January 22, 2009 | By Nathaniel Ward
Heritage on the inauguration of President Obama
Although conservatives ought to remain on their guard over the next four years, Heritage vice-president Mike Franc makes a case for cautious conservative optimism on National Review Online.
Just as only President Nixon could go to China, he suggests, perhaps only President Obama can tackle serious entitlement reform and foreign policy objectives. Perhaps "oenly a man with our new president's liberal pedigree will possess the sort of political capital required to tackle our nation's most pressing and foreseeable challenge," writes Franc.
On the economy, the new administration will have to face the coming spending tsunami as Baby Boomers increasingly qualify for the big three entitlement programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. President Obama will have to make the difficult choice between tax hikes, which may be politically harmful, and a real effort to rein in spending.
And on foreign policy and national security, Franc argues that "with intelligence briefings comes maturity." The campaign trail asks candidates to hold up high ideals, but the Oval Office demands prudence, and the President may even embrace a number of positions he derided as a candidate. "If and when he does, the mainstream media will revisit these issues in a more understanding way and begin to explain the tough trade-offs that are required to defend America's interests."
Heritage foreign policy expert Helle Dale puts the new presidency in historical perspective. Other new Presidents —Bush, Reagan, Nixon, and Truman — faced "raging storms, far more worthy of the name than the clouds under which Obama's presidency begins," says Dale.
She continues:
The world Obama inherits today is clearly complex, but thanks to the tireless efforts of his predecessor, far less dangerous than the impression created [in his inaugural address on Tuesday]. Indeed, Obama owes a debt of gratitude to Bush for the tough decisions he has taken to keep this country safe and the sacrifices he made in political capital and personal popularity to do so. Bush may be vilified, even booed by the crowd of Obama supporters on the Mall, but he kept each and every one of them safe from terrorist attacks for seven years…Obama of course questioned those very policies during the campaign and indeed in his speech [Tuesday], postulating a false dichotomy between our safety and our ideals.
Dale concludes that Obama obviously differs from Bush philosophically, but that "how far world events will allow the Obama foreign policy to diverge from that of the Bush years remains to be seen."
Meanwhile, on WorldNetDaily, former Congressman and Heritage distinguished fellow Ernest Istook discusses President Obama's unique position to end race-based victimhood.
Though Barack Obama's election was a watershed in many respects, "America's laws and regulations don't reflect that sense of accomplishment. They remain mired in 1960s thinking and prejudices about race," Istook pointed out.
Hard choices don't get any tougher than race relations and affirmative action. This certainly meets Obama's inaugural address standard of tackling long-avoided problems.
We have a chance at change for the better. For decades, a catchphrase has been, "If we can put a man on the moon, then why can't we ..." The new version will be, "If we can elect a black president, then why can't we ..."
If President Obama is willing to provide leadership of the right sort, we can heal many of America's racial tensions and still improve upward mobility for Americans of all races and backgrounds. Yes we can.
Finally, Heritage's Foundry blog linked to a humorous but very telling video clip demonstrating how conservativecertain parts of Obama's speech sounded.
— David Talbot
Beach proposes 'stimulus' alternative to Congress
Heritage Foundation economist Bill Beach testified last week before the Economic Recovery Working Group on Capitol Hill about an alternative to the Left's big-government economic "stimulus" package.
Beach suggested an alternative to the Left's plan to spend $850 billion on economic recovery:
- Extend the 2001 and 2003 tax reductions for as long as possible -- at least through 2013 -- to prevent tax increases. Better yet, make the tax cuts permanent.
- Reduce tax rates on individuals, small businesses and corporations through 2013 by lowering the top rate by 10 percentage points and reducing rates by similar amounts for taxpayers with lower income levels.
This would give employers the incentive to invest money and create genuinely new jobs.
Heritage's Rob Bluey reports that "the hearing came a week after President-elect Barack Obama invited alternative suggestions for promoting economic growth."
» Read more about the case for a conservative stimulus on MyHeritage.org
Russetid på Kolbotn :)
Oslo, Norge
Friday, January 23, 2009
Heritage on the inauguration of President Obama
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Fwd: How to Cure Political Loneliness
From: Downsizer Dispatch <downsizer-dispatch@downsizedc.org>
Date: Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Subject: How to Cure Political Loneliness
Quote of the Day: "In the long run men hit only what they aim at." -- Henry David Thoreau
Subject: How to cure political loneliness
* How many Americans want smaller government?
* How many Americans would support the "Read the Bills Act" and the "One Subject at a Time Act," if they were introduced to them?
