Archive for August, 2010

In my heart I’m a liberal. How could I not be? I see poverty that should be alleviated, hunger that should be fed, homeless that should be given shelter and sick that should be given care. What a world it would be if everyone had no economic worries. They were born into comfort and died without an economic care in the world. That is the way I want it to be, but I realize it cannot be so.

Nevertheless, each of the two political parties does their best to maximize this vision of utopia.

Don’t be fooled. Liberals like to think that they have a monopoly on compassion, but that is not the case. There happen to be two brands of empathy. Regardless of intent, the liberal brand focuses on improving conditions in the here and now. They want to expand entitlements, inch towards a cradle-to-the-grave welfare state, and spend as much money as society will let them to dig people out of economic trouble.

Any differing ideals are simply heartless. Reforming Social Security becomes an attempt to destroy granny’s retirement. Asking that unemployment benefits be paid for by finding cuts elsewhere in the federal budget is interpreted as lacking compassion for those struggling in a down economy. Wondering why healthcare reform was not focused on lowering costs became synonymous with denying care to the poor. As my colleague Zach Howell has previously explained, “no lambast, hyperbole or imagination is spared in the Left’s attempt to convince Americans that any action to control the growth of entitlement spending is a heartless sop to rich voters.”

The conservative brand of compassion uses a more long-term frame of reference.  It understands that our obligation to society expands beyond this generation. We understand that there is nothing inherently compassionate about a social welfare program that benefits today at the expense of tomorrow. For instance, is anyone willing to argue that California’s pension system is based in empathy? Today’s recipients will surely retire in incredible comfort. They can retire generally around age 55 and receive monthly payments up to 90% of their income. This has led to the state’s pension plan being more than $500 billion underfunded.  Moreover this deficit will have real world consequences. The Los Angeles Times reported that

For a glimpse of California’s budgetary future, look no further than the $5.5 billion diverted this year from higher education, transit, parks and other programs in order to pay just a tiny bit toward current unfunded pension and healthcare promises. That figure is set to triple within 10 years and — absent reform — to continue to grow, crowding out funding for many programs vital to the overwhelming majority of Californians.

Today’s “empathy” bankrupted tomorrow. The same overemphasis on the present is played out elsewhere. Social Security is expected to run permanent deficits starting in 2015 and yet nothing has been done to ensure the program’s survival in the long term. By raiding Medicare to cover up the costs of the Democrats’ healthcare reform plan, the long-term stability of the program is in jeopardy. As the Center for Medicare and Medicaid reported, “providers…could find it difficult to remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program.” But more broadly the incessant spending on government programs is placing enormous strain on our future finances. According to CBO figures, our national debt will soar to 180 percent of GDP by 2035 – a level well above that of Greece. There is simply nothing compassionate about being forced to spend $5.7 trillion on interest on our debt every decade. There is nothing compassionate about spending holes into our social safety nets.

Conservatives understand the desire to help, but we also understand that we cannot handcuff our ability to help people in the future. True compassion does not exist purely as an ephemeral idea, to work, it must translate into improving the plight of real people.

All of us, Republican or Democrat, share in our hearts a vision for this world. But throwing good money after bad helps today by hurting tomorrow. In our quest for social justice we must expand our worldview and understand the long-term impacts of today’s spending. With so much at stake, trillions of dollars in debt, is anything but compassionate. To have the resources to help both today and tomorrow, we must put America back on the path towards responsible and sustainable spending.

As I said earlier, I’m a bleeding heart liberal, but it is tempered by the rational mind of a conservative.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

Democrats have waved the white flag. They are in full retreat from a healthcare battle that has been fought for 18 months. They’ve come to the realization that they had better cut their losses, head for higher ground, and regroup. It can’t be seen as anything but a tremendous victory for Republicans.

For over a year Republicans have been waging a messaging war on the Democrats claim that their healthcare reform bill would lower costs and reduce the deficit. President Obama campaigned (and possibly won) on the notion that his healthcare reform bill would stem the persistent increase in healthcare costs. In 2008 he said,

“[I]t’s time we did something about the [cost crisis families are facing.] That starts with relieving the biggest burden to families, state budgets, and business – the crushing cost of health care. My plan… would bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family, and bring down costs for the entire country…”

In December 2009 President Obama became even more adamant on the necessity of passing healthcare to alleviate the federal government’s budgetary concerns. In an interview with Charlie Gibson Obama said point blank, “[I]f we don’t do this, nobody argues with the fact that health care costs are going to consume the entire federal budget.”

