January 2009 – Page 4

Off on the wrong foot

One day in Congress and Frank Kratovil is already showing his stripes.

Yesterday the House approved new rules on a practically party-line basis. Chief among the rules dropped from the Contract With America-era rules (which made things more fair for both the majority and minority party) were the six-year term limit on committee chairs and neutering the “motion to recommit”:

A motion to recommit a bill or joint resolution may include instructions only in the form of a direction to report an amendment or amendments back to the House forthwith.

The other bothersome practice which drew controversy last year was holding votes open until the side the Speaker deems correct prevails. Guess what, it’s now the rule of the House that Speaker Pelosi or whoever is running the show at that particular juncture can twist some arms and get their way:

Conduct of Votes- In clause 2(a) of rule XX, strike `A record vote by electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of such vote.’. (Emphasis mine.)

There were also a number of changes to promote gender neutrality, which only serves the point of political correctness.

While there were six Democrats who bravely stood up for the old rules (while seven chose not to vote), Frank wasn’t one of them. And it only took two votes for Kratovil to assert his “independence” and keep Nancy Pelosi as Speaker (the first vote was to determine a quorum.)

Four votes so far, two poor ones. Is this what the Eastern Shore really wanted?

The hat tip for today goes to the ALG blog, but the research was something I already knew how to do. Count on it being done a lot.

A Quixotic effort

From the “why doesn’t this surprise me?” department, courtesy of Bill Wilson and Americans for Limited Government:

Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson has called upon Labor Secretary Elaine Chao to launch an immediate investigation into plans by a coalition of union officials and environmentalists to raid employee pension funds in order “to pursue a dubious political agenda.”

Wilson’s call came in a letter to the Secretary hand delivered on Tuesday, December 30th. In the letter, the ALG executive warned that the announced union/environmentalist action directly violates Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) provisions by draining working pension funds to wage a political war on global warming. The letter specifically cites the Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR) as culpable in what he terms an “elaborate shell game.”

The INCR’s Action Plan has 49 signers, including leaders of pension funds, union officials, state treasurers, state and city comptrollers, financial service firms, asset managers, and foundations.

(snip)

Dating back to December of 2007, the Department of Labor has repeatedly informed union officials that it rejects “a construction of ERISA which would rend the Act’s tight limits on the use of plan assets illusory, and which would permit plan fiduciaries to tap into ERISA trusts to promote myriad public policy preferences….”

Wilson’s letter to Secretary Chao calls upon the Department of Labor to ensure that the union/environmentalist coalition properly acts in the best interests of participants and beneficiaries under the plan. It states, “We urge you to take the actions necessary to ensure the fiduciaries within your jurisdiction are complying with ERISA… and are investing solely for the benefit of the participants and beneficiaries of their plans.

Wilson noted that that the success of the investment strategy, by its own admission, is actually necessarily tied to restrictions in carbon emissions that the federal and state governments have yet to enact, thus posing greater uncertainty and risk to investors.

“The INCR with its Big Labor and state participants create the very financial risks to investors its own action plan portends to reduce,” said Wilson in a statement. “In the process, it is putting the retirement savings and investments of thousands of investors, workers, and retirees in jeopardy by tying financial returns to projected government actions that have not yet taken place, and to a disputed science that may not be factual.”

The union/environmentalist plan ostensibly seeks to “reduce climate risks” in investor portfolios by requiring investments to consider climate risk, investing capital in “developing and deploying clean technologies”, reducing by 20 percent energy use in real estate portfolios, and to support policy actions to enact a “mandatory national policy to contain and reduce national greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide, making sizable, sensible, long-term cuts in accordance with the 60-90% reductions below 1990 levels by 2050 that scientists and climate models suggest are urgently needed to avoid the worst and most costly impacts from climate change.”

Wilson contends that “reducing climate risk” is not the real intention of the investment plan, nor should it be allowed even if it were. “This amounts to an elaborate shell game to reduce carbon emissions by endangering retirements,” he said.

“All of which has nothing to do with protecting the savings of investors from risk to their portfolios,” Wilson added.

