Mike Lee’s Anti-Poverty, Civil Society Speech

Senator Mike Lee

By Steve Parkhurst

United States Senator Mike Lee of Utah, yesterday delivered a very interesting speech at an anti-poverty forum hosted by the Heritage Foundation. The entire speech text can be found here, and it’s worth reading. Here are a few interesting takeaways for me.

We know that participation in civil society, volunteering, and religion are deteriorating in poor neighborhoods – compounding economic hardship with social isolation. And we know these trends cut across boundaries of race, ethnicity, and geography.

All of this might lead some to the depressing conclusion that – 50 years after Johnson’s speech – America’s war on poverty has failed. But the evidence proves nothing of the sort.  On the contrary, I believe the American people are poised to launch a new, bold, and heroic offensive in the war on poverty… if a renewed conservative movement has the courage to lead it.

Later:

Properly considered, then, the war on poverty is not so much about lifting people up. It’s about bringing people in. And so the challenge to conservatives today is to rethink the war on poverty along these lines, to bring into our economy and society the individuals, families, and communities that have for five decades been unfairly locked out.

Nineteen-sixty-four wasn’t the year Americans started fighting poverty; it was the year we started losing that fight. To start winning again, conservatives are going to have to lead the way – not simply by offering criticism, but alternatives. Our job is to identify the obstructions that impede Americans’ access to our market economy and civil society and clear them. And if we’re looking for impediments to mobility and opportunity, we’ve certainly come to the right place!

Finally:

Today, millions more of our neighbors are still out on the plains. They are not some government’s brothers and sisters – they are ours.

And the time has come to do something about it. As conservatives, as Americans, and as human beings, we have it in our power – individually, together, and where necessary through government… to bring them in:

  • to bring them into our free enterprise economy to earn a good living,
  • to bring them into our voluntary civil society to build a good life,
  • and to welcome them and their children home to an America that leaves no one behind.
Advertisement

Scandals Built On Liberalism

By Joe Gruters

The three (and growing) major scandals rocking the Obama administration may well help Republicans in the 2014 mid-term elections and beyond. But they are more important than that.

The scandals give conservatives the opportunity to spell out a different vision for the country that extends far beyond political gain, and will allow Gov. Scott to more clearly separate his conservative vision for Florida from whoever his Democrat opponent will be.

All three scandals have in common that they rely on the depth and power of the federal government to make them so invasive. They are driven by the corruption of ideological federal bureaucrats and the Obama administration. But that corruption would not have such an impact without the overreaching, intrusive scale of the federal government.

The IRS scandal is one of the most frightening for the average American, because everyone (who works and pays taxes) has to deal with the IRS and has some justifiable degree of fear of the powerful government agency. It’s now obvious that the IRS was wielded as a weapon against political opponents of the president and we may have just uncovered the tip of the iceberg.

The Obama administration also used federal government wire-tapping powers to go after hundreds of reporters, supposedly in search of leakers. It’s not hard to harken back to the dark days of the Nixon administration, who also used powerful government agencies against political opponents. But the government is much larger and more powerful than it was under Richard Nixon, making the threat that much bigger.

In the newest potential scandal, it now looks like the EPA also was playing politics with fee waivers. Lawmakers are launching an investigation into charges that liberal groups in support of Democrats were given preferential treatment in obtaining government records and conservative groups were blocked from them.

Benghazi is the least obvious. But it involved the huge bureaucracy of the State Department and the probability that the U.S. government was running weapons from the Libyan rebels the administration armed to Syrian rebels it wanted to arm. Most importantly, it displayed a morally vacuous disposition within the administration when the right thing collided with gaining political advantage. The administration chose politics over the lives of Americans.

There are two levels every conservative needs to understand and articulate. 

• First, the one consistent to all of these is the disturbing size and power of government over every American and its ability to insinuate itself into even the smallest aspects of our lives. Bureaucrats with agendas can make life miserable for individuals, companies, organizations. Everyone.