Um, Republicans have been arguing that point since the beginning. We were always highly dubious of the notion that you could add millions of people to Medicaid, exponentially expand the government’s role in delivering care, and still lower costs. Over the course of time that suspicion turned into fact. At the beginning of the debate we were attempting to stop the Democrats momentum with no weapons other than our fundamental belief that big government is bad business. Then came the reinforcements.

In June 2009 the CBO said that “enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficit of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. In April 2010 the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services found that “we estimate the for calendar years 2010 through 2019, [national health expenditures] would increase by $311 billion, or 0.9 percent, over the updated baseline projection.” And on June 2010 CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf found that, “In CBO’s judgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish [the] pressure of [rising health costs].”

So much for President Obama’s sales pitch. The latest sign that the battle has tilted in favor of Republicans is a recent Rasmussen poll which find that support for repeal of the health care bill has reached 60 percent.

With factual bullets flying at them from every direction and voters abandoning their cause Democrats have begun to sense that the health care battle is lost. Politico’s Ben Smith explains the retreat, found in a leaked Democrat PowerPoint presentation. As Smith writes,

“Key White House allies are dramatically shifted their attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims that it will reduce costs and deficit and instead stressing a promise to “improve it.”

The goal of the confidential presentation was to provide a focus-group tested way of discussing the healthcare law as members returned to their districts. It veers from the factually inaccurate, “it is critical to reassure seniors that Medicare will not be cut,” to the sad, “let public know that the rich will see a tax increase to pay for it,” to the full-blown retreat, “don’t say the law will reduce costs and deficit.”

It appears that Republicans have captured the healthcare frontline. The Democrats initial offensive has been held back. BUT that doesn’t mean they aren’t regrouping behind a new strategy to woo voters with their failed law. Rather than explain all the good things that it will do (because there aren’t many) Democrats new plan is to explain how they are going to fix the bill.

It’s the “we just need another chance” approach. Just reelect us and we’ll totally go back and fix what we now admit is broken! Don’t buy it. This bill doesn’t need tinkering around the edges, it needs a full scale makeover. The entire point of healthcare reform was to stop the rise of healthcare costs – Obamacare doesn’t do that, in fact, I would argue, it can’t do that. So don’t give Democrats a chance to fix a bill they fought (and lied) for, give Republicans a chance to replace it with something that works.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

Is the dreaded double dip here?

For the third straight week first-time jobless claims rose, suggesting that employers are once again laying off workers in the face of a slumping economy. Given the current administration’s policies it was hard to expect much better. Looming tax increases on business income and capital investment don’t give employers much reason to hire or invest. And if none of that makes you feel too cheery you’ll love the Administration’s response today, “right now, nothing is possible.” Great!

While the U.S. economy crashes under the weight of its deficits, the U.K. took a decidedly different approach and is getting decidedly better results.

The United Kingdom was in a similar situation as the United States. Their unemployment reached a high of about 8 percent, their total economy contracted by about 5.9 percent, and their national debt was 62.2 percent of GDP. Nothing exactly rosy about any of those figures.

How did they respond? They began pinching pennies. New Prime Minister David Cameron and a new coalition government enacted the deepest budget cuts in generations, they slashed the size of government (600,000 public sector workers will be cut by 2015), and have begun devolving power from the central government to local communities.

In doing so they have begun to wean themselves off of their reliance (read: addiction) to big government solutions. Some have embraced it. David Graham, chairman of a community trust in the U.K. told the Washington Post that “[t]imes are hard, and they are going to get harder. Now is the time to help yourselves.” Some have continued to fight for big government. The Labor Party’s Jim Knight says that, “in the end, for Big Society, just read Small Government and fewer services.”

In spite of its critics, the program is building confidence among the nation’s businesses, and that confidence is translating into economic growth. The Financial Times reported that,

“In the UK, shoppers had a surprisingly spry July. Though some economists had been predicting a drop in sales, the strongest jump since February 2008 in sales of discretionary items led the headline higher…The jump in UK sales came at the same time the UK’s public borrowing slowed to £3.2bn, including financial bail-out money. That eases worries that austerity will begin to knock Europe’s relatively strong economy.”

Among other positive indicators of growth, the U.K economy added workers at the fastest pace in 21 years and unemployment enjoyed the biggest drop since 2007. Moreover, the economy grew by 1.1 percent in the second quarter – doubling the predicted rate of growth.

