed, just as we are. Where does that leave us? It leaves us to study the records, ideas,and character of all the candidates for ourselves and make an informed decision. Juxtapose these against other candidates. Appropriately address what you may see as problems with a candidate's record or policies.


 This doesn't mean that we denigrate other conservatives for their decisions to choose to support any given candidate. Make an informed, respectful argument for why you support who you are supporting. There is sadly much bickering and name calling among conservatives because of who they may choose to support. If people have done their due diligence, more power to them if they have made their decision with their choice of candidate. We are all independent thinkers. One person may view a candidate's strength as greater in magnitude than another person may. One person may see a candidate's flaw as a dealbreaker. All opinion are valid. Some people choose to vote with their heads, some their hearts, and some their conscience. On rare occasions are we afforded the opportunity to vote with all three.Vote with your head, heart, conscience, or all three if your candidate fits the bill. So do your research. Make your informed decision, or choose not to if your information leads you not to support in the primary. We can't simultaneously be a country whose greatest blessing is individual liberty when we abuse that liberty to degrade others for exercising their own. 

What the health is wrong with "personal responsibility"?

Discussion of the individual mandate for health insurance has been swirling for quite a long time from debates over healthcare reform at state and federal levels or a point of political criticism by fellow candidates in the upcoming presidential primaries. It's not only that liberals approve of it, such as in the passage of Obamacare or in in candidate Hillary Clinton's plans. Republicans and conservative groups have expressed support for an individual mandate to some degree as well. Governor Romney wrote the book on an individual mandate when he passed a healthcare reform plan as Governor of Massachusetts, despite the fact that he defends his plan using the "federalism" argument. The 10th amendment may give Constitutional support to what states do, but it doesn't make those things a good idea. Yesterday, Mitt Romney continued to defend his plan, but this time re-iterated its merits on the basis of personal responsibility (as he has done previously). Sensing that Speaker Gingrich is his current competition, Romney noted that Gingrich also had supported the concept of health insurance mandates on the basis of "personal responsibility", noting too that the Heritage Foundation had supported the concept of insurance mandates.

What might make supposedly "conservative" politicians want to have government mandate that individuals purchase a certain product such as health insurance, even under the guise of "personal responsibility"? Doesn't that conflict with the idea of personal liberty that conservatives espouse? Peter Schweizer just published a book, Throw Them All Out, where he spent a whole chapter discussing the relationship between Congressional stock trades and legislation. He discussed how Congressmen purchased stocks in drug companies just before the Medicare Part D legislation was passed in 2003, knowing that the stock prices would rise after the bill was signed into law and they would reap the profits. During Obamacare deliberations, Congressmen purchased stock in health insurance companies once they new the "public option" would be nixed, and insurance stock prices would go up. While neither of these situations focused on a personal mandate, they do suggest that politicians are willing to add layers of bureaucracy and create new government programs for their personal benefit. Speaker Gingrich has expressed support for a personal mandate on multiple occasions, as early as 1993 and as recently as this past May. Why? While Gingrich is indeed opposed to Obamacare and has expressed disapproval of its mandate, he also consulted for drug companies and health insurance companies as part of  his healthcare think tank, which supported insurance mandates, to the tune of millions of dollars. Governor Perry also supported a health care mandate of sorts with his (thankfully overturned) Gardasil mandate, which was essentially political payback for Merck's donations to his campaign and to the RGA. Politicians, even self-proclaimed conservatives, will often advocate for greater government control over healthcare if it helps their pocketbook or their political career.

The idea that personal responsibility lies in the purchase of health insurance, even by the Heritage Foundation, is misplaced. Individuals should be responsible for their own health, not mandated to purchase a product. Government can do little to control or mandate health, but they can do a heck of a lot to mandate health insurance purchase,  create greater bureaucracy, and implement larger regulations. However, people are truly responsible for their own health. The most free market, patient centered healthcare ideas center around the fact that the individual is empowered to make his or her own decisions when it comes to health. This is why things like health savings accounts are well supported by conservatives, as they enable individuals to choose how their money is being spent for a portion of their health care needs.

