Mount Vernon Statement

A treaty with the electorate

It’s always amusing when politicians make promises and issue statements before they are elected, but actually have to live with what they said they’d do afterward. Some are successful and others…not so much. (“Read my lips” seems to be one of the better examples, although that middle-class tax cut his successor promised but couldn’t deliver on seems a good one too.)

So Republicans took about 20 pages to expand on what is stated here. (It’s sad when I have to use North Dakota as an example given that this isn’t on the Maryland or national Republican websites.) But I suppose it’s better than the 67 pages our last party platform from two years ago took up. In this case, the GOP is trying to replicate the success of the “Contract With America” as a bedrock campaign slogan from 1994.

But so have many other people; for example, what was wrong with the Mount Vernon Statement or the Contract From America?

Here we have oh so many words to describe in excruciating detail what Republicans in Congress promise to do, if only they are given the levers of power. Yet there already is a roadmap in place; one which has been there for 222 years (albeit amended from time to time with the last being in 1992.) You know as well as I do what that document is.

To varying degrees these more recent documents pay lip service to the supreme law of our land, but who’s going to be the first to say, “look, it’s time to sunset entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid”? I’d say it but my chances of being elected to any position of power lie between slim and none, and slim just left town. Yet that step is necessary to insure the continued prosperity of this Republic.

No one truly wants to be the person to make the hard choice. I don’t necessarily fault politicians for this because, after all, they generally receive the job by winning a popularity contest expressed in our votes. “A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage” is a pretty good slogan, but the question is how one goes about getting it. (In Herbert Hoover’s case, the bubble of prosperity built on easy credit burst – maybe that’s a lesson Keynesians who believe that government spending will get us out of our economic doldrums should heed.) Franklin Roosevelt couldn’t get a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage no matter how much his New Deal spent because there weren’t enough other job producers around – how could those in the private sector compete with the government, an entity which need not make a profit?

A legitimate criticism of many TEA Partiers is the hypocricy they exhibit by complaining about government-run health care when they themselves are the beneficiaries. I can see the point, but if you frame it as a question of whether they believe their grandchildren should be saddled with the debt that’s being incurred on their behalf the answer makes more sense. And perhaps if a truly open-market private system were made available they would take advantage. For example, many millions of seniors saved for their retirement by investing despite the fact a government program was also there to subsidize their golden years. No one told them how much to invest nor were there any restrictions on where they could put their money.

But perhaps the most immediate step government can take in the correct direction is to stop using the tax code to reward or punish certain behaviors like buying a home or putting in a solar panel. Our granting that sort of power to government is what makes change so difficult. Of course, we should dismantle Obamacare and maintain the Bush tax rates as a stopgap measure, but the real change needs to come from a shift from income-based taxation to a single-point consumption-based tax. While it may life a bit more difficult for business in one aspect, other parts of the accounting system would vastly improve, not to mention people would have more money in their pocket.

Right now it seems that all we want to do is tinker around the edges, and most assuredly by having a President of the opposite party in charge for two more long years that may be all we can do on a national scale.

But states can also lead the way by asserting their Tenth Amendment rights and becoming the “laboratories of democracy” (albeit in the opposite manner that Brandeis would have preferred) by electing conservative governors and legislators and testing the waters of dismantling their statist controls over the citizens. Obviously Texas is a popular destination for both business and the population which follows it due to its low-taxation, small-government reputation.

In many cases, even after the 2010 election those who believe in freedom and liberty through limited government will still be saddled with elected officials who try the same old same old statist remedies which haven’t worked the first ten times. But we have a role to play there as well by exposing them for what they really are and educating the rest of the population why these legislators aren’t acting in their best interests by showering them with goodies from a goose they’re betting will still be laying golden eggs. Hopefully Atlas only has to shrug once before a lesson is learned.

The fight will be long, and victories may be few. But what we believe in is something well worth fighting for, and I plan on continuing my part of the battle for either as long as I draw breath or we win, whichever comes first. It just may come down to our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor again.

Friday night videos episode 24

After a week off to recharge the batteries, FNV is back with a good mix of politics and music once again.

Health care continues to be a sore subject in Congress. But while Democrats used the sob story to make their point yesterday, our side adds some facts to the emotion. This comes from the fine folks of Americans for Prosperity:

As I often ask, which Americans are against prosperity?