In this tale of two economies it is pretty clear who is on the right track. One nation actually chose to admit their unsustainable addiction to government spending and take steps to address it. The other chose to focus on healthcare and Wall Street reform in the hopes that jobs would return on their own. While one nation is on the road to recovery, seeing simultaneous decreases in their budget deficit and increases in unemployment, the other continues to shed jobs.

Hopefully we will learn from our friends across the Atlantic and stop putting our faith in government to solve our problems. We’ve seen the path we’re on and its leading us straight to a double dip. So come November just remember…

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

President Obama is clearly a law school grad. As a fellow law school alum myself, I absolutely mean that in the worst way possible.

Law school is all about the Socratic method. First, you read a case where you usually come away with a clear opinion of whether it was rightly or wrongly decided. Next, you attend class where the professor, through a series of obtuse questions, attempts to completely demolish your understanding of what you thought you knew. What was once concrete turns to nothing but jell-o.

This is why lawyers are eternally frustrating to the rest of society. It is why we are the butt of endless jokes like, “What happens when you give Viagra to lawyers? They grow taller.” Zing. The fact is, lawyers, using impressive words and varied tones are adept at talking a lot without saying anything. When we are forced to give something that actually resembles an opinion, we couch it with so many disclaimers, qualifiers, money back guarantees and preconditions that it really doesn’t mean a darn thing.

This is the problem with our President. He’s like a law student trying to hide his face in the classroom so the teacher doesn’t call on him. Inevitably he gets called on, and with a quivering voice, tries his best to answer the question by not answering the question.

The mosque masquerade is merely the latest example of this artful dodger attempting to skirt the issue.  At the iftar dinner at the White House, celebrating the beginning of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, Obama declared that

[A]s a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.

A statement that in words clearly showed Muslims had the right to build the mosque, and in spirit clearly showed he believed the mosque should proceed. Then, in the true Socratic style, he was peppered with some questions. He wilted like a first year law student in torts class. He retreated, on his previous comments, saying that he was “not commenting on the wisdom” of putting a mosque at Ground Zero but instead was “commenting very specifically on the right people have.”

This may be logically consistent, but gimme a break, those distinctions don’t fly anywhere outside a Constitutional Law classroom (which, interestingly enough is the exact class he taught at the University of Chicago). People don’t parse the clauses of a statement. They cut through the crap to find the underlying message. And the message we got from Obama’s initial talk about the mosque was that based on our nation’s history of freedom, he encouraged people to be supportive. Even if it’s not what he meant, it’s what people took away from it. For instance, liberal commentator Greg Sargent said the “forceful speech” “will go down as one of the finest moments of his presidency” because he “didn’t just stand up for the legal right of the group” but also “voiced powerful support for their moral right to do so.”

Obama’s penchant for pontification existed well before the mosque statement. It happened during the Gulf Oil crisis. Oil was gushing out of a well a mile under the surface of the ocean with no end in sight – which is also where our President was – out of sight. Obama gave plenty of speeches and talks on the issue but they were all devoid of two things the public craved – emotions and solutions. As Keith Olbermann said after Obama’s Oval Office talk, “[i]t was a great speech if you were on another plant for the last 57 days.” The entire response came off as more of a sales pitch for a comprehensive energy bill than it did an empathetic response to the suffering of an entire region.

We’ve seen the same thing with other seemingly big-ticket issues. Democrats lamented the muddled message on health care reform. Obama has lost credibility over his consistent overselling of the stimulus bill that many people feel failed to budge the unemployment needle. Despite the persistent lack of jobs, Obama has failed to provide anything resembling a jobs bill. As New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote.

Obama got elected because of the clarity of his campaign and his speeches. But, surprisingly, he’s in some ways an incoherent president. He’s with the banks, he’s against the banks. He’s leaving Afghanistan, he’s staying in Afghanistan. He strains at being a populist, but his head is in the clouds.

His messaging is simply all over the place because he won’t give it to us straight. He’s constantly fumbling around trying to triangulate his position based on a high minded opinion of how things should be, rather than a careful and reasoned assessment of how things are. We’re citizens, not law professors Mr. President. We’re not going to flunk you for making your position clear, we’re going to flunk you because you failed to give it to us straight. So step out of the classroom, tell it to us like it is, and let’s actually figure out a way to solve the problems we face.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

The upcoming debate over Social Security should make Democrats nervous. The quest for reform is beginning to look an awful like the healthcare debate that dominated the 2008 elections. And we know how that turned out…

Remember back to 2008. Healthcare was one of the dominant policy issues among voters – trailing only the war in Iraq in importance. The reason was the perception among Americans that rapidly rising healthcare costs were threatening the financial security of families and the economic health of the nation. Increases in health care costs had outstripped inflation for many years, forcing Americans to devote an ever-higher portion of their salary to receive the same goods.