Beyond this, though, is the needed focus on personal responsibility in health choices in eating and exercise, not because of mandated school lunch programs to help curb childhood obesity proposed by fearmongering liberals, but for the sake of one's own health. While cancers and chronic diseases are often linked to genetics and other factors outside one's control, 40% of cancers and 80% of chronic diseases are preventable.  Choices in exercise, smoking, and nutrition will go along way to help keep an individual healthly. This is not to say that people should not purchase health insurance or accept health coverage from their employer, but simply that it not be the subject of the mandates, nor couched in "personal responsibility" language.  Many laughably defend the health insurance mandate by referencing car insurance mandates (never mind that you're not mandated to own a car).However, if we were to take even that irrational argument further, then health insurance should only cover when you get in an accident, not when you go in for a routine physical, which is akin to an oil change and is not covered by car insurance.People with health insurance are generally healthy, but health insurance does not make one healthy. Making healthy personal choices (without government intervention) is the truest form of personal responsibility, but it sure is a lot harder for politicians to make money off of our own personally responsible choices.

Palin, Perry, Romney, and Pleading the Tenth

Federalism is a constitutional principle based in the 10^th amendment that notes powers not given to the United States nor denied to the individual states are given to the states and their people. It seems, though, some governors in the presidential race use this as a justification for implementing bad, government expanding policy in their individual states. Of course, states do have the right to implement their own laws and policies, but just as Governor Palin has said in response to President Obama’s policies, “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should”.

Governor Romney often uses the federalism justification to defend his government mandated healthcare reform, arguing that states are supposed to be “laboratories of democracy”, while at the same time, criticizing President Obama’s federal mandate. It should be noted that while he now defends hi s policies on the basis of federalism, he did not have a problem receiving massive amounts of federal dollars to pay for his plan. A report published in June by Suffolk University in Massachusetts notes:

The federal government continues to absorb a significant cost of health care reform through enhanced Medicaid payments and the Medicare program. Health care reform has also increased the rate for Medicare Advantage plans in Massachusetts, which has contributed to an increase in Medicare health care expenditures through prices for medical service delivery.

The study also noted that federal government spent an additional $2.418 billion in Medicaid payments and nearly $1.5 billion in Medicare expenditures, which account for 45% of the costs in its first five years of implementation. Why was someone who defends their policies on the basis of federalism so dependent upon federal funding (and the attached federal requirements) to implement their policies?

Governor Perry is another governor who defends his government expanding state policies, but wouldn’t support a similar federal law. Governor Perry passed a law which allow illegal immigrants to receive in state tuition at Texas universities if they lived in Texas for 3 years, graduated from a Texas high school, an were on a path to citizen ship. On the Mark Levin show on Thursday, Perry said that he is “absolutely against the DREAM act”. The DREAM Act, which Governor Palin also opposes, is a federal program that grants eventually citizenship to illegal immigrants who complete some level of post-secondary education or military service. After a certain length of time, such students would be eligible for Pell grants and student loans. Perry also goes on to say that children “shouldn’t be punished for a decision their parents made” and that such decisions should be a “state by state issue”. Perry says that no one should be punished for someone else’s mistake, but that same principle should be applied to legal immigrants who are abiding by the rules (and paying out-of-state tuition). Are not legal immigrants, who are abiding by the rules, being “punished” when illegal immigrants are receiving preferable treatment? Is it fair to Texas taxpayers who are essentially subsidizing education for illegal immigrants to the tune of more than $30 million in financial aid between 2004 and 2008? Legal immigration is one of the most beautiful things about America. Our melting pot of cultures is what makes America the greatest country in the world, but so does the fact that we are a nation of laws.