In today's Dispatch we'll answer the first question, and explain how we can use $50,000 in pledges made by two generous donors to answer the second question. We'll also tell you how you can see and receive our new "I Am Not Afraid" t-shirt.
We start by tipping our hat to David Boaz at the Cato Institute for constantly calling attention to the kind of data we're going to share below, and to Ramesh Ponnuru for providing a good recent summary of this information.
CBS pollsters have been asking the following question for decades, "Would you say you favor smaller government with fewer services, or larger government with many services?"
From 1996 through Jan. 2001 the smaller-government side had an average lead of a whopping 20 points. This lead has slipped in the current decade, but as of March-April of this year the sides were tied.
For most of the past three decades a majority of Americans (often a vast majority) have favored smaller government. And even now, when the propaganda drumbeat for more government in areas such as health care and the financial system has been extremely loud, the support for smaller government is close to a majority, according to this poll.
But there are other polls . . .
A similar Washington Post/ABC poll tells the same story. Public opinion swung strongly toward smaller government in the 1990s, and then back the other way in this decade. "But smaller-government has maintained a consistent advantage!"
According to this poll, as of June 2008, the public still favors smaller government 50% to 45%. But there's more . . .
For many years Gallup, ABC and the Washington Post have asked Americans, "is government trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses" or "should government do more to solve our country's problems?" The answers have usually been in favor of smaller government . . .
* By 8-points in September 1992
* By 12-points in October 1998
* By 7-points in September 2002
* And by a whopping 12-points this September, during the height of the financial hysteria!
But it gets even better, because these poll questions are actually rigged in favor of the big government position, and we still win anyway! As David Boaz points out, these poll questions offer a benefit of larger government (more services) without mentioning the cost (higher taxes).
A fair poll question would mention both the cost and the benefit for each side. Has any polling operation asked the question this way? The answer is yes. When Rasmussen asked the balanced version of the question the results were . . .
* A whopping 64% in favor of smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes,
* 14% undecided
* And only a tiny minority of 22% in favor of more government and higher taxes
But these results are even more inspiring than they seem. What's truly amazing is that the vast majority of Americans favor smaller government in spite of the fact that . . .
* They all learned in government schools that government is the font of all things good
* The drama-mongering media constantly promotes the idea that the latest "crisis" is a cataclysmic danger that only government can solve
* Tax-funded "intellectuals" in our universities are constantly at work, pimping for the State
* Politicians spend billions every election telling us that they are the answer to every problem
The case for small government is hardly ever heard by anyone, and yet it still wins in the minds of the American people!
Can you imagine what could happen if our message was heard to the same extent as the propaganda for big government?
How can we make this happen? We think it would only take the organized assistance of a small portion of the 50-60% who already favor smaller government. How could these people be recruited and organized? We have a simple idea -- JUST ASK THEM!
We want to . . .
* Rent lists of politically engaged people
* Send them a letter describing RTBA and OSTA
* Ask them to join Downsize DC for free, by subscribing to the Downsizer Dispatch
* Make a pitch for funds so we can send more RTBA/OSTA letters to more potential recruits
We think this simple plan could make the Downsize DC Army grow very rapidly. Two major donors agree and have pledged a total of $50,000 to help ignite this fire. Their $50,000 is the final piece necessary to raise our entire 2009 budget of $186,000.
At present, we raise $97,000, annually, through monthly pledges (and the rest through one-time donations, with little to spare for advertising outreach).
To get the $50,000 in major donor pledges, and to achieve the goal all we need is the help of our supporters to "Close the Gap" of $39,000.
There are two ways you could help . . .
Close the $39,000 Gap from the top down by making a large pledge in concert with the two supporters who have pledged $50,000. Could you join them by pledging something on the order of $1,000, $2,500, $5,000, $10,000, or $20,000?
If you choose this route, with a minimum $500 donation, you won't have to fulfill your pledge until we have all the money raised. That way there's no risk of your contributing a large amount and then wondering if the goal will really be met. When the goal is met we'll tell you, and only then cash your check or process your credit card.
Better yet, we'll use your pledge, along with the $50,000, as a matching fund to encourage smaller donations to help Close the Gap from the bottom up. If you want to join our top donors by making a larger pledge please go to our secure contribution forms and choose the page for top down pledges.
On the other hand, if the above amounts don't fit your budget, could you help Close the Gap from the bottom up by making a smaller cash donation, or by starting a monthly credit card pledge? You can do this using the special secure contribution form we've created for this fundraising drive. Pick the bottom up page.
Please note, smaller bottom up contributions and monthly pledges are immediate donations, not pledges to be fulfilled later. It's a cash or credit card contribution now. In return, we'll send you a special gift as our way of saying, "Thanks."