The 2008 elections rolled around and Democrats (at least in perception) took the lead on the issue. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both had detailed plans – attempting to finish the job they started in Bill Clinton’s first term. You probably still remember their plans and talking points – universal coverage, minimum coverage standards, and a national insurance program. Does anyone remember what John McCain’s plan was? I’m sure it had something to do with free-market reforms, but other than that, I’ve got nothing. Regardless of whether he had a plan, the perception was that it was a dominant issue for Democrats and was on the backburner for Republicans.

I’m not saying Social Security will represent the same driving force in 2010. Nevertheless, there are some interesting parallels. Consider, that 73 percent of people in 2008 said that the U.S. healthcare system was in a “state of crisis” or “has major problems.” Today, 77 percent of people say the same thing about the current state of the Social Security system.

Sensing that the public is not liking what they see out of one of the federal government’s biggest programs, Barack Obama has gone on the offensive. He argued that Republicans are “pushing to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress this fall.” He went on, contending that Republican plans were an ill-conceived idea that would add trillions to the debt while destroying Social Security as we know it.

Despite the fact that Obama’s claims were thoroughly dismissed by the non-partisan Factcheck.org, Republicans should be willing to embrace them.

The fact is, Social Security, like the healthcare system is failing. Despite Harry Reid’s insistence that “the so-called Social Security crisis exists in only one place – the minds of Republicans,” the program is in fact, in dire financial straights. But don’t take it from me. The nonpartisan CBO recently said,

[A] longer-term decline in the trust funds’ financial condition is inevitable under current law, because the retirement of the baby-boom generation will cause benefit payments to increase more than revenues. CBO anticipates that a primary deficit will return in 2016 and that deficit will reach $77 billion in 2020.

Do the Democrats have a plan to fix this? Not that I can find. Turns out they are happy to pull a Kevin Bacon is Animal House and say “Remain calm. All is well…ALL IS WELL!” as they are run over by the problem. Fixing Social Security is a huge issue, one that many voters believe is facing a crisis, and the Democrats are content to leave it on the backburner. Kinda like Republicans and healthcare circa 2008.

The inverse parallel continues when it comes to the party’s solutions. Democrats, to the extent that they have a solution, is to continue the program as it exists. What else can you do when you fail to admit there is a problem in the first place? They point to the annual surpluses that the Social Security program has been stashing away as a sign of its fiscal health. Sure, its ledger ain’t lookin so hot right now, but it’s a recession, nothing is exactly flush with cash. After all, aren’t these little financial blips the reason we have the Social Security Trust Fund.

Well, I would say “touché,” concede, and run away with my tail between my legs if one, the Social Security Trust Fund existed or, two, this was nothing more than a blip. Though I won’t get into the nitty-gritty of why the Trust Fund is nothing but a sham, suffice it to say that the federal government isn’t particularly adept at letting money sit around without spending it. Turns out the government has been using Social Security’s annual surpluses to partially mask its horrendous bottom line. It then replaces the raided funds with a nice little IOU. If you want to know the outcome of how this will work out, just remember back to Dumb and Dumber. You remember the scene…

In other words, the IOUs are worthless. Its just more debt on top of a government that is incredibly deep in debt.

Second, this is a lot more than a blip. According to the 2009 Social Security Trustees Report, Social Security will begin running deficits this year. There will then be a few years of tiny surpluses before the program dips permanently into the red. As the Heritage Foundation explains,

“In net present value terms, Social Security owes $7.7 trillion more in benefits than it will receive in taxes. This consists of $2.4 trillion to repay the special issue bonds in the trust fund and $5.3 trillion to pay benefits after the trust fund is exhausted in 2037.”

Harry Reid’s “most successful social program in the history of the world” is facing a bleak future.  The government failed. As we’ve learned through the healthcare debate, adding government is generally Democrats favored policy-answer to most problems. Unfortunately, for Democrats you can’t make Social Security any more government run. It tried, it’s failing, and millions of retirees are on the hook. (Authors aside: are we glimpsing the future of healthcare?)

