The Difference between Embracing Bipartisanship and Eschewing Obsessive Partisanship

The recently passed fiscal cliff deal was heralded by the media as a "bipartisan compromise".  Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein emphasized that the deal needed a "bipartisan basis". Republican Senator John Boozman called the bill a "bipartisan solution" that would "tackle the financial troubles are country is facing". The bill ultimately received a total of 125 Republicans and 219 Democrats between both the House and Senate. The bill indeed was bipartisan, but what was the price of bipartisanship? Eighty percent of the revenue from the bill will go to President Obama's cronies through incentives and subsidies. The Congressional Budget Office ultimately determined that the touted "balanced approach" really meant that there would be 10 dollars in tax increases for every dollar in spending cuts leading to an additional $4 trillion in deficits.Additionally, the payroll tax holiday expired as part of the deal. It is indeed arguable that the tax holiday shouldn't have existed in the first place, as the holiday could contribute to the insolvency of Social Security. However, allowing that tax holiday to expire while claiming that the deal didn't "raise" taxes is a disingenuous claim by politicians pretending to champions for the middle class while 77% of Americans see less money in their paycheck. In order to face the political reality of a looming, media declared fiscal cliff that would have meant deep across the board spending cuts and tax increases, Congress ignored the fiscal reality of our present and future to spend more... but bipartisanship!

The media has touted the bipartisanship of both President Obama and Governor Chris Christie in recent months as well. President Obama has chosen to appoint former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense. Hagel supported Obama 2008 candidacy and has taken some stances on Iran and Israel that have made many leery of him as a Defense Secretary. Following the devastation of Hurricane Sandy, Governor Christie embraced and praised President Obama's response while more recently trashing Republicans for ultimately waiting a few days to pass a clean bill for Hurricane Sandy aid, rather than the pork laden bill that Christie preferred. Both of these politicians "sacrificed" in their bipartisanship--Obama his partisan stance for his policy stance and political friendship and Christie his party's purported conservative platform for his political advantage.

Abandoning a party platform (i.e. principle) for the sake of party happens often in politics. It's called obsessive partisanship. Congressman Paul Ryan joined in the aforementioned "bipartisanship" when he voted for the fiscal cliff deal, noting that he "had the guts to vote for it" and that allowing this plan to pass meant that "now we can finally debate spending". However, when Congressman Ryan had the opportunity to "debate spending" when President Bush was in office, he didn't. As I have written before:

He is an intelligent Congressman who has shown leadership in the House on the budget and making strong stances against Obamacare, particularly the IPAB---the unelected board of bureaucrats tasked with managing how Medicare pays. Ryan has served as a Congressman in Washington DC since 1999 and worked for House members for several years during the early and mid 1990s as well. However, despite his strong stance against the Obama administration's profligate spending, he also supported the TARP bailout during the Bush administration and the auto bailout set in motion during the Bush administration.

Paul Ryan is just one example. Individuals on both sides of the aisle are guilty of obsessive partisanship. When President Bush raised the debt ceiling, then Senator Obama called it "a failure of leadership", only to raise the debt ceiling himself in his first term. He is poised to raise it yet again. This is obsessive partisanship. It's one thing for a liberal or a conservative to vote or govern according to his or her principles. It is another thing to abandon one's alleged principles for the sake of party or political expediency.

Thankfully, there are some individuals who have eschewed obsessive partisanship for the sake of maintaining their principles. Sarah Palin is a prime example:

She had garnered a reputation for bucking her own party-- calling out the Alaska GOP chair for doing party business on state time, taking on and defeating an incumbent governor in her own party, cleaning up the ethical mess caused by that incumbent she defeated, and even suing a GOP presidential administration to enable energy development in Alaska.

There are other examples as well. Just this week former Illinois Republican gubernatorial candidate, Adam Andrezjewski filed a lawsuit against Republican comptroller Judy Baar Topinka to make the state of Illinois checkbook publicly available. Topinka had earlier denied Andrezjewski's organization's (For the Good of Illinois) FOIA request. He is suing a member of his own party for the sake of making a state in fiscal shambles more transparent. Making state spending publicly available was embraced by Governor Palin as well and is an example of obsessive partisanship eschewed. When Governor Palin launched that effort in Alaska in 2008, it was praised by both Grover Norquist and Democrat Ralph Nader. She willing exposed the spending she signed into law at the risk of political criticism.