Everyone who makes . . .
* A one-time donation of $76 or more, or . . .
* A new monthly pledge of $12 or more, or . . .
* A $5 or more increase to an EXISTING monthly pledge . . .
We'll send you our new "I Am Not Afraid" t-shirt (you can see a picture of the t-shirt on the contribution page).
Thanks to the help of our two enthusiastic donors we're suddenly $50,000 closer to being able . . .
* Tap intro the vast majority that favors smaller government
* Benefit from the wide appeal of RTBA and OSTA
* Grow at a very rapid rate
All we need to get that final $50,000 is raise another $39,000. We hope you can help.
Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army.
Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
P.S. There is also a Downsize DC lapel pin available for higher levels of support. And, IF YOU'RE CURRENTLY PLEDGING MORE THAN $50 PER MONTH, just tell us your T-shirt size, and we'll send you one as our way of saying thanks for all that support. See the special Close the Gap contribution form for details.
P.P.S. If tax-deductibility is important to you, or you wish to donate securities, you can make your contribution to the "Downsize DC Foundation."
P.P.P.S. Also, in terms of closing the gap, a monthly credit card pledge is worth the amount of the pledge times 12 months, so this is a particularly powerful way to help Close the Gap.
P.P.P.P.S. If you're going to send a check please print out one of the forms for this in our secure contribution pages. Our mailing address is located on both the Top Down and Bottom Up form.
D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation
CONTRIBUTE to the Electronic Lobbyist project
http://www.DownsizeDC.org is sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. -- a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government.
You are encouraged to forward this message to friends and business associates, and permission is hereby granted to reproduce any items herein as long as attribution is provided for articles and the subscription instructions above are included.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Post Election Reactions, Part 1
D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h November 4th, 2008
Quote of the Day: "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right." Source: "Minority Report" (The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997 [1956]), p. 222
Subject: A state of permanent preparedness for impeachment
It's Election Day. What should we say about it? We're tempted to declare it a day of mourning, but instead, we're going to argue that today is the day to adopt a state of permanent preparedness for impeachment.
As of yet, neither a Democrat nor a Republican has been elected President. That outcome will be revealed later today. But before that happens, we should commit ourselves to closely monitor the actions of the new President, and to be ready to call for his impeachment, should that become warranted.
We should be prepared to do this regardless of partisan loyalties.
What warrants impeachment? Different people will have different standards. We plan to maintain a running "bill of impeachment," listing broken laws, Constitutional violations, and abuses of power. It will be up to you to agree or disagree with the items we choose to list, and to decide whether or not any one item or group of items justifies impeachment.
It's possible, given your level of sensitivity, that the new President could do something on his first day that would immediately warrant impeachment in your eyes, or that he will never do enough bad things to justify such an action.
The call will be yours.
Some people reasonably object that impeachment is too vulnerable to partisan ax grinding. There are also many things for which a president could be impeached of which the impeachers themselves will be guilty. It is precisely these concerns that prevented us from advocating the impeachment of President Bush. But . . .
We have come to believe, after long consideration, that this was a mistake on our part. President Bush should have been impeached. In our view, he richly deserved it, as have many previous presidents, both Democrat and Republican.
The Founders provided impeachment as one of many checks on government power. In doing so they were painfully aware of the dangers of faction, or what we call partisanship. They must also have known that no president would ever be impeached by a saintly Congress. But they provided for the impeachment power anyway. We think we know why . . .
Unchecked government power is so toxic that it must be limited by every means available. Impeachment is one tool for doing so, even when it is tainted by partisanship and hypocrisy.
Which is better, to allow a president to run wild, or to check his criminality through impeachment, even if the impeachers are hypocrites with partisan motives? We would choose the latter outcome.
But there is one other factor to consider. The mere threat of impeachment could itself regulate presidential actions, long before formal impeachment proceedings became necessary. This is especially true if the President and Congress begin hearing a growing cry for impeachment from a large number of citizens.
Calling for impeachment, when each of us feels it is justified, could serve as a powerful warning to both the President and Congress.
As of today, there is no "bill of indictment" for an impeachment proceeding. No such list can even be compiled for the new president until after January 20, 2009. But what we can do today is warn Congress that we intend to be vigilant this time. Toward that end . . .
We've created a permanent impeachment campaign, where we will list, if necessary, any potentially impeachable offenses by the incoming president. In the meantime, the message-to-Congress for this campaign reads as follows . . .
"I'm serving notice that I'll be watching the actions of the incoming president very closely. Should he break laws, violate the Constitution, or abuse his power, I'll be urging you, early and often, to start impeachment proceedings."