But Republicans have actual solutions. Namely, allow individuals the right to do the same thing with their retirement money as members of Congress and federal workers do. Rather than putting your money in a trust fund (which the government is frittering away) you’ll have the choice (keyword that Democrats often leave out) to place a portion of your payroll tax in a government-managed account. Let me be clear, we’re not talking about total privatization, we’re not talking about giving “your benefits to the whims of Wall Street traders,” and we’re not talking about a mandate.

Despite all that the plan is not, it is a plan. A plan that the CBO says will make the program permanently solvent. In 2008 Democrats coasted to victory largely because of their promises to reform a broken healthcare system. Republicans should not shy away from using Social Security’s obvious problems to undo those gains.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

What happened to the middle? Democrats consistently lambast Republicans as beholden to the radical elements of their party. They say we uphold Reagan as the paragon of conservative virtue, when in reality his moderate background would have prevented him from ever getting the Republican nomination in today’s political climate. But are Democrats subject to the same critique?

How would the Paul Krugman types, who have already said that “Obama has embraced and validated the Republican world-view” respond to someone like President Kennedy. After all it was Kennedy who said that increasing federal expenditures in a recession (translation: stimulus) woud “demoralize both the government and the economy.” After all it was Kennedy who said that the best way to strengthen the economy was to “reduce the burden on private income…imposed by our present tax system.”

As I argued in my recent U.S. News column,

No government stimulus? Lower taxes? Not exactly something the left would coalesce around today. That, more than anything, is the problem.

Both sides have become wedded to the idea that they are right. Not only that, both sides have become absolutely convinced that the other side’s ideas are wrong. Sadly, I’m not sure either of those statements is absolutely true. I’m not sure most self-identifying Republicans or Democrats even make it to that level of analysis. Today it seems we have accepted that whatever the other party does is wrong, not because we are sure if it is wrong in terms of policy, but because we are sure it is wrong because the other side is saying it.

It is a plague on both sides of the aisle. Democrats seem content to brush off the worries over the national debt despite a worldwide acknowledgement of the danger debt poses to the global economy. Republicans dismiss any good that the stimulus may have done, choosing instead to focus on the total number of jobs lost. Agreement doesn’t win elections, distinctions do. But when they grow out of control, when we lose our ability to understand that we are working towards a common goal, the system breaks down.

In trying to solve today’s problems, reasoned debate, a thorough understanding of both sides of the argument, and a willingness to ignore the letter beside someone’s name will be necessary. Ronald Reagan perhaps said it best, “somebody who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is an 80 percent friend not a 20 percent enemy.” Hopefully in our attempts to purify the Reagan mythology his big tent philosophy will not be forgotten.

Like my argument? Read the column in its entirety here: http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/brandon-greife/2010/08/11/Dont-Mythologize-Reagans-Political-Purity-or-Kennedys

Labor unions are their own worst enemy.

They were formed with laudable goals, finding power in numbers to fight against the poor working conditions, long hours, and low pay of many early manufacturing jobs. Recently, unions have fallen on hard times. Their percentage of the workforce has fallen to a historical low of 8%. Moreover, In 1957 sixty-one percent more people approved than disapproved of labor unions. Today that number has plummeted to just eleven percent.

The one-time defender of worker rights has fallen on hard times. But why? How did an organization whose mission is to improve working standards for their members, a cause which stated-plainly should be wildly popular, end up being so disliked.

Some would point to the 1920s as a period of similar decline, arguing that union membership, as with almost anything is cyclical. But that period of union weakness was marked by economic prosperity. People didn’t join unions because they didn’t have to, the market was doing more than enough to keep their pay high and conditions acceptable. Today is radically different. The economy (if you hadn’t noticed) is in the tank, companies are looking for cost-savings wherever they can, and lowered profits have translated into lower wages. Shouldn’t this be a boom period for unions?

Regardless of what it should be, it isn’t. The reason for the continued fall in public approval, power, and membership is their own doing. They are a victim of their own success. They have fought, and too often won, concessions and wages that outstrip those of the rest of the private sector. They have used their increased wealth to rake in dues that are then put toward campaigns. Their bargaining success in the workplace translated to success in the halls of Congress. They became the much-loathed “insiders,” able to secure favorable legislation in exchange for financial support in reelection campaigns. It was a well-oiled machine that worked very well.

