Two thoughts...

*Much hype and attention has been given to the recent Arizona immigration law. Those who attack the law do so on grounds that invoke that ever clever race card. But upon closer analysis which side is truly focused on race here? Would the left in this country be in such an uprising over the Arizona law meant to curtail illegal immigration primarily made up of Swedes? Of course not. Why? Because Swedes do not hold the keys to power. When was the last time you heard, "As goes St. Olaf so goes the nation." Those who support the law still have legitimacy with the Swede model because the objective is to still curtail the illegality of the action---not necessarily those who commit the action. But the left truly is getting itself into a bind by arguing against the law with the ridiculous"papers please" line of thought. According the left, the Arizona law is equatable to the Nazis because both supposedly force people to "show their papers" or face persecution. The problem? Remember during the health care debate when the President and supporters of the law vowed that the bill did not give out taxpayer funded care for illegals? How on earth would one be able to determine who is legal (and thus eligible) to receive benefits? Oh i know..."papers please." And plus, why on earth would we create a new law when we don't enforce the current one? It's complete political pandering by the left...and we shouldn't buy it.

*Opponents of Obamacare have attacked the "individual mandate" aspect of the law. They have even begun to attack Republican politicians who have supported an individual mandate in the past---most recently Mitt Romney and Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah. Bennett was just ousted at the Utah Republican Convention. He was one of the most conservative Senators in America and was really unfairly attacked by the ever annoying "tea party." Romney and Bennett attackers miss one crucial element though: an individual mandate is different when it's at the State level. I know some may say that such an argument is just a cop-out, but when it comes to the Constitutional analysis the argument stands. The US Constitution clearly lays out what the Federal government can do---the rest is left to the states. This is a logical understanding of the Constitution and a conservative one. The individual mandate is unconstitutional on the federal level. One the state level, such a policy is completely legal (unless restricted by the underlying state constitution.) This brings up a source of contention I have with the current logic being used by the conservative movement today. They rightly point out that certain things the federal government does now (ex. education) should be left to the states. But when states try and deal with the issue conservatives are still pissed. You can't have it both ways. How many times have you heard conservatives complain about John Hoeven because of his increased funding of education? I hear it all the time. Yet those same people rail against federal involvement in education. If not at the state level then where?

Re-thinking "the rich"

It's no mystery that President Obama is looking toward closing the (mythical!) income inequality in America. Phase 1: Obamacare. Those of us who are not wealthy---the majority in America---have a view of "the rich" that is just plain false. I used to believe some of these myths about the wealthy: most of them inherited their wealth; they attended private school; most don't really work--they just reap the benefits of the company; and most wear their wealth on their sleeve. Although I have recently discovered information that has changed my view about the wealthy and has reinforced my belief that the wealthy are not bad people and that the government should think twice about continuing to confiscate their wealth in the name of "social justice." Here what the research says about America's millionaires:

1. 80% are first generation wealthy

2. Only 17% attended private school

3. Most save around 20% of their earned income

4. About 67% work about 45-55 hrs per week

5. Half have lived in the same house (average value of $320,000) for the last twenty years

6. And most importantly: almost all of them live well below their means.

Next time I hear my working class family members and friends berate "the rich" I will be able to repudiate their dubious, class envy mentality.