If you like the idea of maintaining a "permanent state of impeachment preparedness" then use our Educate the Powerful System to send this message to Congress.
If you feel that President Bush should have been impeached, then you could, if you wish, use your personal comments to state this opinion, and any supporting justifications you care to mention.
This is the most appropriate action we can suggest on Election Day.
Thank you for being a member of the growing Downsize DC army.
Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
My comments: Sounds like a good idea, but I don't think we'll be needing this provision in the next 4 years. I really hope I'm right.
The Heritage Foundation November 5th 2008
Dear Christopher,
We conservatives have our work cut out for us to hold back the liberal tide, and The Heritage Foundation is prepared to fight back.
Liberals have expanded their control of the Congress, and they have won control of the White House too.
The Left is sure to claim a mandate to impose its radical agenda on America—from the economy to energy to the war on terror, from the Supreme Court to taxes, health care and education.
If we are to fight back against the liberal onslaught, we need your support today. Our goal is to raise $80,000 towards this effort by November 15.
Help Heritage fight to defend conservative principles and advance conservative ideas with your gift today.
Triumphant liberals have already spelled out their plans:
- On the campaign trail, liberals called for tax increases, massive new government health care programs, drastic new environmental controls and more.
- Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts said, “we'll have to raise taxes ultimately” as a result of liberal spending increases. He also wants to cut defense spending by a quarter.
- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she supports re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine—an onerous regulation that could silence conservatives on talk radio.
- Liberals of all stripes have pledged to enact the Employee Free Choice Act, a handout to big labor that eliminates the secret ballot in unionization elections.
The Heritage Foundation is ready to stand up to this challenge. We will not stray from our mission to fight for the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
We are ready to fight back against the liberals and advance our conservative principles. We will build on our 35-year record of success—from welfare reform to missile defense to tax cuts—and help get America back on track.
But we need your help if we are to raise $80,000 by November 15 to make this possible. Will you stand with us?
Make a contribution to help Heritage counter the liberal threat.
In Washington, there are no permanent victories and no permanent defeats. We must remain firmly committed to our principles in both good times and in bad. That’s why your help is so important.
Now more than ever, we are grateful for your support for our conservative principles and ideals. Without the support of conservatives like you, none of what we do would be possible.
Sincerely,
Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D.
President
My comments: Honestly, I won't be donating, and not even for lack of money. If I donate any money to a political cause in the next 4 years, it'll probably be to DownsizeDC.
MoveOn.Org November 5th, 2008
Dear Christopher,
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Last night, together, we made history.
In the sun and the rain, from Virginia to Nevada, from New York to New Mexico, you knocked on doors, made phone calls and registered people who'd never voted in their lives. And you helped elect President Barack Obama.
So once again—thank you. Thank you for bringing our country back.
Tomorrow, we'll start on the next phase of this journey. But today, let's celebrate this moment. We've created a "Hope Wall"—a place where you can see what this victory means to other MoveOn members, and share your own thoughts and photos. Take a second right now to share your joy with the rest of us!
Here's one comment that pretty much sums it up:
I am so proud to be an American.—Edna B., Boynton Beach, Florida
Remember back in 2001 and 2002, when so many of you joined MoveOn? When President Bush had an 80% approval rating, when you held candles to stop a war the media was cheering on, when there were few politicians with the courage to stand up for the truth? Back then, a victory like this seemed impossible.
But yesterday you proved that nothing is impossible. If we stand up together and if we fight together and if we believe together, we can change the course of history.
Today, a new day has dawned in America.
Thank you for making it happen.
–Eli, Aaron, Adam G., Adam R., Aisling, Andrea, Anna, Ben, Carrie, Daniel, Dave, Erik, Ilyse, Joan, Justin, Karin, Laura, Lenore, Marika, Matt, Michael, Neil, Nick, Nita, Noah, Patrick, Patrick S., Perrin, Peter, Randall, Ray, Sam, Stephen, Tanya, and Wes
P.S. MoveOn members did a truly heroic amount of work on this campaign. Check out what you accomplished at www.moveon.org. It's amazing.
P.P.S. If the links above don't come through, click here for the Hope Wall:
Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 4.2 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. This email was sent to Christopher D. Osborn on November 5, 2008.
My comments: Uhh... you're welcome! ... ? Again, I actually voted for Bob Barr and would probably NEVER donate or volunteer for MoveOn.org. That said, I am glad of their victory in helping to elect Barack H. Obama.