Governor Palin, on the other hand, used her gubernatorial tenure to reduce the state's dependency on federal dollars, rather than increase dependency under the pretzel logic federalism justification like Governor Romney. She reduced federal earmarks by 86% during her tenure by also drastically reducing the number of projects that were federally funded. In addition to this, she used federalism properly. Rather than use it as an argument to defend bad state policy, she used it to protect her state from bad federal policy. Governor Palin twice sued the federal government of their use of the Endangered Species Act to protect areas against oil development. In 2008, Governor Palin sued the federal government over the listing of the polar bear as “threatened” which would require a more stringent review process before resource development would be allowed. In 2009, she sued again—this time over the endangered status of beluga whales in Cook Inlet, which also stood as a road block to development. Governor Palin also used federalism to defend Alaska’s right to establish education standards that were best for Alaska, rather than accept the “one-size-fits-all” federal standards of the Obama administration. Governor Palin noted in a March 2009 press release:

“Alaska’s decision not to participate until after we monitor this is based on our desire to spend our time and public resources to improve instruction in the classroom and to form productive relationships between schools and the communities they serve,” Governor Palin said. “If this initiative produces useful results, Alaska will remain free to incorporate them in our own standards.”

[…]

“The State of Alaska fully believes that schools must have high expectations of students,” Governor Palin said. “But high expectations are not always created by new, mandated federal standards written on paper. They are created in the home, the community and the classroom.”

To his credit, Governor Perry also rejected the federal education standards as well as Race to the Top funding, as Governor Palin did. However, some other federally funded and mandatory coursework in Texas has been questioned.

When it comes to be people seeking to serve in an office which requires you to swear an oath to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States”, it would behoove such individuals to understand the proper application of the principles of the Constitution and its amendments. The Constitution should not be used for a defense of bad policy; it should be used as a blueprint for proper governance and the implementation of good policy.

Crossposted here and here.

Governor Palin and the Return of Jacksonian Foreign Policy

In May, Governor Palin gave a speech at a “Tribute to the Troops” event at Colorado Christian University. As part of this speech, Governor Palin outlined a clear vision of American military policy, which has now become known as the Palin doctrine by many:

There’s a lesson here then for the effective use of force, as opposed to sending our troops on missions that are ill-defined. And it can be argued that our involvement elsewhere, say in Libya, is an example of a lack of clarity. See, these are deadly serious questions that we must ask ourselves when we contemplate sending Americans into harm’s way. Our men and women in uniform deserve a clear understanding of U.S. positions on such a crucial decision. I believe our criteria before we send our young men and women—America’s finest—into harm’s way should be spelled out clearly when it comes to the use of our military force. I can tell you what I believe that criteria should be in five points.

First, we should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake. Period.

Second, if we have to fight, we fight to win. To do that, we use overwhelming force. We only send our troops into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. We do not stretch out our military with open-ended and ill-defined missions. Nation building is a nice idea in theory, but it is not the main purpose of our armed forces. We use our military to win wars.

Third, we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly and concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent into battle. Period.

Fourth, American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side with our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and the command of American officers.

Fifth, sending in our armed forces should be the last resort. We don’t go looking for dragons to slay. However, we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who are sincerely fighting for the empowerment of the individual. When it makes sense, when it’s appropriate, we will provide them with material support to help them win their own freedom.

Today, in her Facebook post, Governor Palin offered her thoughts on the recent activity in Libya, evaluating the situation realistically and cautiously and highlighting how the “Palin Doctrine” would be applied in practice. She cautioned against “triumphalism” and warned of co-opting of Libyan liberation and the future Libyan government by radical Muslim groups like Islamic Libyan Fighting Group and al Qaeda, as is being done in Syria. Much in the same way, she had warned against the takeover of Egyptian government by the Muslim Brotherhood after the ousting of President Mubarak in February. She also warned against committing troops to being involved in missions in Libya that would not be in America’s best interest, much in the same way that she blasted President Obama in April when she questioned President Obama’s lack of clarity on Libya and his decision to place US troops under foreign command. Her statement today was a weaving of multiple points of her military doctrine into a clear vision of what America’s role should be in Libya following the defeat of Gaddafi.