The Unconstrained Beast

"The bigger the government, the less significant the citizen." That is how columnist Dennis Prager sums up the ramifications of the passage of Obamacare. Enough has been said about all the terrible things in the bill. It's obvious that premiums will go up, hospitals will be understaffed, and federal debt will explode to unsustainable levels. But the greater question is what does the passage of Obamacare say about the current social situation of the United States?
It's clear that the left has boldly come out and said, "Damn with the public opinion! We have a shot at getting our agenda through and we will do just that." This is the downside of a republic. We are not a democracy where the majority always rules. That is not to say that public opinion should not be addressed and respected however. But it does highlight the system that we live in.
More importantly though it does show a shift in the dominate vision of America. I'm currently reading Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions." He contends that there are two dominate visions that are competing against one another in society: the constrained vision and the unconstrained vision. The constrained vision (the more conservative one) sees the individual as the make up of society and that the errors that make up human nature will always be a part of society. Thus the constrained vision always deals with trade-offs not solutions. The unconstrained vision sees man as being able to progress to higher ideals. Thus society is like a an equation that needs to be tinkered with until the optimal answer is reached.
The left has ushered the unconstrained vision into popular thinking in the United States. We speak of "ending poverty in America," "stopping global warming," and "ending income inequality." This is perfect unconstrained vocabulary. The individual is not the problem---it's the situation that man is in. The constrained vision sees this rightly as pure folly. There will always be environmental issues, there will always be income inequality, and there will always be poverty. The constrained vision seeks not to "cure" such ailments of society, but instead focuses on making them easier to deal with. Thus the constrained vision speaks of "growing wealth" instead of "ending poverty."
Obamacare is the unconstrained vision put into reality. It targets the wealthy to give to the poor. It views the health care problem as an equation and Obamacare as the missing "x" to make everything work.
The good news? The unconstrained vocabulary sounds moral and appealing, but doesn't pan out in reality. President Johnson vowed to end poverty by declaring war on it---and yet we speak of the same issues to this very day. President Wilson fought the war to end all wars---and yet the planet is always dealing with violence.
The unconstrained vision may be experiencing a rise in popularity at the moment---but as always it won't last long. The American people will come to realize that our problems will always be with us---the real question is how do we deal with them? We deal with them by recognizing there must always be trade-offs and that the more power we give the government the less significant our role as individuals become. It's as the great libertarian novelist Ayn Rand once remarked, "Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it -- that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life."

Don't serve me tea...

I recently discovered how much I really enjoy reading the Say Anything blog. I'm growing a little disappointed now though because of all the Palin praising---and subsequent Romney bashing. In a post today, the blog attacks Romney and seems shocked to find that Romney got a great ovation at the CPAC conference today. Any conservative who listened to that speech would have been impressed with the poise and intellect that Mitt showed today. He offered a strong case for the role of the individual and the pioneering spirit that has defined what the conservative movement means. Yet Say Anything blog didn't find much to like. They continued the myth that Romney was nowhere to be found during the Scott Brown campaign. That's so blatantly false and the blog knows better. Heck, Scott Brown introduced Romney today at the convention and stopped just short of making a gold idol of the man. Brown knows that without Mitt Romney he would have lost that race in Massachusetts.

The blog goes on to say that Romney just doesn't represent the tea party movement that has supposedly been sweeping candidates into office lately. Yeah, it's not like Romney held major fund raisers for Bob McDonnel, Chris Christie, and Scott Brown....oh wait. Mark my words: when it comes time for the tea partiers to line up with Mitt or President Obama, they'll choose Mitt...even if they do hate his religion.

Lastly, Say Anything compares Romney to John McCain calling both of them "milquetoast" conservatives. What? What the hell is a milquetoast conservative? And to compare Romney to McCain is like comparing the tea party movement to an intellectual movement. It just doesn't work. So why do the tea partiers hate Romney? It's because he's rich, well-off, Mormon, and practical. He attacks Obama---but doesn't demand a birth certificate. He defends conservatism---yet understands you must govern as well. He talks a good policy game---yet knows solutions must be apparent. The attacks on Romney signal what the tea partiers are all about: hate for those better off, disgust for those who actually have to govern, and disdain for anyone practical enough to know they can't get everything. The tea partiers are like little kids throwing a temper tantrum on the school playground. Romney has looked past that and is now a good conservative alternative to the overly simplistic, nationalistic, tea party movement. Thank god for that.

Check out the closing part of Romney's address to CPAC this year and wonder how on earth conservatives can hate this guy:

State of the Union...re-do?

If I were one of President Obama's trusted advisers I would have broken the news to the faithful leader that he might want to consider re-doing the State of the Union speech. Just go back out, walk down the aisle again, flash that election winning smile, and take another stab at it. This time:

1. Invite Scott Brown to attend and sit in the "American Hero's section" by the always grumpy looking first lady.

2. Instead of having the Iraq applause line be about coming home, try and lie through your teeth and say that you are proud that the US is coming home in victory.

3. Look at the honorable men and women of the Supreme Court and apologize for your completely tasteless, rude, and un-presidential attack on them. Instead, deliver the following line, "My initial remarks about the Supreme Court were inappropriate and I offer my deepest apologies. Although the executive branch doesn't always agree with the decisions handed down by the co-equal high court, our Union stands here to honor your role, your dedication to liberty, and your un-ending commitment to upholding the greatest political idea of all-time: the Constitution of the United States.