• Second, each of these scandals represents a place of corruption in the Obama administration. But taken altogether, they represent a breathtaking atmosphere of corruption throughout the administration.

The worst case scenario is now breaking: A frighteningly large and authoritative government with power over our lives and businesses combines with a corrupt presidential administration that is uses the massive power of the American government against the American people.

It has often been rightly said that a government big enough to give us everything we want can take everything we have. We are seeing that threat rise right now. It is for this very reason that conservatives believe in small government. Democrats represent ever bigger and more powerful government, a menacing prospect. We Republicans represent smaller government, one that cannot threaten its own people so readily.

This is not a solely federal issue.

Gov. Scott will be facing an opponent next year that is saddled with a Democrat Party that supports and fights to strengthen every one of these agencies against the average American. Those views infiltrate state-level thinking also. Scott represents the opposite. With ready help from Republicans in the Legislature, he has fought to shrink Florida’s government apparatus that intrudes on average Floridians, and shrink the footprint of taxes and regulations that weigh down companies’ abilities to grow, expand and hire.

The difference in worldviews are obvious and can be hammered home over and over, at the highest levels of political campaigns and over the fence with neighbors.

Thanks for being informed and engaged.

Why We Can’t Give Up

By Joe Gruters

Yes. November was disheartening for Republicans, conservatives, traditionalists and all those who want to see a free and prosperous country for generations to come.

But disheartening can’t mean giving up.

We can’t continue in the current direction. Republicans know that.

We don’t need to.

In the fifth year of the Obama presidency, we have a barely sputtering economic recovery nationally, always on the brink of slipping back into a recession. We have a record number of people on food stamps and other welfare programs. Democrats will continue to say things would be worse without their interventions. But that embarrassingly weak defense can be defeated, and must be.

We’ve printed, borrowed and spent trillions more than we collected, all in the name of compassion and stimulating the economy. The economy stinks and we have record numbers of people not working, slogging along at the bottom of the economy with declining hope. The March employments numbers were dismal, well below even modest expectations. That is failure, but not just politics. It’s awful for the future of the country.

By the end of Obama’s second term, if Congress remains status quo, Democrats will have added $10 trillion to the national debt, on top of George W. Bush’s $4 trillion, which was bad enough. We don’t just need Republicans, we need actual, honest-go-gosh, principled conservative Republicans.

They must overturn the worst elements of Obamacare. Once it is fully implemented next year, it will be revealed for the bait-and-switch con we all suspected it was but were never sure because nobody actually knew what was in the bill. The opposite of what was promised will come to be in several areas: health-care premiums will go up, not down; health care will begin to be rationed, not expanded; doctors will be harder to find, not more plentiful; and jobs will be axed in the industry. We may never overturn Obamacare by name, but we can gut it, cutting out much of the government-takeover elements that will ruin our health care system.

Social Security and Medicare are headed for the shoals. The demographics against them are too strong without changes in the programs. Romney made the case, but he faced too many other problems. It’s a steep climb, but it must be done. People like Paul Ryan, who lives in a Democrat district in Wisconsin, has taken it on repeatedly. That’s what we need more of.

The reality is that these things can be done because we are right. But it will take a lot of work and devotion on our part. We’ve already had victories when the raw facts became overwhelming. For instance, most conservatives were skeptical of the man-made climate-warming hysteria and political control agenda behind it.

Carbon emissions have been continuing to increase since 2000, but the planet has not heated up since then. Some politicized scientists, many in the media and hysterical fringes like Al Gore may still keep yelling that the sky is falling. But they are already being marginalized by the plain facts. There is no real movement anymore to make the ridiculous changes that Kyoto and other insanities once proposed. Green energy won’t go away, but as long as it’s subsidies are kept under control or, dare we hope, eliminated, it’s a net positive. If the market will sustain it, great. Otherwise, chuck it.