This once again allows Governor Palin to create a contrast between herself and the declared presidential candidates. Governor Romney made a short statement calling for the new Libyan government to allow extradition of the Lockerbie bomber to the US to bring about justice for the Pan Am terrorism from 1986. To be sure, justice is a worthy and necessary goal, but Romney’s vision is myopic. He does not offer any solutions for the larger problem of the instability in Libya. Governors Perry and Huntsman recognized the need for cautious celebration, but do not seem to grasp the gravity of the threats of who may occupy the new Libyan government. Congresswoman Bachmann continued to express her non-support for Libyan involvement and hoped for a speedy removal of US troops, but did not offer solutions for how this should be done. Leadership, though, is not about vague statements or solutions with no game plan. Governor Palin clearly outlined the problems and warnings while providing specificity, not lip service to foreign policy solutions.

This post allowed for further expansion of Governor Palin’s Jacksonian approach to foreign policy. Too often, pundits create a false dichotomy between neoconservatism and isolationism, but Governor Palin espouses neither. Her foreign policy vision is along the lines of Presidents Jackson and Reagan—“robust internationalism” as Caroline Glick characterized it in a piece at Real Clear Politics last week. Glick’s piece provides concise and clear distinctions between neoconservatism, isolationism and robust internationalism. Neoconservatives,as Glick notes, have too often (and wrongly) lumped those who take a more Jacksonian view of foreign policy with isolationists:

Neoconservative writers have castigated opponents of US military involvement in Libya as isolationists. In so doing, they placed Republican politicians like presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin in the same pile as presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan.

The very notion that robust internationalists like Bachmann and Palin could be thrown in with ardent isolationists like Paul and Buchanan is appalling. But it is of a piece with the prevailing, false notion being argued by dominant voices in neoconservative circles that, "You're either with us or you're with the Buchanaites."

Glick later notes that this foreign policy approach is like that first espoused by President Jackson and later by President Reagan, as seen by the way Reagan dealt with the Soviet Union. He did so with great strength—because America’ s interests were at stake. Glick provides a good description of this foreign policy platform, and it is right in line with the “Palin doctrine”:

According to Mead, the Jacksonian foreign policy model involves a few basic ideas. The US is different from the rest of the world and therefore the US should not try to remake the world in its own image by claiming that everyone is basically the same. The US must ensure its honor abroad by abiding by its commitments and standing with its allies. The US must take action to defend its interests. The US must fight to win or not fight at all. The US should only respect those foes that fight by the same rules as the US does.

Glick later notes that America needs a President that espouses this Jacksonian approach to foreign policy and rejects the false choice between isolationism and neoconservatism:

Still, it would be a real tragedy if at the end of the primary season, due to neoconservative intellectual bullying the Republican presidential nominee was forced to choose between neoconservativism and isolationism. A rich, successful and popular American foreign policy tradition of Jacksonianism awaits the right candidate.

Governor Palin is the one who best captures this approach to foreign policy. Although Glick characterizes Congresswoman Bachmann as Jacksonian, Governor Palin offers more specificity and fewer platitudes. She also provides more pointed solutions and a more detailed understanding of the situation in Libya than the responses of Governors Perry and Romney, thus displaying yet again the difference between responsive leadership of Governor Palin and reactionary politics of the rest.

Crossposted here.

Governor Palin and the Difference between Responsive Leadership and Reactionary Politics

Vice President Biden has come under fire for awful comments he made regarding the Chinese’s one child policy while in China on Sunday (emphasis added):

“But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China,” he continued. “You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand – I’m not second-guessing – of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable.”

Vice President Biden condoned the horrific policies of the China government that allow only one child per family which has subsequently resulted in forced abortions, including sex-selective abortions, human rights violations, fines, and loss of jobs. These comments have engendered responses from the declared Presidential candidates. Governor Romney called China’s policy “gruesome and barbaric” while asserting that Biden acquiesced. Governor Perry criticized Biden for “moral indifference”.