Wilson warned that left unchecked, “[t]his green-union pension raid will not only endanger workers’ retirement benefits, but the greater economy. The American people have yet to seriously question the cost of going green.”

There are a couple of things which stick out in the information provided within the links.

First is that one of the 49 signatories to the INCR Action Plan is our own State Treasurer, Nancy Kopp. Little surprise there; in fact I’m more shocked that Peter Franchot didn’t jump on board too.

However, the second item is noticing the Action Plan dates back to early last year by my reckoning. Unfortunately, Secretary Chao is going to be replaced by an Obama appointee soon, his initial pick was California Congresswoman Hilda Solis. Her selection was praised by labor leaders so you can bet your bottom dollar Wilson’s request for an investigation will be quickly shelved once Solis takes over, assuming she’s confirmed.

Living once upon a time in a state where pension fund investment in non-traditional avenues became a celebrated scandal (I’m reaching waaaay back in the archives for this one, all the way back to my old blog), the question of whether this investment is appropriate given ALG’s concern is valid; unfortunately we can see just how much of a story this has become in the media because Wilson and ALG are seemingly the lone voices bringing this up.

It’s quite possible that the best route to circumvent this is a similar route taken against Maryland’s so-called Fair Share Act in 2006 – through the court system. There was another case where the ERISA statute came into play, but for a completely different reason. In this case, it may be much more appropriate because the signatories and their pension funds represent a number of different states.

Where Wilson is absolutely correct is citing the dubious science of manmade climate change, particularly when the INCR Action Plan openly supports government action to combat it. In general, the solution sought is one of draconian, job-killing restrictions on industrial and human activity which would do little to stop global warming even if it were present. Of course, an end result which balances the monetary gain possible from increased energy efficiency with the demands of those who want to attain a higher standard of living has been well-achieved by the free market for decades. And where efficiency ran into limits, until recently bold entrepreneurs were encouraged to seek new and better energy sources and supplies.

The push away from those items which were tried-but-true, such as incandescent light bulbs and domestic oil, has accelerated over the last decade as liberal environmentalists (as I repeat myself) demand substitutes which are more expensive and/or require heavy subsidies to remain viable in the market, such as compact fluorescent light bulbs or electric-powered cars. Until then, it seemed that technology and innovation flowed naturally – in less than a normal lifespan we went from our first flight to walking on the moon.

And while it can properly be argued that the latter achievement came as a result of federal government involvement, the same is not true within the evolution of wireless technology or in the manufacture of thousands of goods one uses on a regular basis. In most cases, we’ve advanced without needing a subsidy – only recently has the norm become going to the Beltway bureaucrats and lawmakers with outstretched hands.

Regardless, asking for the financial security of retirees to be based on the risky schemes and straight-up lobbying that the INCR Action Plan suggests is far from proper fiduciary prudence. Wilson is correct to be calling for an investigation and for action, but I fear he is far too late.

Didn’t we try this before?

Yesterday it was learned that one large piece of President-elect Obama’s effort to save the economy will be a tax cut of $300 billion targeted to lower- and moderate-income Americans, with the credit pegged at $500 per individual and $1,000 per couple. In effect, it’s deja vu all over again as this Wall Street Journal article by Jonathan Weisman and Naftali Bendavid points out – “(t)his part of (Obama’s) plan,” they write, ” is similar to a bipartisan initiative launched in early 2008, which sent out checks worth $131 billion.” Still, the WSJ article claims that the effect of Obama’s proposed tax cuts will be larger than in the first two years of either Bush tax cut.

But will he be able to rope in those on the far left in Congress behind him without sweetening this proposal with punitive provisions? Seems to me that liberals like Barney Frank were dead set against tax cuts when a Republican was proposing them this time last year. From the New York Times and writer David M. Herszenhorn, January 15, 2008:

That sort of talk (about extending the Bush tax cuts) drew a furious reaction from Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, who like other Democrats is calling for a temporary stimulus plan, directed at middle-class Americans.