In good times unions’ success was masked by the success of everyone. Now that the economy has taken a turn for the worse unions have become the villains. The public-sector has been the focal point for much of the public’s wrath. And for good reason. A new report by the USA Today finds that,

“At a time when workers’ pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees’ average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn.”

Double. According to the analysis, the average federal civil servants earn $123,049 in combined pay and benefits. On the other side of the prosperity coin, the average private sector worker made $61,051 in total compensation. Although you can quibble with the variables, including education and skill-level, the bottom line remains just as shocking for the average worker attempting to eke by in this recession.

A similar report from the Wall Street Journal only adds fuel to the fire. In August they reported that “Among the 52 metro areas with populations of more than one million, in only three did both net earnings and the broader measure of personal income both rise.” Can you guess the similarity between the three places? All three had strong ties to the federal government – Washington, DC, San Antonio and Virginia Beach.

In this time of economic crisis the perception of shared sacrifice is important to Americans. Unions, and especially public sector unions, appear to be exempt from the financial plight of the rest of us.  As their wage disparity continues to grow, they should expect their approval ratings to continue to fall.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

“Let me be clear.” Uh oh. If you’ve been following this Presidency at all you know that those words almost always signal that he is about to utter a very unclear statement. It has essentially become his rhetorical fingerprint, his unique way of letting people know a talking point is on the way. His latest “let me be clear” came at a White House dinner while he was speaking about the Ground Zero mosque.

He went on, “As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.”

Pretty clear, right? Can’t be much more direct than that. He’s all for building the mosque in lower Manhattan. Politico went as far as to call it an “unexpectedly direct endorsement of the mosque.”

Then President Obama stuck his finger into the wind and felt it blowing in the opposite direction. A recent CNN poll found that a strong majority, 68% of those polled, oppose the “plan to build a mosque two blocks from the site in New York City where the World Trade Center used to stand.” Suddenly Obama’s statement became not so clear.  On Saturday Obama “clarified” his support for the mosque saying he “was not commenting…on the wisdom of making the decisions to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding.”

Obama’s waffling is the latest sign of the political uncertainty facing Democrats this fall, but his two comments represent the competing viewpoints on the mosque. Is it a matter that should be framed purely in terms of religious freedom? Or should the site and time make us question the wisdom of this particular mosque, outside the framework of the Constitution?

The Constitutional Argument:

First, let’s clear up some misconceptions about the “Ground Zero mosque.” It won’t be where the twin towers stood; it will be two blocks away. The “hallowed ground” that it will inhabit is actually an old Burlington Coat Factory. The mosque will not even be the first to be near the World Trade Center, another already stands about a half of a block away from the proposed site, having existed for nearly 40 years without a whiff of controversy.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has become the main champion of the free speech justification for allowing the Ground Zero mosque. In an impassioned and clearly heartfelt speech Bloomberg said,

“Part of being a New Yorker is living with your neighbors in mutual respect and tolerance. It was exactly that spirit of openness and acceptance that was attacked on 9/11, 2001. . . The attack was an act of war, and our first responders defended not only our city, but our country and our Constitution. We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.”

This is a nation of immigrants. Moreover, New York’s Ellis Island was the destination for many of these early migrants. This is not to say that there hasn’t been assimilation difficulties.  As Bloomberg points out in his speech, New York’s history is spotted by episodes such as: a petition to build a Jewish synagogue being denied, Quakers being prevented from holding meetings, and Catholics prohibited from practicing at all. Haven’t we learned from this? Will we not look back in a hundred years and wonder why our intolerance persisted? Aren’t the Muslims of today facing the same persecution as the Jews and Catholics of yesteryear?

Perhaps more importantly, this line of thought relies on the blindness of the Constitution. That statement is not meant as a critique. The document does not take into account context, not time, not place, not the social mood of the day; no, it is meant as an enduring an inflexible statement of our country’s founding principles. Everyone has the right to speak freely, not just in times of peace. Everyone has the right to peaceably assemble, not just on politically correct issues. Everyone has the right to practice religion, regardless of the proximity to Ground Zero. Forget poll numbers, popular sentiment, and making hurt people feel better – this is about enforcing a document that has set us apart from the rest of the world – one displaying our ultimate belief in freedom.