The good news is that Republicans continue winning at the state level and conservative ideas are rising triumphant whenever tried. Florida is a perfect example, as our economy, which was worse when Gov. Scott took office, has roared past the national recovery — such as that is. If it were not for Republican-run states such as Florida, Texas, South Carolina, North Dakota and so, the nation would probably be in a recession.

Conservative economic policies work — when they are tried.

We must make sure they are tried again. Too much rests on it.

The direction has been to institutionalize massive government programs and intervention in the economy while steadily sapping the American people of the very qualities that made the country great: love of freedom, risk-taking, hard work, personal responsibility, faith.

We must change this direction. We fight for change, from top to bottom. Because Greece, Spain, Cyprus are our future if we don’t.

It starts next year, to maintain and expand our control of the House in Congress and try to pick up seats in the Senate — with conservative Republicans.

Thanks for being informed and engaged.

Poll Finds America Is Conservative

By Joe Gruters

A recent poll by The Hill has given us some extraordinarily revealing insights into the electorate that Republicans keep losing nationally.

There is a strong conservative majority in America. They just don’t know it, because of labeling and branding problems.

On four questions, voters were asked which solution they preferred to handle a known problem, without party affiliation identifying the solution. On the question dealing with the budget and deficit, they overwhelming went conservative — choosing the equivalent of Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget over Sen. Patty Murray’s budget nearly 2-1. Even regarding Obamacare, they were clearly conservative — an 8 percentage point difference favoring full repeal over full enactment.

I know you are thinking that this must be a Republican tilted poll. But here is the real kicker and revelation. When the pollsters asked respondents which party they trusted more on budgetary issues — the issues just covered in the poll’s preceding question — respondents flipped: Democrats won 35% to 30% over Republicans with 34% saying they trust neither party. The poll itself even has a five percentage-point sampling advantage for registered Democrats.

It’s a good poll. And that means that there are a lot of conservative-minded voters out there who are automatically pulling the lever for Democrats. Sure, the disconnect is media-induced to a degree. That is a big hurdle to get over. But it is also just the facts. Can’t fight gravity. Can’t fight media bias. Have to deal with the realities.

The most obvious reality is that Republicans are not losing because Americans do not like their policies. We are losing despite the fact that Americans do like our policies. It would be a grave mistake to change policies, compromising on principles, as some in the media and the Republican D.C. establishment recommend.

The Hill Poll did not ask about social issues, but other polls have uniformly shown that on the seminal cultural divide, abortion, the country has been trending dramatically more pro-life for 25 years. Facts will do that for some people, and the facts about the humanity of an early-term fetus are now undeniable.  People are informed, and now they are rejecting the pro-choice stance. That can happen on other issues with the right message — which is definitively not “moderating.”

Moderating — becoming more liberal on issues — would be a political disaster. It would depress the base, give impetus to third parties for frustrated conservatives, and still not win any votes because Americans agree with Republicans on the issues!

The Hill Poll

Do you prefer budget Plan 1 with $1 Trillion in Tax Hikes and 100 billion in cuts that does not balance budget, or Plan 2 that does not raise taxes, cuts $5 trillion and balances budget?

Plan 1  28%

Plan 2  55%

Neither  17%

 

Should U.S. budget deficits be reduced mostly by cutting spending or raising taxes?

Cutting spending  65%

Raising taxes  24%

Don’t know  11%

 

Should the healthcare reform law known as Obamacare be fully implemented, fully repealed or neither?

Fully implemented  37%

Fully repealed  45%

Neither  14%

 

Budget constraints were recently cited as the reason for cancelling tours of the White House. Should those tours be resumed?

Yes  54%

No  28%

Not sure  18%

 

Which party do you trust more on budgetary issues?

Democrats  35%

Republicans  30%

Neither  34%

Source: www.thehill.com

 

Thanks for being informed and engaged.

Tory Leaflets Connect Workers With Tories

Tory MP Robert Halfon (one of the better blogging MPs) has posted images of a leaflet that the Tories are distributing in the UK. This leaflet does a good job of connecting the Tory party with the workers of the UK. The Republicans here should follow the lead and seize upon this idea and do something similar.