“There is nothing countercyclical about extending tax cuts,” Mr. Frank said in a telephone interview from Massachusetts. “That’s simply trying to use the bad economy as a platform for their ideological goals.”

Now that the shoe may be on the other foot, it’s going to be interesting to see just how fast leftwingers like Barney Frank roll over and embrace whatever Barack Obama puts together.

Once again, I have to object to the idea that only certain people deserve tax cuts simply because they haven’t amassed the skills or maximized their talents as much as others who make more money because of their hard work and efforts. The beauty of the Bush tax cuts that Congressman Frank abhorred was that everyone who paid taxes got a break because rates were lowered for all, and it served to somewhat flatten the tax scale. Thirteen years ago Steve Forbes ran for President on the premise of a flat tax, and, if we’re to be saddled with an income tax rather than a consumption tax for the foreseeable future, that idea remains appealing.

As always with any Presidential proposal, the devil is in the details. (Yeah, I can hardly wait for the first Obama State of the Union address. If you thought President Bush’s laundry lists were nauseating, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.) The WSJ story even notes that the top limit of the tax credit is in flux, so the limits can be adjusted downward at will. Since many of those in the $200,000 and up bracket are being hit worst by the slow economic times because they run small businesses, that upper limit could get much lower.

In fact, the $200k cap may have to be dropped in order to come up with the revenue required for other portions of Obamanomics – not to be confused with Reaganomics, but perhaps closer to the new Wendy’s ad campaign of “3conomics”. Perhaps we’ll all get tofuburgers for 99 cents as part of our tax break, since hamburgers are too fattening with our obesity epidemic and soybean growers don’t get the market break corn growers do because of ethanol mandates.

Instead of what seems to be an annual goosing of the economy based on tax refunds – note all of the retailers who pitch their wares in the late winter and early spring as great ways to spend your “windfall” of a large tax refund (read: interest-free loan to the government from your pocket), perhaps a culture of frugality is what we need to adopt. Hopefully “once bitten, twice shy” is a lesson learned by America’s youth when it comes to financial dealings.

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration won’t lead by example in this case because too many special interests would like to see otherwise. It remains to be seen the price this tax “refund” actually incurs after they extract their pound of flesh for passage through Congress.

Thoughts on the live blog and RNC Chair race

There’s a couple other things I’d like to get to, but for tonight I’ll stick with the RNC debate I liveblogged earlier today. Rather than try to copy-and-paste a long transcript, you can just go here and hit “replay”.

It was the first time I’d ever tried liveblogging and I thought I managed it pretty well for the most part. Probably the hardest thing was trying to pay attention to what was being said and also the comments coming in. I only had 2 or 3 different commentors so it wasn’t really difficult once I got the feel for watching the column where comments are shown for approval. But that’s why you have comment blocks instead of their being dispersed closer to real time. Now I know.

In a way I’m sort of glad I didn’t have a giant audience – maybe it was 6 or 8 at most. Then again, people can go back and reread it anytime so there may be more who see the post. As I noted in my introduction, who’s brilliant idea was it to place the debate at the same time Rush was on?

The consensus of those voting in my liveblog poll was split 50-50 between Ken Blackwell and Michael Steele winning the debate. Personally I though Blackwell did the best while Michael Steele didn’t really take advantage of the hometown crowd as much. Saul Anuzis had his moments as did Chip Saltsman. I really didn’t care much for Mike Duncan because he had the opportunity to do these things he was suggesting beforehand and didn’t take advantage – it’s time for new blood in my opinion.

As for the form of the debate itself, I really wasn’t enthused about the “lightning round” questions, nor was I big on all the references to Facebook and other social networking sites. Certainly they will be helpful but if you don’t have a message they won’t matter. Ron Paul pretty much owned the internet insofar as the GOP went and we see how far he got.

I just got an e-mail from the Media Research Center and they’ve made a choice in the race. It may not be all that popular in these parts, but here you are:

The Republican Party needs to be rebuilt. It needs to be reconnected to the conservative principles that made it the majority Party in Washington.