This why pro market, pro transparency populism needs to be embraced. Americans have become jaded to politics where their kids' futures are put in jeopardy because politicians in Washington want to play kick the can for the sake of their own political expediency. Politicians too often point the finger of blame and broken promises only to find that when they point fingers they have three pointing back at them. Is a pro market, pro transparency approach to governance idealistic? Perhaps. Do we deserve it? With our propensity to vote the same folks into office election after election, maybe we don't, but America's future does deserve it. We can't continue to sacrifice our fiscal reality for the sake of our bipartisan, but obsessively partisan political reality.

Crossposted here and here.

The Fiscal Cliff--Compromising Our Founding Principles and Holding Hostage Our Future

As Democrats and Republicans discuss the media declared "fiscal cliff", there has been seemingly more rhetoric than ideas and more focus on political expediency than on principle. In other words, it's business as usual in Washington. Words such as "compromise" and "hostage" seem to be part of any press conference or speech surrounding the debate. Each party indicates a need for the other party to "compromise" so that a certain group, such as the middle class, is not held "hostage" by the other party's lack of "compromise". The fiscal cliff and the debate surrounding "compromise" and "hostage" holding are not static in our current political debate. Governor Palin was right when she noted last week that we've already reached the fiscal cliff, but what remains to be seen is how hard we're going to fall at the bottom.  The actual compromise is not a potential one between Republicans and Democrats, but the compromise that decades and decades of politicians of both parties have made with our Founding principles. Those who are held hostage are not solely the constituents of the present, but also future generations who will have to pay for the fiscal failures of the past and the present.

 The  media declared, nebulous "fiscal cliff" includes the potential tax increases that would occur if the Bush tax cuts were to expire and the large across the board cuts that would be enacted if sequestration was to occur. If no "deal" is reached, then the combination of tax increases and budget cuts are anticipated by some to exacerbate an already bad economy. In reality, as Governor Palin noted, our nation has already gone over the cliff because of burgeoning deficits contributing to a massive national debt. This is not because of inadequate taxation, but because of big government and poor monetary policy.

Spending has gone up immensely over the past three decades specifically. Per capita spending has gone from  just over $6,000 a year at the beginning of the Carter administration to nearly $12, 000 a year currently. Per capita spending stayed fairly constant at about $8,000 per person through the second part of President Reagan's tenure through President Clinton's time in office before increasing again during President Bush's tenure, as shown below in this graph posted at Reason. com:

The Bush and Obama administrations consistently have spent more than 20% of GDP, which was a rare occurrence in the previous fifty years. Under President Obama, there have been four straight years of more than a trillion dollar deficits, which has lead to his tenure generating more debt than the tenures of the first 41 president (George Washington through George H.W. Bush) combined. Additionally, President Obama has supported quantitative easing stimuli, which have devalued the dollar and negatively affected  both employment and interest rates. While President George W. Bush may have engaged in some pretty extreme "fiscal cliff" diving, Barack Obama has made Felix Baumgartner  seem like a risk averse wimp with the astronomic levels he has gone to in his"fiscal cliff" diving. All of this has lead to the current situation where leaders are trying to determine if our continued fall will include tax increases, mandatory spending cuts, increased borrowing or any combination of the three.

This spending has brought policymakers to a point where charged rhetoric is uttered more frequently than  actual solutions. The word "compromise" is thrown around frequently, which generally means that one party think the other party should abandon their principles to capitulate to them. However, the real "compromise" is one that leaders of both parties have made with our Founding principles of limited government and Founding documents like the Constitution.They all have sworn to uphold the precious document only to treat it as a disposable paper towel when they get in office. They  have compromised their oath for the sake of political expediency. President Obama has indicated that he wants complete authority to raise the debt ceiling  as part of a  "fiscal cliff" deal, which minority leader Nancy Pelosi supports as well. However, the Constitution clearly states that Congress holds the authority to borrow money, not the President. The power of the purse lies with Congress, be it to spend or borrow, yet our leaders continue to try to twist the branches of government where one branch can assume the role of the other and the balance of power becomes moved from its fulcrum.

Additionally, President Washington noted in his farewell address that borrowing money was to be done sparingly and generally only in times of unavoidable wars (emphasis added):

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible: avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.