This “one child” policy is decades old, and the Obama administration is more than two and a half years old. Where were these men on human rights abuses and the Obama administration indifference prior to this presidential election, when their comments could score political points? As we highlighted during the Chinese President’s visit to the US in January, Governor Palin has been at the forefront of highlighting international human rights and the Obama administration’s negligence in addressing these abuses, not because it would score her political points, but because of her principled support for human dignity and the sanctity of life. In September of 2009, during her a speech in the Chinese region of Hong Kong, Governor Palin boldly, yet diplomatically, criticized China for their injustices and disrespect for human liberties (emphasis added):

Think about it. How many books and articles have been written about the dangers of India’s rise? Almost as large as China – and soon to be more populous – virtually no one worries about the security implications of India becoming a great power – just as a century ago the then-preeminent power, Great Britain, worried little about the rise of America to great power status. My point is that the more politically open and just China is, the more Chinese citizens of every ethnicity will settle disputes in courts rather than on the streets. The more open it is, the less we will be concerned about its military build-up and intentions. The more transparent China is, the more likely it is they we will find a true and lasting friendship based on shared values as well as interests.

I am not talking about some U.S.-led “democracy crusade.” We cannot impose our values on other counties. Nor should we seek to. But the ideas of freedom, liberty and respect for human rights are not U.S. ideas, they are much more than that. They are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many other international covenants and treaties. They apply to citizens in Shanghai as much as they do to citizens in Johannesburg or Jakarta. And demands for liberty in China are Chinese, not American, demands. Just last year, many brave Chinese signed Charter 08, a Chinese document modeled on the great Czech statesman Vlacav Havel’s Charter 77. Charter 08 would not be unfamiliar to our Founding Fathers and was endorsed by Havel himself. No, we need not convince the Chinese people that they have inalienable rights. They are calling for those rights themselves. But we do have to worry about a China where the government suppresses the liberties its people hold dear.

In May of 2010, Governor Palin hammered the Obama administration’s State Department for essentially apologizing to the Chinese for Arizona’s immigration law, when it was China who was one engaged in true human rights violations, including their population control measures (emphasis added):

The absolute low point of this campaign came last Friday, when a U.S. State Department delegation met with Chinese negotiators to discuss human rights. Apparently, our State Department felt it necessary to make their Chinese guests feel less bad about their own record of human rights abuses by repeatedly atoning for American “sins” – including, it seems, the Arizona immigration/pro-border security law. Asked if Arizona came up at all during the meeting, Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner answered:

“We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session, and as a troubling trend in our society and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination, and that these are issues very much being debated in our own society.”

Note that he said “We brought it up” – not the Chinese, but the U.S. State Department’s own delegation. Instead of grilling the Chinese about their appalling record on human rights, the State Department continued the unbelievable apology tour by raising “early and often” Arizona’s decision to secure our border.

Arizona’s law, which just mirrors the federal law, simply allows the police to ask those whom they have already stopped for some form of identification like a driver’s license. By what absurd stretch of the imagination is that the moral equivalent of China’s lack of freedoms, population controls (including forced abortions), censorship, and arbitrary detentions?

This is not the only time that Governor Palin has made principled policy statements that were later echoed by announced, campaigning presidential candidates. Last week during an interview with Lou Dobbs, Governor Palin was asked about Governor Perry’s comments on the Federal Reserve, to which Governor Palin replied (emphasis added):

[Perry] called it like he saw it and I always respect people for doing so.What Governor Perry is voicing concern about is something I wrote about on Facebook pages about ten months ago, this quantitative easing or monetizing our debt, essentially printing money out of thin air, which will eventually devalue our dollar and, I think, lead to inflation, in order to make it look like our debt isn’t as bad as it really is, and Governor Perry was voicing great concerns that many of us share. He just used some more candid terms, I think, than some of us would have used.

Again, Governor Palin was principled and politically prescient enough to speak on the effects of quantitative easing as early as November of 2010, long before Governor Perry made such comments during the nascence of his presidential campaign. She made statements on Facebook and during a speech in Arizona warning of the inflationary impact of quantitative easing because it was important for our country to be aware, not because it had potential to score political points or provide red meat for potential supporters.