And we have at this important moment a genuine opportunity to affect the direction the Party will take in the years to come. The election of the next Republican National Committee (RNC) Chair will take place at their meeting at the end of this month. Who they choose will determine the future of the Party, and for conservatives and our country this decision could not be more important.

Last Friday, conservative leaders representing some forty different organizations met. These leaders represent a broad cross-section of the conservative movement. One attendee, Virginia Republican National Committeeman Morton Blackwell, had prepared and distributed a list of questions for the RNC Chair candidates to help determine who would be best suited to move the Party forward. (The 37 questions and the six candidates’ answers can be found at Townhall.com.)

All of the candidates responded to the questions, and all made an effort to promote the conservative cause. Each would be a fine choice to lead the important RNC rebuilding effort.

But after our review of the candidates’ answers and a discussion of their other qualifications, my colleagues and I announced our support of Ken Blackwell — and urged the 168 members of the RNC to elect him at their late-January meeting.

We face many challenges in the weeks, months and years ahead. We need a strong, focused, conservative Republican Party engaged in the fight. I think Ken Blackwell is the person to lead this charge.

Ken Blackwell has been a principled Reagan Republican his entire life and career. He ran and successfully served the people of Ohio in multiple capacities as an unquestioned and unapologetic conservative. He has long been a leader in the conservative movement, both nationally and in growing it from the ground up with his involvement with state level organizations throughout the country. He has been a tremendously successful entrepreneur, and is a stalwart champion of the free market.

He is a man of unquestioned integrity. He will be an outstanding RNC Chair.

I think either Blackwell or Steele is going to win. The letter from the MRC asked us to contact our state committee representatives to urge them to vote for Ken Blackwell, but that’s not happening in Maryland, no way no how.

In thinking about this race, I believe that the kingmaker is going to be Mike Duncan. Certainly the “establishment” Republicans will be behind him, and it’s probably not going to be a situation where any candidate wins on the first ballot because there’s six running. However, I see Duncan as a strong enough third to have his supporters be a sizable bloc which can make or break either candidate – my guess is they’d go for Steele as their second choice. The longer voting goes, the more chance that Michael Steele will be seen as a compromise candidate who straddles the line between the rabid conservatives who seem to be lining up behind Blackwell and the establishment Beltway GOP.

I’ll place myself out on a limb and say that if there’s only one ballot, Blackwell wins. But if they need a second ballot or more, eventually Steele will be the victor. In either case, we need someone who will take the fight to our liberal enemy and stand up to those in the party who want it to drift toward the center.

Over the last 30 years or so, the center of the country has actually shifted rightward. This is no time for a course reversal, but an acceleration in those places where we can achieve the desired results. The winner needs to hit the ground running for 2010 because there’s little time to waste.

A new experiment

In theory I could try this here but I think I’ll have a more interesting outcome on my Red County site. Later this afternoon I’ve scheduled a live blog of the RNC Chairmanship Debate, which will take place at my Red County Wicomico site beginning at roughly 12:45 p.m.

So I’m inviting all of those interested and who have a chance to watch onboard to participate. If nothing else, it’ll give me a chance to try this technology!

Late note: There is a pre-debate Straw Poll ongoing at thenextright.com. As of this writing, over 700 votes are in with Ohio’s Ken Blackwell and Maryland’s Michael Steele the two clear leaders.

2009 Guide to the Maryland Blogosphere

About this guide: This is an effort which was suggested for me by fellow blogger G.A. Harrison and patterned on a similar guide in Delaware. But because of the sheer number of websites that eminate from the Free State, I had to establish some parameters which limited those listed to blogs and bloggers who I considered serious about their craft in that they’ve taken the time to post on a regular basis (averaging twice a week or more for a period of time) and built up a reader base of 1,000 or more readers a month based on empirical data acquired from a metering service or the authors themselves.

Unfortunately, many blogs I enjoy and read on at least an occasional basis failed in one or both criteria, and this may be something I revisit for the next Guide. In short, I consider this a work in progress.

To that end, I’ve truncated this original post and will now simply refer readers to the page on this site. That will be where errata and additions will be placed until later this year when work on the 2010 Guide will begin.