President Washington understood something that our recent and current leadership has ignored--who is really held hostage by the political decisions of today--future generations. Today's politicians act primarily out of political expediency recognizing that if they can make the other party seem like a hostage taker to a certain segment of the population, then it helps them politically. However, the hostage is not solely the current taxpayer, but future generations who will be paying for the fiscal failures and bloated government of past and present politicians. As Margaret Thatcher famously noted eventually you run out of other people's money. If debt continues to accrue and the dollar continues to devalue, future generations will have to pay the ransom for their own pre-determined capture.

G.K Chesterston once noted of political compromise, “[c]ompromise used to mean that half a loaf was better than no bread. Among modern statesmen it really seems to mean that half a loaf is better than a whole loaf.” Whatever compromise (or capitulation) Democrats and Republicans come to (if they do), the check for the half loaf will ultimately be sent to future generations held fiscally hostage by the compromised leadership of our recent past and our present. We can only pray that someday our leaders will look to Thomas Paine's words as they make decisions, as Paine said, "if there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace".

Crossposted here and here.

Big Journalism: AP accuses Conservatives of Blocking Business

I wrote the following post at Big Journalism on Wednesday taking on a very biased article by the AP which blamed conservatives for being roadblocks to business:

On Monday afternoon, as President Obama announced his support for a tax increase that would affect nearly 900,000 small businesses, the Associated Press tweeted the following tweet and story to implicate Republicans as “roadblocks” to business:

The Associated Press

• ✔

@AP

Republicans often tout themselves as 'pro-business.' Yet conservatives have often put up roadblocks for business:apne.ws/NVlnJ3 -PP

9 Jul 12

• Reply
• Retweet
• Favorite

The story begins: "Conservative Republicans have roughed up the business community this year - and it's not over yet."

Really? Apparently, the Associated Press has ignored that Democrats' opposition to the job-creating Keystone Pipeline or the Supreme Court upholding the $500 billion Obamatax law will destroy jobs, among other examples. However, those oversights are only part of the media’s bias on display in this piece. 

The article then goes on to assert that conservative Republicans' supposed opposition to recent transportation bills, antipathy towards the Law of the Sea Convention, and resistance to re-authorization of the Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank are to blame for putting “roadblocks” to business.

The author, Donna Cassata, notes some conservatives preferred that the transportation projects be funded at a state level, going on to state, ”[n]ine short-term extensions later - and almost three years after the last transportation bill expired - businesses finally prevailed last month.” Cassata fails to mention that in 2009 and 2010, both Houses of Congress were controlled by Democrats, and during the last year, President Obama threatened to veto any transportation bill that included approval of the job-creating Keystone Pipeline. Democrats had ample opportunity to approve a transportation bill for two years but failed, and President Obama’s anti-energy development agenda prevented the bill from passing quickly since Republicans took over the House following the 2010 elections.

You can read the remainder of the post here.

What Both Parties Can Learn from Sheryl Crow

There is probably very little that Sheryl "one square" Crow and I agree on politically, but I've always enjoyed her music. In 1995, she wrote a song called "Leaving Las Vegas" for a film by the same name.

 

 Neither the song nor the film really have anything to do with gambling nor politics, but the song's theme of leaving Las Vegas is one that both political parties should learn from, metaphorically speaking--leave behind the practice of betting with the American taxpayers' money.

Today, President Obama launched a two day bus tour with the theme of "Betting on America" touting his support of the auto bailout and slamming Mitt Romney's business record. This is an interesting messaging approach for a man who has twice slammed people for spending time and money in Las Vegas. While President Obama tries to tout a message of supporting the American worker (betting on America), he has actually been betting with American taxpayer money throughout his presidency. He has attempted to pick winners and losers, such as in the infamous Solyndra loan where one of his donors won a more than half billion dollar green loan and the American taxpayer ultimately lost big time. He has invested millions in biofuels, again in a company with ties to one his cronies,  for the military at cost that is 4 times the average cost for the fuel in a normal market.

However, President Obama and the Democrats are not the only ones who have been involved in picking winners and losers at the taxpayer's expense. Republicans are also culpable, as a piece in the Washington Examiner notes of green energy loans:

George W. Bush and Barack Obama have also tried to boost wind and solar power with government money. The 2007 energy bill created a loan guarantee program in the Department of Energy, and Obama's 2009 stimulus expanded the program, ultimately putting Solyndra's losses and other green energy busts on the taxpayers' back.