The health-care summit yesterday was a dud; then again that was the expectation from Republicans like Rep. Michele Bachmann. From the Washington News-Observer:

And the National Republican Congressional Committee added a dash of humor to the “Blair House Project”:

Yet there is other news on the conservative front as well. Last week over 70 conservative leaders got together to sign the Mount Vernon Statement. Here’s what I thought of it
but the players had their say as well. Again from WNO:

Nor have they forgotten foreign policy. Our best UN Ambassador in recent times spoke to WNO about his thoughts on the Obama relationship with the world.

If you follow me on Facebook you know what I’m usually doing Sunday nights at 9:00 – listening to Local Produce on the radio. This remake of “The Legend of Wooley Swamp” (originally done by the Charlie Daniels Band) is done by one of the co-hosts, Bob Daigle, and a couple of his friends. He definitely has an interesting YouTube channel!

The second of two music videos tonight is fresh stuff I recorded last Saturday at the Brumbley Haiti benefit. The sound quality is markedly better, and not just because Not My Own played well. Maybe I’m finally getting this video recording stuff!

That’s a wrap for another version of Friday night videos – hope you enjoyed it!

On the Mount Vernon Statement

Every so often I suppose society feels the need to reinvent the wheel.

Much has been made of the recent resurgence of conservatism as a counterpoint to the statism being foisted upon us by those in power in Congress and the White House. In this instance, President Obama is just the head of the tiger but as a whole it remains a dangerous creature. Responding to this threat is a loose confederation of TEA Partiers who remain leaderless by instinct or by choice; regardless their influence has been credited with stopping the march leftward and winning elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

One thing they have not been is – for the most part – a creature of Beltway conservatives. But, in their effort to create order where they see chaos, a group of Washington-based organizational leaders got together to create the Mount Vernon Statement. They see this as a necessary update on the Sharon Statement William F. Buckley and a small group of like-minded conservatives put together a half-century ago.

But it’s interesting to see where the conservative movement has gone in the interceding fifty years. A brief history sees that it influenced Republican politics to one degree or another, but it hasn’t always been successful in convincing the American people of its merits. Barry Goldwater was a disciple, but he was shellacked in the 1964 election. (One caveat is that this occurred less than a year after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, so LBJ could burnish Kennedy’s memory as needed. A little-known fact about JFK’s trip to Texas was that he was worried about re-election and wanted to shore up his base.)

With the possible exception of Reagan, it seems Republican presidents who have ran and won as staunch conservatives moderated to various degrees upon taking office. Nixon started the Environmental Protection Agency and installed disastrous wage and price freezes for a time to combat inflation. George H.W. Bush told us to “read my lips” but knuckled under to Congressional Democrats who promised him spending cuts if he’d raise taxes – only Bush kept his end of the bargain. His son George W. Bush cut taxes but expanded the federal role in education with No Child Left Behind and created a new entitlement program with Medicare Part D.

In my lifetime, we’ve never had a conservative President and Congress simultaneously who have truly acted in concert to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Consequently, we’ve never had a populace who’s seen the principles in the Mount Vernon Statement (or the Sharon Statement for that matter) put into action.

Yet Presidents when inaugurated don’t swear their fealty to any statement but to uphold the Constitution, which brings me back to the idea I began with of reinventing the wheel.

I have the utmost respect for those who put together the Mount Vernon Statement, just as I do William F. Buckley and those who participated in crafting the Sharon Statement. But in neither case did they pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor as our Founding Fathers did when they declared their independence from the Crown and later wrote the document our system of government is based upon.

A lot changes in fifty years, and even that is miniscule compared to changes in the whole of our rich history. While Buckley and his cohorts were rightfully concerned with the Communist threat from outside our borders, today we face the danger of statism from within our seat of government. More troubling is that neither political party is immune to causing the backslide toward tyranny to continue.

Instead of trying to restate the Constitution to the issues of today, we may need to work all the way back to a new revolution – a revolution which begins at the ballot box in November and continues through 2012. Obviously a Congress dominated by conservatives won’t get a lot past a statist President unless they can achieve a majority able to override his vetoes, and the situation with Senate elections makes that impossible to achieve. Even if Republicans achieved an unprecendented miracle sweep of every Senate seat available this year they wouldn’t even have a clotureproof majority – it would be 59-41 GOP.

Luckily in this case we don’t have foreign soldiers protecting the Crown, but this revolution won’t be swift nor will it be easy. The battle continues for the hearts and minds of America, and the future of the Republic depends on our success.