Back to normalcy…

..that is, if you believe that government expansion is normal. On Tuesday, the 111th Congress convenes with larger Democratic majorities in each body.

In an era where the bailout has become de rigueur in Washington, the toll to the taxpayer only remains to be seen – all we know is that the Beltway bureaucrats will have plenty of largesse to spread around without thought of where it’s coming from. Estimates of the budget deficit for the current fiscal year are necessarily guesses at this point, but most observers peg the shortfall north of $1 trillion. That comes in an era where our total federal budget just topped $3 trillion in the last year.

Eight days later, the Maryland General Assembly begins yet another session which labors under a somewhat different rule than their federal cousins have just a few miles to the west – they actually have to balance their budget. With a shortfall that seems to grow every time the state officials figure out the tally, the choice becomes which unpopular cuts need to be made. However, Democrats in Annapolis will make sure to quickly blame the outgoing Bush administration for their financial woes and not come to the slightly more obvious conclusion that raising taxes in a down economy tends to make a bad situation worse, and is some of the reason that their revenues have come up short of expectations. Don’t say we didn’t tell you so.

This after a holiday season which was terrible for most store chains and may have sounded the death knell for a number of retailers too heavily battered and weakened over the latter half of 2008. While a number of large merchandisers have made headlines with their demise or bankruptcy (such as Mervyn’s and Circuit City), less noticeable are a vast number of smaller outlets whose closing will collectively make a similar impact when they throw in the towel. In turn, this dumps more people out of work, putting stress on the unemployment insurance programs.

While the Obama Administration wishes to enlist workers to build infrastructure, the transfer of capital from what would essentially be either higher taxes or simply thin air (e.g. printing money) through the federal bureaucracy – who takes their pound of flesh – to those workers fortunate enough to receive the jobs at the inflated wages mandated by the Davis-Bacon Act (unless Republicans in Congress can somehow force through an exemption) can hardly have the same impact as leaving the money in the private sector.

We’ve already seen the damage higher taxes created in Maryland as revenues fell short of expectations. Unfortunately, those at the federal level don’t have to balance the budget nor do they have any restrictions on printing money. Looks like we’ll be back to the normal Washington snafu beginning next week.

Law of unintended consequences

For some reason, this story struck me and it became even better when I found out it was from Maryland. Thanks to my “Friday news” update from the Patriot Post, this story comes from The Sentinel newspapers and writer Joe Slaninka, and opens thusly:

As a prank, students from local high schools have been taking advantage of the county’s Speed Camera Program in order to exact revenge on people who they believe have wronged them in the past, including other students and even teachers.

Students from Richard Montgomery High School dubbed the prank the Speed Camera “Pimping” game, according to a parent of a student enrolled at one of the high schools.

Originating from Wootton High School, the parent said, students duplicate the license plates by printing plate numbers on glossy photo paper, using fonts from certain websites that “mimic” those on Maryland license plates. They tape the duplicate plate over the existing plate on the back of their car and purposefully speed through a speed camera, the parent said. The victim then receives a citation in the mail days later.

Students are even obtaining vehicles from their friends that are similar or identical to the make and model of the car owned by the targeted victim, according to the parent.

I tell you, knowing that the schools in question are in Montgomery County, we’re all safe in knowing that the government bureaucrats and lobbyists of the future are being educated in a proper manner. Look at it this way – they’re already using deceit and trickery along with the force of government in place to get revenge on and financially hurt their enemies. It’s perfect training for future big-government Democrats.

Like most governmental entities which have adopted speed cameras, the idea was sold to the public as a means to contribute to safety on the roadways. Rather than enacting an unpopular tax increase on the masses, Montgomery County opted instead to raise revenue via a somewhat different kind of sin tax – scofflaws are assessed a $40 fine for speeding if their car is caught on camera doing so. Never mind that motorists caught don’t have the points added to their driving record because no law enforcement officer witnessed the violation.

Furthermore, the teenagers who are turning the system on its head endanger other drivers on the road by driving recklessly enough to trigger the speed camera.