This kind of behavior is not limited to only green energy loans. It extend to other kinds of loans--even loans to companies like Boeing. The Obama administration has demonized Boeing for wanting to build a plant in a right-to-work state and has denounced the use of corporate jets--which Boeing produces. Even still, he has allowed for the American taxpayers to be the guarantor of loans of to companies like Boeing when he signed the re-authorization, supported by both Republicans and Democrats, of the Export Import Bank. The Washington Examiner again notes:

Obama plans to use the Export-Import Bank -- a federal agency that gives taxpayer-backed loans and loan guarantees to foreign buyers who buy American goods -- to subsidize U.S. manufacturers even when they are selling to other American companies. 

This would be a significant step in the federal government's transformation into a venture capital firm and investment bank involved in all corners of the economy. It's private profit and public risk. Conservative Sen. Jim DeMint calls it "venture socialism." 

Ex-Im has been financing exports for decades. Taxpayer-backed loan guarantees push down interest rates for foreign buyers, thus greasing the wheels for U.S. manufacturers and eliminating risk for U.S. banks.

These loans are perhaps less risky than the "green" energy loans of the Department of Energy, but nonetheless, as the article states, they are " public risk". If the companies default, it's at the expense of the American taxpayer.

This is why it is important to make the distinction between big government, pro business, and pro market approaches to handling the economy. This is something that Governor Palin understands very well-- both in  how the government should handle green energy and  the economy as a whole. Regarding government investments in green energy, Governor Palin noted in an interview with Breitbart.com (emphasis mine):

Yes, for the private sector. I don’t think there is anything wrong with setting goals for alternative energy, but we have to be realistic. A truly effective alternative energy source needs to be efficient and profitable. No amount of Obama’s subsidizing his campaign donors’ bankrupt green energy companies—some with harebrained ideas that will never be economic—will get us to that efficient and profitable alternative. The free market will determine this. Sure, we can support research and development when it’s appropriate, but as scientists and venture capitalists continue to look for viable alternative energy sources, we should be encouraging the development of natural gas as a clean and plentiful bridge-fuel to a more renewable future. We have enough natural gas in America to be energy independent for many decades!

This is a pro-market approach to green energy, and it should be applied to all aspects of the economy. No more betting with the American people's money. I wrote in a previous post about Governor Palin's pro-market approach to the economy:

The big government views of the Left and the "pro business" views espoused by many in the GOP think that government exists to do things for the people or for businesses. Governor Palin is pro market. Who is empowered in a pro market economy? The consumers (the people). The people determine whether or not a business fails or succeeds by their purchasing power--not by the special loans of the big government Left or the special tax breaks of the pro-business GOPers, but of the the Galileoan pro-marketers. 

This is what makes Governor Palin's speech in Iowa late last summer so compelling. She laid out a vision of a pro market economy--no corporate taxes, but no corporate welfare, no special tax breaks or subsidies either. In other words, let the people decide what business fail or succeed by their purchasing power. Also, as Governor Palin wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, echoing Peter Schweizer's book Throw Them All Out,  let there be no more crony capitalism and no more special treatment of politicians.

Both parties need to stop trying to do things for their cronies and stop doing things to the American taxpayer.    The economy is not a giant casino with green energy slots or big business roulette tables, and the taxpayers should not have to finance the government's addiction to OPM  (other people's money) and gambling. The need to leave this "Las Vegas" behavior behind. Otherwise, the voters will continue having to choose which party is their favorite mistake, rather than the party that stands with them.

Crossposted here and here.

Why Politics Need to Be Looked at Vertically not Horizontally

American politics, and politics throughout the world for that matter, tend to be viewed horizontally--the GOP "right" versus the Democratic "left".  The powers that be like this, as it prevents everyday Americans from viewing politics as they really should be viewed-- vertically-- as a struggle between the political elite and the people. This vertical view of politics isn't a call for class warfare between the wealthy and the middle and lower classes. It's a call to look at who controls politics and what drives policy. It's a matter of money. It's not the capitalism of the "right" versus the socialism of the "left". It's about the reciprocal relationship amongst those in political, financial, and business power. It has becomes about bipartisan power and influence affecting policy decisions, not about politicians representing their constituents.

A wonderful article published in the American Spectator earlier this week discusses this relationship (emphasis added):

The real problem here is that all of Clark Clifford's friends across the decades have so rooted Big Government in the psychology of Washington that "Republican Elites" have elected to accept the whole premise -- and for reasons having to do with self-preservation simply cannot bring themselves to get seriously Reaganesque or Coolidge-like because to do so gnaws at their own economic vitals and capacity for influence. Both now hopelessly entangled with the concrete boxes of bureaucracy that literally litter the Washington landscape.