Governor Palin’s prescience and principled stances are not only a matter of rhetoric, but of record. During her time as Governor, she cut spending 9.5% and vetoed hundreds of millions of dollars in spending, not because times were tough, but because she wanted to keep government small and solvent. She reformed Alaska’s pension system and used surplus dollars to help pay down underfunded pensions, which reduced Alaska’s liabilities by 34.6 % to help provide analysts at Moody’s with enough confidence to later upgrade Alaska’s credit rating to AAA. This were not politically expedient decisions (she actually came under fire from lawmakers and unions for these decisions), nor were they done because of fiscal emergency, they were done because they were the right things to do for the short and long term fiscal health of Alaska. These are the kinds of rhetoric and record that distinguish a responsive leader like Governor Palin from the reactionary politicians like Governors Perry and Romney.

Crossposted here and here.

Governor Palin Used Her Executive Authority to Make Government Smaller and More Ethical

Executive experience is often seen as a needed criterion when looking for potential presidential nominees, especially among Republicans. It has been more than 130 years since the GOP nominated an eventual winner for President who only had legislative experience (Note: President Eisenhower’s military experience easily qualifies as executive experience). It goes beyond the simple dichotomy of legislative versus executive experience, however. What is even more important is how one used the executive experience that he or she has. Did he or she use such experience to make government smaller or bigger? Did he or she use their executive experience to create personal mandates or to expand individual freedom? Did he or she use their executive to perpetuate or get rid of cronyism.

The office of Alaskan governor is known for being a very powerful office—2^nd most powerful state executive in the country. What makes the Alaska governor’s office so powerful include line item veto power that can only be overridden by three-fourths majority in the legislature and the ability to appoint all statewide executive department heads and various board members positions and the like. The only two statewide elected officials are the governor and the lt. governor; other positions, such as attorney general, are appointed by the governor. In many ways, the proverbial buck indeed stopped with Governor Palin. During Governor Palin’s tenure, she used her executive power to make government smaller and more ethical and transparent.

As Governor, Sarah Palin vetoed nearly $500 million in spending during her tenure including vetoing nearly a quarter billion in 2007 alone. Such vetoes enabled her to cut Alaska’s budget 9.5% over her predecessor’s budget. She also vetoed $268 million in the FY2009 capital budget. Despite legislative outcry over these vetoes, they did not even take up a vote to attempt to override her veto. Earlier that year, Governor Palin vetoed nearly $58 million for funding various projects in a supplemental bill. She did not use her line item veto indiscriminately though. Some of the projects proposed by legislators were projects Governor Palin had vetoed the year prior. She gave legislators the opportunity to justify why such projects should be funded:

She said if lawmakers didn't want her to simply veto the projects again, they could make an appointment to come to her office and explain why the projects were worthy of funding. Palin personally attended more than a dozen meetings with lawmakers, and even opened them to the media.
On Thursday, members of her staff hand-delivered the results to lawmakers.

Of the $70 million in projects at issue, Palin accepted 52 projects totaling $12.4 million, chopped 16 worth $22.3 million, and put 155 projects worth $35.4 million in what she designated the "move" category.

In 2009, Governor Palin vetoed nearly $30 million in federal stimulus aimed at energy efficiency because it required federal building codes to be implemented. Her veto was later overridden by the legislature. Governor Palin was concerned with the sustainability of projects funded by the federal government when the funding would later dry out saying,” [i]f the legislature wants to add funds to grow government, then I also want to hear how we will get out of the fiscal hole we'll be in just two years from now when those temporary stimulus funds are gone". She could have used her pen to simply sign into law any spending project handed to her, but she did not. She exercised fiscal restraint, even to the dislike of the legislature, because she wanted to ensure government remained small and that all projects approved were truly worthy of state funding. Governor Palin used the power given to her by the Alaska constitution, but she did so to shrink spending, make state government smaller, and make Alaska less dependent on the federal government.