It seems to me that the parent who alerted the authorities about the program is a skeptic though:

“I hope the public at large will complain loudly enough that local Montgomery County government officials will change their policy of using these cameras for monetary gain,” the parent said. “The practice of sending speeding tickets to faceless recipients without any type of verification is unwarranted and an exploitation of our rights.”

You mean to tell me there’s a Republican in Montgomery County? The nameless parent is exactly right.

Naturally, the county government was worried about the “integrity” of the program, but I’m worried that this craze will spread. No, not the craze of teenagers getting back at those they dislike by altering their license plates and racing through speed cameras – the cops will crack down on that soon enough – but the craze of speed cameras as a means to extort revenue from motorists.

Remember, this is the same county that subsidizes “green” electricity by making it only 1.5 to 3.5 cents per kWh more expensive than “brown” power through its Clean Energy Rewards program. I can just see these teenagers in 20 years putting their “talents” to work figuring out new and more devious ways to extract the contents of unsuspecting county citizens’ wallets.

Who said crime doesn’t pay? You just have to be in a position to collect.

2009: A clarion call

New Year’s Day is always a day of optimism as the old is swept aside and the new looked forward to as the light at the end of the tunnel for some and a vast frontier of new possibilities for others. I suppose those who share my belief in conservative political principles would tend to subscribe to the former, but I’m choosing the latter road in this instance.

This optimism, though, comes with the galvanizing thought that things almost can’t get worse, either as a nation whose economy is ravaged by a deep recession or as those who comprise the bulk of a political party whose influence was even more severely tarnished and corroded in recent national election. One could almost describe our movement as equivalent to the Tampa Bay Rays baseball franchise, whose short existence was marked by year after year in the basement of the American League.

In 2008, however, the Rays turned their fortunes around by securing the American League pennant for the first time in franchise history. And while they fell short of their ultimate goal by losing the World Series to the Philadelphia Phillies (who had also overcome a lengthy streak of futility), they achieved their true initial goal of making the playoffs, a possibility many baseball observers didn’t even have on the radar screen as the 2008 season commenced.

Oddly enough, the Rays’ triumph actually is reflective of how our movement can succeed in two key areas.

For several years, the Rays had quietly built up a very successful farm system with a number of solid prospects and those young players all worked their way up the minor league ranks until they were ready to come of age in 2008.

Secondly, the team stressed fundamentals and preached a team concept with a goal in mind. Rays manager Joe Maddon termed it as 9=8: nine players playing smart, hard baseball for nine innings equals one of the eight playoff spots available to teams in Major League Baseball. The Rays accomplished that goal in each game often enough to win the American League’s Eastern Division, then defeated two other teams in the playoffs to win the AL flag.

While a political movement is no leisurely pastime, those principles can apply to our cause as well.

For years, we’ve spoken about building up a farm team of prospects who begin in local and state political races and work their way up the ladder. While we as conservatives rightfully point to two state governors – Bobby Jindal in Louisiana and Sarah Palin in Alaska – as examples of the GOP’s future leadership on a national stage, part of the overall question becomes who replaces them as they graduate up the ladder in politics.

More importantly to me, however, is the other part of the query: how will they be assisted in their efforts? We saw in Palin’s case a serious reluctance by many in the party to assist her efforts both in Alaska and in her campaign backing John McCain’s run for the White House. Palin’s political career has been one of alienation as she wasn’t the GOP establishment candidate in Alaska nor did she have the full support of many of the so-called establishment Republicans in the nation’s capital. On the other hand, Jindal hasn’t received that same treatment but the situation in Louisiana was far different as the state Republican party wasn’t already in power as he made his bid, nor has he ever been thrust into a situation of running on a national stage. It remains to be seen how he’ll be treated should he decide to run for national office in 2012, but one of his advantages could be having spent some time in the nation’s capital as a Congressman.

From where I sit as part of the grassroots, I look at those establishment Republicans and shake my head in disbelief. I’m sure I speak for many among us who cringe every time someone in Washington or a state capital talks about “bipartisanship” when the other side rarely gives an inch – at least insofar as the size and scope of government is concerned. The way I look at it, slowing down the pace of government growth isn’t a concession by the other side.