The Wisdom Argument:

This argument concedes that the Islamic center has a right to build the mosque near ground zero under the Constitution. Instead, they argue, that out of respect for the tragedy that occurred here the mosque shouldn’t be built. Before getting to the core of the argument let’s set aside some of the Leftist feints designed to distract those truly attempting to consider the issues. This is not an argument moored in xenophobia. The argument does not live or die with the idea that the proposed mosque is part of an Islamic takeover of the United States. Let us toss aside notions of nativist panic, a they-took-our-jobs mentality, and a politicizing of race; this is about preserving the dignity and memory of a place.

This line of thought is best expressed by House Republican Leader John Boehner who said “The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn’t necessarily make it the right thing to do. That is the essence of tolerance, peace and understanding. This is not an issue of law, whether religious freedom or local zoning. This is a basic issue of respect for a tragic moment in our history.”

This argument understands that the members of the Ground Zero mosque should not be equated with the radical and extremist elements of Islam that perpetrated the terrorist plot that will be forever associated with the land. Nevertheless, as Charles Krauthammer points out, despite the fact that nobody confuses present day Germany with Nazi Germany, “no German of goodwill would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.”

The reason is because of an acute sensitivity to the eternal ghost of tragedy that looms over certain places. This is not the time nor the place for a debate over political correctness or even the unspoken limits of the First Amendment, this is a time and place for quiet reverence for the loss of American lives. As Bonnie McEnearney, the widow of one of the victims of 9/11, says

“All of us try to maintain a healthy emotional and spiritual balance and continue to try to move forward. But somehow the news constantly brings us back. The day is a constant frame of reference in our lives, and the life of our country. So I can understand the reaction to this. It’s why I keep coming back to what I believe is the central issue here, and that is sensitivity.”

Of course Muslims should be treated to the same spiritual freedoms that the rest of society enjoys, but they should also attempt to achieve the same level of understanding about what 9/11 means to that society.

There are No Winners Here

Is either argument correct? Does either argument matter? Should this be up to the talking heads, the politicians, and the greater public to decide, or is this a peculiar issue, one in which the views of the 9/11 survivors should be granted extra weight. Regardless of the answer, I hope that before President Obama, or any politician, decides to say “let me be clear” on an issue as sensitive as this, he gives due reverence to history.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

Apparently, John Boehner doesn’t want jobs created.  He’s not ready for the economic recovery that’s been happening all summer, and he’s not willing to admit the great successes of the stimulus package.

That’s probably because John Boehner is not, and never will be, a patsy to Obama.  He knows from reading the jobs reports and the economic outlook, just like every American should be, that this revitalizing “recovery summer” is really just a rhetorical push to lighten up voter sentiment.  He knows the stimulus package has actually turned out to be a major mistake—and an embarrassment to the Democrats.

By recovery.gov’s own official account, Ohio was awarded over $7.87 billion in stimulus funds.  By Obama’s team’s own convoluted math, they’ve “saved” or “created” 25,891 jobs.  When you use basic calculations, that’s $304,126 per job.  Ohio’s unemployment is still an average of 10.4%. and doesn’t look to be coming down significantly anytime soon.  This is not a success worth boasting about.

But it doesn’t stop there.  You can look past states like Ohio to see that the stimulus isn’t working the way it was promised it would.  Unemployment claims numbers continue to be unstable, as this past month it hit its highest number since February.  According to President Obama and his team, however, Boehner just pointing out the obvious means he’s “rooting against” a recovering economy.  Why don’t they just put it a better context and say he wants the economy to keep stalling?  And how can you root against something that’s never really taken off in the first place?

Not surprisingly, the shot Democrats take at Republicans is that they’re the party of no and that they fail to offer any real solutions.  Have they forgotten all the time they’ve spent the last few weeks putting strenuous effort into discrediting Paul Ryan’s Roadmap for America?  I don’t know how much more meticulous of a plan you can get.  Democrats, however, still cling to the old adage that such a plan only caters to the upper class and the big Republican “fat cats”.  If they even took a look at the plan instead of dismissing it at first chance, they’d realize that Republicans not only have a carefully laid out plan, but it’s one that would promote more economic activity then Obama’s ridiculous stimulus.

To say that Boehner is anti-government recovery is not only incorrect; it’s a political play that screams desperation.  Democrats know they’re in trouble.  They know that their rhetoric and hasty legislation is simply feeding the voter anger that’s almost palpable today.  Their poll numbers continue to be in a free fall and Obama has ironically become somewhat of a liability within his own party.  He’s not in high demand for fundraisers and campaigning Democrats are hardly being discreet in keeping their distance from him.  What a fall from grace.