Governor Palin used her executive power to appoint individuals to cabinet type positions, councils, and the like who were of the same mindset when it came to making government smaller and reduce bureaucratic red tape. This can be seen in her creation of the Alaska Health Strategies Planning Council to address Alaska’s healthcare issues early in her term. This council was comprised of Department of Health and Social Services and individuals from various levels of government, the business community, the healthcare industry, and faith based organizations, and they were all appointed by the Governor. The recommendations from this council provided the basis for a healthcare proposal from the Governor, the Alaska Health Care Transparency Act, which would increase patient choice and remove bureaucratic red tape for providers—essentially making government smaller. One thing this act proposed was removing the Certificate of Need (CON) requirement for building new healthcare facilities:

STATE CON LAWS originated, like so many bad health care ideas, with a mandate from the federal government. In 1974, states were effectively told by Washington that no new medical facilities could be built unless a “public need” had been demonstrated. The idea was to reduce costs, but the only measurable effect of this federal decree was a morass of bureaucratic red tape that stifled competition in the health care market. In 1987, the federal statute was finally repealed, but many states inexplicably kept their CON processes in place. Alaska was one of them and, as Governor Palin put it in an editorial for the Anchorage Daily News, “Under our present Certificate of Need process, costs and needs don’t drive health-care choices — bureaucracy does. Our system is broken and expensive.”

This bill ultimately was rejected by the legislature, but it indicates-- both through her personal policy convictions and that of those whom she appointed-- smaller, less bureaucratic government was the goal.

Through her appointments, Governor Palin showed how she desired to use her executive power to make government void of crony capitalism and more transparent. This was seen in the seven individuals she brought in to work with oil and gas issues, who had become known as the Magnificent Seven. One of these individuals, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Commissioner, Tom Irwin, was fired by Governor Murkowski, Palin’s predecessor, due to his questioning of the legality Murkowski’s pipeline deal. Six other DNR employees quit in protest of Irwin’s firing. Governor Palin brought these individuals back to work for her administration appointing Tom Irwin as her DNR commissioner. These individuals were instrumental in both the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA)—her natural gas pipeline project—and Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share (ACES)—the oil tax structure. AGIA was negotiated in a transparent manner and allowed all potential pipeline companies and energy development companies to compete for the opportunity to participate in the project and also allowed Alaskans to view these proposals in a transparent manner. No special treatment was shown to any particular companies because neither Governor Palin, her commissioners, nor her DNR staff had industry cronies. The same could be said of ACES. Previously, PPT, the oil tax structure signed in to law by Governor Murkowski, was done in secret and was favorable to Murkowski’s cronies, which led to the indictment and arrest of Murkowski’s chief of staff, some legislators, and industry personnel from the pipeline company, VECO. ACES was not influenced by only certain oil companies, but instead provided incentives for any companies willing to engage in oil exploration. Governor Palin’s appointments helped rid Alaska of the crony capitalism and lack of government transparency.

Much of Governor Palin’s efforts to shrink government and make it more ethical are a direct contrast to the supposed GOP executive frontrunners in the race for the 2012 nominations. Both Governor Romney and Governor Perry grew government obligations. They both increased state debt at a far greater pace than Governor Palin, while Governor Palin actually reduced state liabilities for pensions and the like when Governors Romney and Perry increased state liabilities. Governor Romney’s infamous universal healthcare/individual mandate plan, which he defends on the basis of federalism, is very heavily funded, not by state monies, but by federal Medicaid and Medicare dollars and continues to run way over budget. Governor Perry once issued an executive order (thankfully later overturned by the Texas legislature)that mandated young girls to get a HPV vaccine manufactured by a company that gave substantially to Perry’s campaign. On the other hand, Governor Palin proposed a plan that gave more individual choices, not mandates, in healthcare. Governor Romney has a history of receiving campaign funds from entities that he once did business with and also had a history of engaging in and supporting corporatism through various subsidies. Governor Perry, too, has a history of crony capitalism by awarding business related grants to those who have donated to his gubernatorial campaigns. Governor Palin’s natural gas pipeline and her oil tax structure were aimed at removing cronyism, and her ethics reform bill sought to remove the influence of political favors for campaign funds.

Executives at any level of government could use their power to grow government spending and power and to reward cronies or those who donated to their campaign. Governor Palin is the only one who has a proven record of using her power to make the government smaller and less powerful. Governor Palin used her power to reduce government spending and state reliance on the federal funding. She desired to increase individual choice, not create individual mandates. She used her executive authority to make government more ethical and transparent while removing cronyism rather than perpetuating it. The differences could not be clearer.

Crossposted here and here.