This brings me to the other part of the equation, fundamentals.

When I signed up for this Republican Party gig, I did so because they were the closest political home to my core beliefs of limited, Constitutional government and as a party that has won on a national stage with at least one candidate who had a similar political outlook, he being Ronald Reagan. The first vote I ever cast for President was for Reagan’s re-election in 1984, and to this day it’s likely the one Presidential vote I didn’t regret making somewhere down the line.

Prior to his election as President, in fact years prior to his nomination as the party’s standardbearer, Reagan spoke of a political palette comprising bold colors rather than pale pastels. Reagan spoke as one who had little to lose by making his beliefs public, and we as a movement find ourselves in a similar position as 2009 dawns.

I’m writing to you from the state of Maryland, whose General Assembly is about to convene for what I like to term the “90 days of terror” that the body’s session is limited to by our state’s Constitution. To gain power in our state’s legislature, the Republican Party next year (and yes, 2010 is now “next year”) would have to add 35 seats to the 36 it currently holds in the House of Delegates and ten seats to the 14 they have in the State Senate (which in total number 141 and 47, respectively.) They would have to win four of the state’s eight Congressional seats – including one they just lost in the 2008 election – and keep their one incumbent to become a majority of the state’s Congressional delegation, and defeat a Senator who’s been in office since 1986 to regain a Republican Senate seat for the first time in decades. To more or less of a degree, this situation exists in many other states. We are in a position where we have nothing to lose by attempting to shift the debate in a more conservative direction.

For years, we have allowed those who favor a larger, more powerful yet less Constitutional government at all levels to control the debate.

This has to end now.

The debate should be moved to the court of making them justify why their programs, some of which have been in force now since the New Deal of the 1930’s and others from the Great Society of the 1960’s, should remain in place when their stated goals have not been met and their continuance threatens the very foundation of the nation’s economy. To that end, we need to engage those who believe in an overarching, all-powerful government in ways they haven’t been before. Perhaps this is controversial to say, but we need to conduct our own sort of guerrilla warfare here – not with bullets or bombs, but by forcing them to defend their points at times when they would be otherwise off-guard. In truth, it’s what we should do for all of our elected leaders of whatever stripe; however, those who are on our side should rarely need to be questioned as to why they advocate policy and vote as they do.

In most states, 2009 is simply a year where local offices are up for grabs. It’s a perfect time to lay the groundwork for what is to come next year; a crush of mid-term and state elections which will shape the political landscape for a decade or more as redistricting will for the most part be in the control of next year’s winners.

As movement conservatives, it is our task to develop, engage, and most importantly educate those who haven’t developed or are amenable to change their political philosophy by practicing what we preach in limiting government and explaining why this is to the public’s benefit, particularly when the Left is reliable in trotting out “victims” of “mean-spirited cuts” in government spending and regulation.

Unlike the Rays, whose “next year” finally came in 2008, we still may not achieve all of our goals in 2010. Political change takes a much longer time on the calendar than uprooting the previous American League standings does, although our Orioles seem to be an exception to that rule. As a movement, we need to become anti-political as far as thinking one generation ahead rather than one election ahead. When the Left says that something is “for the children” they need to be asked whether the effect their new program will have on that generation’s freedom and wallet is being taken into account, and whether the benefits merit the cost. In many cases, they’ll have a hard time justifying the effort if challenged to prove their point.

Our success will not be measurable in what’s accomplished, but by what does not happen. Barack Obama is on record as complaining that the Constitution is written as “negative rights” – those things which government cannot do. If we are to be the party that reflects the intent of the Founders, we must engage in pressing for negative government and bringing back the equilibrium between the branches of government and the tension between rights of the government and the governed, erring in favor of the governed.

I hope everyone running for the chairmanship of the Republican Party will read and understand what I’ve written here. Principle over politics need not be unpopular. Let’s make 2009 the year we begin the recovery – not just an economic one but one of Constitutional government as well.