Here is the front and the back of the leaflet:

Tory Budget Leaflet Front GPH Consulting

– – –

Tory Budget Leaflet Back GPH Consulting

 

What do you think? Do you like this leaflet?

Standing For What We Believe In!

By Joe Gruters

Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster Wednesday was more than political theater. Sure, it undoubtedly gave his political ambitions a boost. But that was not the driving factor behind it, nor should be for any Republicans.

In those 13 hours of standing on the Senate floor and controlling his bodily needs,  Paul represented what so many conservatives are yearning for: someone who will stand up for what he believes in.

And he presented in force an answer to the interminably successful Obama media spin: An articulate, principled conservative who would not back down, or moderate, or capitulate, speaking directly to the American people beyond the media filter. You don’t have to agree with all of Sen. Paul’s views to appreciate the honest dedication he holds to his core beliefs and the brilliance of the decision.

It wasn’t the specific issue so much — although wanting to know the administration’s views on the constitutionality of targeting Americans on American soil who do not pose an imminent threat is worthy. Very worthy, if we still treasure our freedoms.

And it wasn’t even so much that finally conservatives had a man standing up to President Obama, who becomes more imperial in his actions every day. We have yearned for Congressional Republicans to get a spine and Paul displayed his. And his spirited defense rallied others, including Sens. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, John Thune and many others.

It is no small irony that Sens. John McCain and Lindsay Graham were at the same time at a posh D.C. restaurant enjoying a luxurious dinner with Obama, who had just closed the White House to tours to save few bucks and blame Republicans. Those methods of schmoozing where everyone gets a little something for their political gain just don’t work for the good of the country anymore — if they ever did.

And that may have been the primary accomplishment of Paul’s filibuster: He stood athwart the dangerous trail of history we are traveling and shouted, “Halt!”

He has as a core belief in the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution in governing and restraining the actions of the federal government. That is a core of conservatism and the Republican Party that sets us apart from liberal progressives and the Democrat Party. We stand on the founding principles spelled out in the Constitution. We believe that document has done more than any other (outside the Bible) to free men and keep them free.

It instituted free speech, freedom of religion and freedom to bear arms — freedoms never found in one place before in history. It instituted the incredible hope and prosperity that drew millions and millions of immigrants from every country in the world.

American liberals dismiss the Constitution and the religious underpinnings of the men who wrote it. Obama has been a leader in doing that. And both the freedom and the prosperities are ebbing backwards. Today’s announcement that more than 89 million Americans are not working is the latest evidence.

Obama promised fundamental change in America and has been delivering. Paul stood up and shouted, “Halt!” against this advance of totalitarian-leaning liberals.

And finally, people began to listen.

Conservatism is always a winner with the American people. But it needs to be forcefully defended. That’s what happened Wednesday.

Thanks for being informed and engaged.

Sweet Hypocrisy

By Joe Gruters

Here’s an inconvenient truth: If you were hungry

or needy in this nation and there was not the

thick welfare net to land on, you would pray that

your neighbors were conservatives. And that

would be particularly true if you were a minority.

 

Ben Cohen’s Amend-O-Matic Stamp Mobile in Sarasota last week.

 

The Hypocrisy Machine rolled into Sarasota last week in the form of the Amend-O-Matic StampMobile piloted by Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream. Cohen is a well-known liberal and big Democrat financial donor, but his contraption runs under the banner of “Stamp Money Out of Politics.” Run a greenback through it and it will deface it with the banner in red letters.

Cohen alone has donated more than a $155,000 of his own money to Democrats since 1988. Unions donate tens of millions to Democrats. Hollywood and coastal elites contributes tens of millions to Democrats. And then there are the boundless in-kind donations of the national media, which are not IRS reportable.

But that is not the money, Cohen wants to stamp out of politics. That money is OK. It’s corporate donations that he is after, and he is perfectly comfortable using his large amount of corporate-derived money to fund his own PR machine limiting it for others.