The article then goes on to describe a bipartisan lobbying firm of Clark and Weinstock:

Well, C&W has a "bipartisan team." And this "bipartisan team" (translation, ex-GOP and Democrat House or Senate staffers) has "experience and knowledge." But to what purpose? The proverbial Man from Mars is surely reading this and saying, "what the hell do these people do?"

The influence of lobbyists and the pervasive crony capitalism and corporatism of both parties prove that viewing the political system horizontally (right vs. left) is wrong.  Republican elites and insiders only exist to perpetuate their own political existence, under the party platform that, ironically, if truly implemented would nullify their very existence. Washington insiders and the well connected are obsolete when the influence of Washington DC on the rest of the country shrinks. However, in both parties, it's all about sustaining one's power and influence and trading favors. President Obama's crony socialism with Solyndra ranged from essentially paying back campaign funding with "green energy" funds to special IRS tax breaks. Rick Perry has crony capitalistic relationships with Merck when it comes to his own personal campaign funding, RGA funding, and a desired mandate with the drug company's vaccine, Gardasil and with numerous tech companies to whom he gave grant funding  following massive campaign donations. Mitt 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 government subsidies. These are just a few of numerous examples. Politicians reward their donors through favorable legislation and/or taxpayer funding. Those at the top of the political food chain have a symbiotic relationship--feeding each other with food stolen from the foundation of the political food chain--the American people.

We are wrong if we continue to look at politics as a battle between the left and the right. When politicians on both sides of the aisle solely reward their cronies, our political system becomes a corporatistic oligarchy, not the republic the Founders established by the consent of "we the people". The socialism of Democratic politicians steals from the foundation of our country--the 53% who pay taxes to fund crony socialism and the social engineering of their own pet projects , but the supposedly "pro-business" (not pro market) of Republican politicians tend to reward their cronies in the name of spurring business growth. Pro market solutions don't discriminate between political donors and  non-political donors. Businesses are neither too influential to fail nor too small to succeed when pro market solutions are implemented. This means no bailouts, no corporate welfare, and no subsidies or tax breaks to the friends of politicians. It means that the GE, whose CEO sits as the head of President Obama's jobs council, doesn't actually pocket money from the federal government due to tax credits, subsidies and the like. The foundation of American society is "we the people", whom the political elite and well connected look down upon as the funders of their failures and their government subsidized psuedo-successes. When we begin to look at the political system vertically, not horizontally, we begin to see that this is not about political party, it's about political payback. We would do well to recognize this distinction and elect people who want to replace the corporatistic oligarchy with politicians who are beholden only to their constituents.

Illinois Goes Red!

In the midst of a tidal wave of conservatism across the country, a blue state with occasional hints of purple, turned red on Tuesday. Illinois elected Mark Kirk to the Senate over Obama pal and former state treasurer, Alexi Giannoulias. Although Kirk is a moderate Republican, he is a fiscal conservative and has promised to vote against cap and tax legislation in the Senate, in spite of his support of it as a Congressman. As this seat was formerly occupied by now President Obama, Kirk is now the junior Senator from Illinois replacing Blagojevich appointed Roland Burris. Because Kirk is already seated, he can help block liberal legislation that the Senate tries to pass during the lame duck session.

A red hue replaces the blue shade of Illinois House members as four Illinois House seats flipped to the Republicans. Three of these were expected. One of these victories came from rising star, Adam Kinzinger, who handily defeated incumbent Debbie Halvorson. Kinzinger gave a rousing, yet humble victory speech last night:



Up and coming Republican Bobby Schilling defeated Phil "I don't care about the Constitution" Hare to win the 17th Congressional seat by ten points. Randy Hultgren defeated Bill Foster in the 14th District. In a bit of a surprise, Joe Walsh has defeated incumbent Democrat, Melissa Bean, although the race has not officially been called. Walsh leads Bean by less than 1,000 votes. If this result holds, this would mean that Illinois is represented by 11 Republicans compared to 8 Democrats.

Incumbent Republicans won fairly handily in the 6th, 10th, 13th,15th,16th,18th, and 19th Districts.

Although the ran strong campaigns and were deeply principled, Joel Pollak and Issac Hayes, lost their races in two deep blue districts.

Crossposted here.