D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h November 6th, 2008
Quote of the Day: "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -- William Shakespeare
Subject: Not your usual post-election commentary
The media describes every election as historic, the most important in a generation, etc. When the voting is done they tell us a new era has dawned, that things will change, that nothing will ever be the same, blah, blah, blah.
One aspect of these claims is true, this time. It is both historic and meaningful that the United States has elected its first African-American president. We applaud and celebrate this. We think the significance of this event transcends mere symbolism. Otherwise, the election was what all other elections have been . . .
" . . . a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Can we support this harsh assessment? Consider . . .
The election thoroughly repudiated the Republican Party. They lost the White House in a landslide, and got clobbered in Congressional races. We might assume from this, if elections really produced change, that many Republican policies of the last eight years will be reversed. We predict that almost none of them will be.
The Republicans were responsible for . . .
* Enacting the largest new entitlement in decades -- the prescription drug program
* Passing social engineering schemes like "No Child Left Behind"
* Starting an un-provoked war
* Gutting constitutional liberties
* Running-up vast deficitsWill the Democrats reverse any of these actions? Sadly, we think the answer is "No." What, then, was the point of the election?
Was it merely to punish the Republicans while leaving their sins uncorrected? Was the purpose to give the Democrats permission to pursue all of their own pet projects for social engineering, and to spend, spend, spend to their hearts content?
Undoubtedly this last item is the message Democratic politicians will claim they heard. After all, they received a mandate, and if the mandate was not to pursue their dreams then the word has no meaning.
Of course, some voters can say, "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian . . . or for the Constitution Party . . . or the Greens." Didn't these voters, at least, send a clear message about what they want?
We think not.
What does the average person assume when he or she sees third party candidates listed in his newspaper with tiny vote percentages next to their names? We think he or she assumes that . . .
"Those are fringe candidates with fringe ideas that no one supports. Therefore, I need not consider what they have to say."
The system is rigged against third parties. This guarantees low vote totals for those parties. It also guarantees that the ideas those parties represent will always be viewed as marginal.
Third parties don't promote ideas, they marginalize them!
Oh yes, we know all about the exceptions, like the Socialists and the Progressives, both of whom had ideas adopted by the major parties. But please notice, those ideas made the politicians, and even tax-funded intellectuals in the school system, MORE POWERFUL. That's the real reason those ideas were adopted; it wasn't because the Socialists and the Progressives managed to score a few points on Election Day.
So what does voting for partisan candidates actually accomplish? What does it communicate? As far as we can tell the answer is nothing, except that . . .
It gives the victims of the con game -- the American people -- an illusion of control. But we have no control -- no say so.
Voting in the partisan electoral contest merely gives sanction to the con-artists who constantly victimize us. That's the role of the voter, to sanction what the politicians do. That's it. It's like Emma Goldman said, "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."
Is this the way you want things to be?
The ways of the future do not lie in the ways of the past. The ways of the past involved hoping the new boss would be different than the old boss. But many decades have come and gone, and the new boss has always been the same as the old boss. We should abandon the old ways and adopt new ways.
The way to a better future lies in withdrawing our consent and issuing direct orders to our supposed public servants. Votes send confusing signals. But plain talk is rarely misunderstood.
The new way involves building a new social force with the power to make public servants miserable. Withdraw consent. Issue orders. Make the public servant submit.
The politicians are busy right now convincing themselves that the public wants top-down, centralized, Democratic social engineering. Who can disabuse them of this notion? After all, the votes have been cast. The people have spoken.
Only YOU can disabuse the politicians of their self-serving interpretations of inarticulate votes. The Republicans were repudiated. Therefore, the things the Republicans did must also be repudiated. This should be the mandate for the new Congress. Fortunately, we have a vehicle for doing just that . . .
Ron Paul's "American Freedom Agenda Act" would repeal a good chunk of the bad things the Republicans did. Use our Educate the Powerful system to ask your elected representatives to pass this bill.
Use your personal comments to tell your elected representatives that the Republicans were repudiated, therefore the things the Republicans did must also be repudiated.
And stay tuned for new steps in a new direction, starting next week.
Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC FoundationCONTRIBUTE to the Electronic Lobbyist project
http://www.DownsizeDC.org is sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. -- a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government.
You are encouraged to forward this message to friends and business associates, and permission is hereby granted to reproduce any items herein as long as attribution is provided for articles and the subscription instructions above are included.
IF you have difficulties or inquiries, simply hit reply to this message. We're eager to help, including with requests to unsubscribe.
My comments: I don't like their cinicism on voting, but I still like their strategy. It doesn't matter who's in charge, asl long as they know whatWe The People want and that their position in power will be jeapordised if they don't do what We say. Some day I'll have money and be able to support them financially.