Specifically, he is after the Citizens United decision that reaffirmed that money equals political speech access. Cohen utilizes that concept, of course, he just doesn’t want those he disagrees with to have the same freedoms. All Cohen really wants is to stamp conservative money out of politics.

Cohen comes through a long line of hypocrisy on the left when dealing with money.

Consider charitable giving. Liberals proclaim themselves to care more about the poor and needy than conservatives — and that is the nice way of putting their rhetoric. But it turns out that only appears to be the case when they are using other people’s money, such as taxpayers that include corporations. And conservatives know instinctively that keeping the poor trapped in welfare nets is not compassionate.

Arthur C. Brooks, in his book, Who Really Cares – America’s Charity Divide, combed through mountains of data to find this reality:

“Liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative families, but conservative families gave more than liberal families within every income class, from poor to middle class to rich. Despite their lower earnings, conservative households in America donate 30 percent more money to charity each year than liberal households.”

A Google study found an even greater disproportion between conservatives’ giving and liberals’ giving, suggesting that conservatives give about twice as much.

Democrats know these stats and try to slough them off on church giving. But even when that is backed out, conservatives still give more. But, we are told, liberals care about those in need! Here’s a stat from Brooks: “A religious person is 57 percent more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person. If liberals gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the U.S. would jump by about 45 percent.”

Hypocrites.

Brooks looked at other data and found people who give charitably express less prejudice than non-givers toward African Americans, Latinos, and Asians.

It should be noted that when Brooks began researching his book, he assumed he would find that liberals were more generous. That was, and is after all, the well-crafted Democrat and media stereotype. The facts ended up forcing him to change his mind and the conclusion of the book.

Idiot Joe Biden - GPH Consulting

Brooks looked at the macro level. On the micro level, Vice President Joe Biden is one example among many of the hypocrisy. While safely ensconced in his Senate seat, he typically ponied up about one-tenth of one percent to charity, sometimes less than one-hundredth of one percent. Essentially, nothing. The generous liberal in reality.

Once Biden was running for vice president, he managed to up his giving all the way to 1.5 percent. So even while doing it for crass political gain, he still came up with less than half of what a typical conservative gives — who makes only a fraction of Biden’s income.

Ditto for President and Michelle Obama, whose giving ranged from four-tenths of one percent to 1.2 percent until he ran for office and became president. This, from two stalwart liberals purporting to want to help the poor and needy.

Hypocrites.

Even with the Obamas and Bidens increased giving when running for office, Mitt Romney still gave more than both combined in raw dollars and as a percentage of income. In fact, he gave away 29.4 percent of his income in 2011, which is one big reason his effective tax rate appeared so low. He gave it away!

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is a big Democrat and Obama fan. Presumably he agrees with wringing more money out of American taxpayers to pay for big government. Yet Bloomberg reports that while Facebook is reporting $1.1 billion in pre-tax profits, the company will not only not pay a dime in income taxes but will get about $429 million in “refunds.”

Facebook - GPH Consulting

Hypocrites.

Here’s an inconvenient truth: If you were hungry or needy in this nation and there was not the thick welfare net to land on, you would pray that your neighbors were conservatives. And that would be particularly true if you were a minority.

What does this prove? Sanctimonious politics is not charity. Liberals accuse conservatives of being cold-hearted, but they are far less “compassionate” if it actually costs them something. Liberal bumper stickers and cheap slogans mean nothing because so many liberals are only generous when giving away other people’s money — not their own.

Hypocrites.

Thanks for being informed and engaged.

Campaign In Britain For Conservative Future

I am always a junkie for a campaign. When a good, movement oriented campaign comes along, I get even more intrigued.

While U.S. politics is in the governing season, across the pond things are more interesting for campaign junkies. There is a lot of talk about the coalition formed government in Great Britain. The coalition faces its next election in 2015, so they have roughly 2 1/2 years left to make their case for more time, or to fumble completely and give Labour a victory. In the run up to 2015, and looking at the conservative movement in Britain beyond 2015, it is always necessary to look beyond the current leadership in the Tory party and think about what is next, and who is next.