Thoughts

Scott Brown's victory sent shock-waves across the country. The seat once held by the liberal lion has betrayed the legacy of its former holder and has opted for a moderately conservative Republican who promises to fight for a less intrusive government. I might note that the first politician that Brown thanked after his victory was Mitt Romney. This victory only helps his chances for 2012. One thing that did bother me about Brown's win is how the tea-party movement took credit for the victory. Plain and simple, Scott Brown is no tea-partier (and thank god for that!) He's pro-choice, pro gay civil unions, voted for cap and trade in Massachusetts (now regrets that vote), etc...He represents a down to earth, center-right Republican who is willing to take on Washington without aligning himself with the fringe. And just to mention once again, Sarah Palin and her tea-party faithful got on the Scott Brown bandwagon pretty late in the game. And just a few years ago (or months ago for that matter) candidates like Scott Brown would have been attacked as a RINO and would not have received the support of the so-called "true conservatives." There will be more candidates like Scott Brown. Delaware Congressman Mike Castle is looking like the next candidate to pick off a Democrat seat in New England. Castle is a moderate Republican who will not make some conservatives happy. But I hope those who attack Castle once the election picks up will remember that a party cannot set the agenda without having the votes. Castle may not be perfect, but he's good enough.

Speaking of elections, I am currently reading a book about the 1920 presidential election. There is so much drama in that election that it reads like a thriller novel. It's significant because it is hailed as the "year of the six presidents." Harding, Coolidge, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Wilson, and Hoover all played a major role in the election. Some vying for their parties nomination, some running for Vice President. Wilson was finishing up his second term at this point but suffered a massive stroke and could barely function. Incredibly, he still wanted to run for a third term! FDR was the cocky-young VP candidate in the election. Hoover served in Wilson's cabinet but could never make up his mind whether he was a Republican or Democrat. TR despised his fellow progressive Wilson and seriously considered running for President again but his deteriorating health stopped that cause. Harding was the guy who sounded like a president, looked like a president, and really seemed like he was born to be President. Yet, he was a womanizer, drunk, and terrible public speaker. Yet, he ended up winning the election because personality trumped policy. The Socialist Party candidate, Eugene V. Debs, garnered 1 million votes. And incredibly, he did it from federal prison (he was imprisoned by Wilson for protesting the draft of World War I.) So what an election...I can't wait to learn more about this historic time.

Fed Reserve Chairman Ben Bernake is in danger of not being re-appointed to his current role. Major Senate power players have come out against him. The Obama administration has warned that not re-appointing Bernake would cause major financial troubles for stocks. Isn't this a sign of how huge and too powerful the fed has become. It needs to be reformed...now.

President Obama will propose a three year freeze on certain discretionary spending matters. This is just pure political showman ship. Don't believe for a second that Obama means to cut spending. Following this logic, this plan is like charging up a credit to a trillion dollars and then plan on stopping to spend....and patting yourself on the back for it.

Don't take a swipe at Mitt

I've been seeing my man Mitt's name popping up in numerous blogs lately---in most cases in a negative way. Most bloggers are writing about the so-called "absence" of Mitt Romney in the Massachusetts special election. One of my new favorite blogs, Say Anything Blog, had a pretty nasty post about their take on Mitt's absence today. The story goes like this: Mitt is so unpopular in Massachusetts that he isn't campaigning for Scott Brown. This shows how weak of a candidate Romney is and thus he is not a serious contender for the GOP nomination in 2012. This account is so full of crap. First off, most of these bloggers jumped on the "tea party" bandwagon and thus they will attack on center-right candidate, like Romney, at any possible point. Second, they get the facts wrong. Romney was raising money and campaigning for Brown before anybody cared or heard about Scott Brown. Romney has basically given Scott Brown his top aides to use---and as The Daily Beast reported the other day, Scott Brown owes Mitt Romney a lot if he wins tomorrow night. Third, if the Massachusetts race is so important to conservatives where are the so-called "true conservatives." I haven't heard a lot from Sarah Palin in support of Scott Brown. And finally, the absence of Mitt right now actually makes political sense. Scott Brown is running a anti-establishment campaign against the Kennedy machine. Mitt Romney represents a form of the establishment---which isn't a bad thing. Scott Brown is running as the independent, every man in Massachusetts. Mitt Romney doesn't represent that and thus his presence on the campaign trail would do a disservice for Scott Brown. But when Scott Brown needed to get started and hit the campaign trail early, Mitt Romney was there. Was Say Anything Blog?