Elizabeth Crum

A new Independent Expenditure (IE) Committee (aka SuperPAC) launched today as a joint venture of the College Republican National Committee (CRNC), Young Republican National Federation (YRNF), Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) and American Crossroads.

Crossroads Generation this morning announced a $50,000 buy of online ads targeted to young swing voters in eight key states: CO, FL, IA, NC, NH, NV, OH, VA.

Start-­‐up grants to the IE totaling $750,000 are being contributed by the CRNC, RSLC, and American Crossroads.

Crossroads Generation says it will focus on building a major online presence for outreach and mobilization. This includes the launch of a new website and video (www.CrossroadsGeneration.com), Twitter feed (@CrossroadsGen), and Facebook presence (www.Facebook.com/CrossroadsGeneration) to engage young people online.

The group will also tap into the CRNC’s membership of more than 250,000 college students on over 1,800 campuses nationwide. The CRNC plans to send 60 full-­time field staff to a dozen swing states this fall.

Derek Flowers, formerly National Victory Director of the Republican National Committee in 2010, will serve as the organization’s executive director. Kristen Soltis, a survey researcher with award-­winning expertise on young voters and politics, will serve as communications advisor.

Clever.  And sobering.

Nearly every argument in favor of universal (socialized) health care includes the premis that it is a “right.”  But according to the U.S. Constiution, this is not so.  Geoff Lawrence over at NPRI explains why by giving us a brief lesson (via the writings of John Locke) about how the Constitution does not in fact support “positive rights.”  If you wish to effectively debate someone on health care reform (or any other entitlement program), you must understand this fundamental concept.  I recommend that you read Geoff’s whole post, but here’s the opener to give you a taste:

In the ongoing debate over health care reform, I continue to hear pundits on the left claim that health care is a right. Yet, this notion that government exists to guarantee “positive rights” such as free health care completely misunderstands the development of constitutional government.

The entire notion of constitutional government can be traced to John Locke’s Second Treatise. Here it is explained that all men are endowed with a set of natural rights which include: life, liberty and property. In order to protect those rights, civilized individuals agree to a “social contract” in order to form a government whose primary purpose is to protect the rights of individuals. This is done by empowering government to restrain the actions of others (such as theft, physical violence, etc.) that might directly infringe on your own natural rights. Hence the expression “Your rights end where someone else’s begin.”

The primary problem with the concept of “positive rights” is that the purpose of government changes from protecting the natural rights of individuals to actively infringing upon those rights. Any requirement for government to provide individuals with a certain amount of goods means that those goods must first be confiscated from society – which is a limit on the natural right to control property.

Just so.

For a wonderful treatise on why the government should not be in the business of deciding whether or how much to take from us in order to give to select others, read this story that was told on the House floor by Davy Crockett when he was serving as a U.S. Representative from Tennessee.  It concerned two votes on spending bills and the temptation of Congress to distribute money that was not their own for “charitable” purposes.

Our federal and state legislatures, as well as the Oval Office, have too long been staffed by too many people who do not understand nor support our rights and protections as they ought to exist according to our Constitution.   Through the increasing willingness of we, the citizenry, to allow government to do what we, as individuals, ought to be doing – helping and giving to the poor and needy as we are able and as we feel called to do – we have permitted our great Republic to become a tax-laden “social democracy” that reduces rather than protects our prosperity and freedom.

On May 23, 1857, in a letter to an American friend, Lord Thomas MacCauley wrote: “A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority (who vote) will vote for those candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship.”

Are we there yet?  Not quite, but I fear we are getting dangerously close.  Educate yourselves, good people, and let us find ways to speak out and persuade others before this great Republic devolves into a pitiful excuse for the nation it once was.

Excerpted and condensed from an email from Erick Erickson at RedState:

Obama has proposed sending the International Monetary Fund (IMF) billions of dollars as a quasi-bailout for European banks. 

The word is, House Republicans are going to vote in a block to oppose this, which means around thirty Democrats are needed to defeat the bill.   Blue Dog Dems are the key, along with Dems in districts that tilt Republican.  

Call 202-224-3121. Ask for the members of Congress below and tell them to oppose H.R. 2346, the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act.

Bobby Bright AL-02
Parker Griffith AL-05
Ann Kirkpatrick AZ-01
Suzanne Kosmos FL-24
Walt Mitnick ID-01
Frank Kratovil MD-01
Glenn Nye VA-02
Tom Perriello VA-05Travis Childers (MS-01)
Harry Mitchell (AZ-05)
Gabby Giffords (AZ-08)
Jim Marshall (GA-08)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Bill Foster (IL-14)
Baron Hill (IN-09)

Apparently there’s a guy working at the Nevada Policy Research Institute who is smarter than the entire Nevada legislature combined.

How so?

He went through the state ledgers line by line and, applying some basic principles and setting a few reasonable priorities, came up with a proposed budget of $5.1 billion.  Which, unlike the budget proposed by the Nevada legislature, stays within our current revenue projections. 

Oh, wait, that’s right:  the state legislature still has not released their budget for public discussion.  Even though they’ve been meeting up in Carson City for months.

Said a legislator who asked not to be named, “I mean, come ON, guys.  This stuff is, like, really hard.”

Says Geoffrey Lawrence, the fiscal expert at NPRI who put the proposed budget together, ”The reason the legislature and governor haven’t been able to balance the budget is that they’ve been unable or unwilling to set priorities.”

Now we wait to hear what the Economic Forum has to say.  We expect they will project lower tax-revenue than previously anticipated.  And that lawmakers will then propose record or near-record tax increases.

If they do, remind them of the four basic principles that provided the basis for NPRI’s budget:  sensible prioritizing, consistent application of government rules and taxes, agency thrift, and “last in, first out” (the elimination of some programs created and funded by Nevada’s record 2003 tax increases – which never should have happened).

If you can stomach it, Americans for Tax Reform has a recap of all the major fiscal and tax-related events since Inauguration Day.

Title:  Obama’s First 100 Days:  Higher Spending. More Debt. New Taxes. Broken Promises.

Yep, that about sums it up.

Just a snippet:

Day 1 — January 20: In his Inaugural address, President Obama makes a noteworthy commitment to the American taxpayer:
 
“And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.”

Or two:

Day 41 — March 1: The Obama administration foreshadows another broken promise when Peter Orszag, appearing on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, claims the 8,000 earmarks in the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 are “last year’s business. We just need to move on.” The statement by Orszag in not consistent with Obama’s campaign promise made in the first presidential debate:
 
“And, absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” (Sept. 26, 2008. First Presidential Debate, Oxford, Miss.)

RTWT.

the French start sounding more sensible than the Americans on economic policy.

Read about President Sarkozy’s comments on capitalism here.  The Newsmax piece starts with this:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy says that the economic maelstrom that has captivated the world’s attention for the last 17 months is “not a crisis of capitalism” but, in actuality, a breakdown of a system that has “drifted away from capitalism’s most fundamental values.”

For a re-cap of how the U.S. drifted, here’s a pretty good (short) op-ed from the WaPo (August).  Title:  Is Capitalism Dead?  The market that failed was not exactly free.