Prime Minister David Cameron currently sits at the helm of the Tory party. There are many that might be perceived as next in line, among them, George Osborne, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Jeremy Hunt and Theresa May.

But what about that next generation of leaders? Those working their way through the ranks, some just getting their start. To that end, Conservative Future is an organization similar to the Young Republicans (YRs) here in the States, but where the YRs is for people 18 to 40 years of age, Conservative Future is for those under 30. Conservative Future will hold leadership elections this March, and this election is getting interesting.

Paul Holmes and Charlotte Argyle have teamed up to run together as a leadership ticket in the March election. This 24 and 28 year old respectively, make up an impressive team for National Chairman and Deputy Chairman.

To show that even races like this can get negative, witness this anti-Holmes flier being distributed around:

Holmesick - GPH Consulting

Pretty weak in my opinion, but also very typical. At this point, the Holmes/Argyle campaign has remained positive, focusing on positive ideas and moving forward toward a real vision and real goals. Having paid attention to this contest for a while, I suspect that the Holmes/Argyle team will stay above the fray and not go negative at any point.

This campaign will be interesting to watch. We (those of us that follow politics) will be hearing these names for years to come. Whether the Holmes/Argyle team wins or one of the other campaigns, the future of the Tory movement is on full display and it is worth paying attention to right now.

Holmes-Argyle Manifesto - GPH Consulting

For those inclined, the Holmes/Argyle team has posted a manifesto that is worth looking over. This is the equivalent of position papers here in the States.

America Missed

By Steve Parkhurst

As the new year is now underway, the personal shock of the 2012 election has still not set in for me. In my mind I keep re-playing this brief speech excerpt from Paul Ryan just before the November election:

PAUL RYAN: “Our commitment is really clear. We’re saying here are the solutions; here are the principles we’re going to use; here’s our proven bipartisan track record of actually delivering results and getting things done; here’s what we’re going to do. And I’ve got to tell you, 2013 could be a renaissance in America, in the world and in America. 2013 can be the year we get our economy growing, we start creating 12 million new jobs, we put these pro-growth policies in place and we reaffirm the American idea by electing Mitt Romney the next President of the United States.” – Full kudos to Breitbart for the video and transcript.

Time will tell, but as of now, I feel like America missed as great opportunity with a Romney Presidency. Not only would Barack Obama not be a President with nothing to fear as he will never again appear on a ballot, but we still do not have a credible business, a CEO-type in the Oval Office. We have an excuse maker with no track record of accomplishments and no history of being held accountable for failure. Mitt Romney may not have turned out to be the next Ronald Reagan or Calvin Coolidge, but he would have been a tremendous improvement over the current President.

Now, we’ll never know. This video keeps reminding me of the great opportunity we had in 2012 and beyond.

America missed.

Saunders: A Smart Conservative Position on War on Drugs

Debra J. Saunders has written an interesting column at Townhall about conservatives and the war on drugs. I’m interesting in your thoughts on this as well:

“Mandatory sentences breed injustice,” Judge Roger Vinson told the New York Times. A Ronald Reagan appointee to the federal bench in Florida, Vinson was railing against a federal system that forced him to sentence a 27-year-old single mother to prison life without parole because her dealer ex-boyfriend had stored cocaine in her house.

Note to D.C. Republicans: This would be a great time to take on the excesses of the war on drugs.

The Times was writing about conservatives, including Jeb Bush and former Watergate conspirator Chuck Colson, who advocate for smarter, more humane incarceration policies under the rubric “Right on Crime.” In light of the GOP’s need to woo more young voters, drug-war reforms offer an ideological good — limited government — and also might be politically savvy. Think: Ron Paul and his rock star status on college campuses.

Two areas cry for immediate action.

Find the rest of the column here.