So while Democrats and Obama’s team keep touting nothing but hot air, maybe they should begin to focus on the real issue at hand.  And the issue is certainly not Boehner’s comments about the economy—it’s the fact that we have an administration that has shown complete ineptitude in making clear, concise policy decisions.  We have a president who doesn’t understand what taking responsibility means, as made clear by his attempts to demonize those that don’t fall in line with him.  And, in the end, we have a president that campaigned on bipartisanship, but one that has failed miserably at delivering on that promise.  And that, in its own way, is rooting for a country and political system that will remain mired in the status quo.

by Leah Dow

The environment is a tricky subject for young conservatives. We sit at the intersection of two worries that sadly are often in competition with each other.

On the one hand, our generation is worried about the future of our nation’s finances. The shadow of the national debt is looming large over young adults. The idea of politics is built around a shortsighted focus on the here-and-now. What can help me get elected in November? How much money can I bring home to my constituents today? What good does it do to me to cater to a generation of people who can do little to help me get elected?

Fortunately, a movement is underway to change the perspective on our national debt. We as a society are beginning to think long-term, understanding the impact that today’s policies can have on tomorrow’s children. To that end, encouraging a pro business environment and keeping costs competitive with foreign nations is key.

On the other hand, young adult also have a deep concern over the long-term wellbeing of our environment. Just like we do not want to be handed a country that is so deep in debt that we can never recover, we do not want to be handed a world whose environment is destroyed beyond repair.

It is partly because of our long-term view that young adults are the most sympathetic age group toward the environmental movement. According to Gallup 72 percent of 18-34 year olds are active in or sympathetic to the environmental movement, while only 57 percent of those 55 and older say the same. Similarly, Gallup finds that young adults are the only age group over the past two years to not see a decline in the number of people who say the effects of global warming are already occurring. Given these and other results it is clear that protecting the environment is a key issue for young voters.

The problem is that recent evidence suggests that there is a decided negative economic impact arising from the implementation of many environmental policies. For instance, a cap and trade approach favored by Democrats to reduce carbon emissions works mainly because it increases the price of carbon. In the words of Barack Obama, “under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” Or ss the CBO explained in a 2009 report,

“Reducing emissions to the level required by the cap would be accomplished mainly by stemming demand for carbon-based energy by increasing its price. Those higher prices, in turn, would reduce households’ purchasing power.”

Despite many higher estimates (here,  here, and here) the CBO’s Douglas Elmendorf estimates that “the cap-and-trade provisions of the House bill…would cut the nation’s gross domestic product by .25 to .75 percent in 2020 compared with “what it would otherwise have been,” and by 1 to 3.5 percent in 2050.”

Many are also hoping that the United States will step up its commitment to green energy while weaning itself of its addiction to fossil fuels. The DailyKos argued today that,

“The White House should champion massive new public investments in clean energy technology and infrastructure to create jobs and to break our dependence on fossil fuels.”

But is the green economy just a myth? An ABC New report found that of the $2 billion in stimulus funding spent on green energy, 80% has gone to foreign owned companies. In fact according to estimate by Russ Choma of the Investigative Reporting Workshop “about 6,000 jobs have been created overseas, and maybe a couple hundred have been created in the U.S.” The problem is that, as with so many things, it is cheaper to create green energy overseas. Moreover, even the few American manufacturers of green technology like General Electric and Clipper do significant amount of their manufacturing in overseas plant.

Moreover, other nation’s experience with implementing a green economy suggests that their may be a net job loss.  For instance, Spain has lost two jobs for every one jobs created with windmills and solar farms.  In Denmark, a study finds that the cost of each green job to the government costs $90,000 to $140,000 annually and once the government handouts end, so do the jobs. Germany’s green bubble also burst after a prominent think tank found that,

“Germany’s PV [solar energy] promotion has become a subsidization regime that, on a per-worker basis, has reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per-worker subsidies as high as 175,000 € (US $ 240,000).”

None of this is meant to suggest that the United States should not pursue green technology. It may very well be true that the costs of breaking our dependence on fossil fuels will be necessary investments that will pay off in the long-term. Instead, it is simply useful to point out the difficult and often conflicting interests that we must balance – our fragile economy and national debt on the one hand and a healthy environment on the other. Thus far Democrats’ policies have shown a tendency to promote a green economy at the expense of the larger economy. Hopefully Republicans, through the use of free markets, will be able to achieve a better balance.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director