• New Zeal Blog

Must Watch Video

It’s been a while since I posted. Busy looking for a job!!

Below is a must watch video.

Ron Paul – On the Recent Tax Debate

George Orwell warned us about the use of “meaningless words” in politics, words that are endlessly repeated by sloganeering politicians until they have no meaning at all.  Meaningless words certainly were on display during last week’s congressional debate over the latest tax bill.

Over and over again we heard trite, empty phrases like “tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%,” “tax giveaways,” “tax earmarks,” and “borrowing money to give to millionaires.”  Time and time again the same falsehoods were presented as fact, and reported as such by a credulous media.

But all of these clichés about taxes are based on the presumption that government has a right to all of your income, and so government “gives” you something when it allows you to keep a portion of that income.  To this mindset, tax cuts represent a “cost” to government.  After all, they argue, money that really ought to go to the most noble of purposes– wealth redistribution via taxation–is being kept by greedy people and corporations who just don’t want to pay their fair share.

Far too many Americans truly believe that tax cuts represent a government giveaway, indistinguishable from an outright subsidy or entitlement payment.  To combat this mindset, we need to be clear with our language.

A subsidy, properly understood, occurs when government takes tax dollars and gives them to favored individuals, companies, or industries.  A tax cut, by contrast, simply means government takes less from an individual, company, or industry.  When government takes less from you, it has not given you anything; it merely has harmed you less.  This is the critical distinction that has been lost in the endless, tired debate about tax policy.

Of course the bill passed last week did contain some actual spending, mostly in the form of an extension of unemployment benefits for another 13 months.   The total spending in the bill amounted to about $60 billion.  But the tax savings in the bill, meaning the amount of money that will remain in the hands of taxpayers rather than being sent to Washington, is approximately $850 billion.  So while a clean tax bill certainly would have been preferable, the tax relief it contains is significant.  It means $850 billion will be spent, saved, or invested by American citizens rather than being sent into the black hole known as the federal treasury.

The media, however, dutifully reported that opposition to the bill came from concerned members of Congress who felt the $850 billion “cost” of the bill was too high, and would add too much to the deficit.  As always, they could not distinguish between government giving and government taking away.  The American people already pay plenty in federal taxes; the deficit is the result of a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Had the bill not passed, millions of Americans would have seen their paychecks shrink in January due to increased tax withholding.  That is the plain and simple truth, and that is why I voted for the bill.

 

Why the Democratic Party Cannot Survive

From American Thinker

By Monty Pelerin

After the election two years ago, Time Magazine questioned whether the Elephant had become an extinct political animal. The most recent election raised questions as to whether the Donkey should be deemed an endangered species. Questioning either party’s ability to survive is reasonable, and it helps sell magazines. However one or two elections are not sufficient to life-death assessments.

Political parties are not immortal. They are born and eventually die. Survivability is dependent upon Darwinian adaptations rather than a genetically determined lifespan. Actuarial analyses can be reasonably attempted if they are based on longer periods.
Enormous change in the American landscape is coming. The “pendulum theory” of politics — one party disappoints, is removed, and then is returned when the other party disappoints — is too simplistic to capture major trends. Peggy Noonan’s recent take is an example of such analysis.
The Democratic Party is unlikely to survive. This outcome is effected by Obama, but not directly caused by him. Likewise, the latest election results are confirming rather than causal. The party’s amazing success since the 1930s contained the seed of its demise.
The Meaning of the Recent Elections
In the two most recent elections, each political party was soundly, sequentially rejected, but for different reasons. Simply and bluntly:
  • The Republicans were tossed out because they did not govern according to their principles.
  • The Democrats were tossed out because they did govern according to their principles.
One party lost because it misbehaved; the other because it revealed itself.
Obama’s election was erroneously interpreted as a mandate for radical change by left-wing loonies. In spite of his uniqueness, Obama’s election was more a vote against Republican spending, hypocrisy, and general misbehavior than a vote for Democrats. Socialist Obama unwisely tried to impose his vision on the country.
His overreach scared many and unleashed the coerciveness that George Washington warned about: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
Government arrogance and arbitrariness initiated a groundswell of concern that coalesced into the Tea Party movement. Ridiculed by the elites in both major parties, the Tea Party provided an outlet for voter rage, a point still not grasped by either party.
The last election was a referendum on Obama and his extremist policies. The Democrat raw grasp for power ensures that they will not do well in the next several elections. This is troubling, but not enough to destroy the Party.
Party Principles
The alleged principles of both major parties need to be understood. “Alleged” is a necessary modifier because these principles are little more than marketing props that appear when useful and disappear otherwise. Groucho Marx probably best captured the flexibility of both parties when he said, “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them…well, I have others.”
Republican principles are closer to George Washington’s view of government — government is necessary but dangerous. Hence, it is best kept small and weak. Republicans claim to stand for limited government because it allows for maximum individual freedom. These principles require a governing model that focuses on less tax, less spending, and less regulation. The keyword is “less,” as in less government.
Democrat principles are based on government being a force for good. Government is presumed necessary to help individuals and ensure “social justice” (a term impossible to reasonably define). This philosophy leads to bigger government, as in more spending, more taxes, and more regulatory control. For Democrats, the keyword is “more,” as in more government.
Elections
Getting elected (and then reelected) is the primary political motivation. But getting elected and governing are two different activities. Party principles have to serve both functions. Often they serve one better than the other. Content from an e-mail cleverly illustrates the difference:
Two third-graders are running for class president. Johnny’s platform includes a detailed program to improve various school matters and a commitment to work hard. His opponent, Mary, promises free ice cream for everyone. Mary is elected by an overwhelming margin.
Johnny’s election campaign is similar to Republicans’, while Mary’s is similar to Democrats’. Republican principles are not as effective in an election campaign when competing against free ice cream. Sacrifice, abstinence, and/or self-reliance are a form of political “root canal” when compared to “freebies.”
Not surprisingly, voters have chosen ice cream more often than root canals. In the 66 years from 1945 forward, Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress and the presidency for twelve years, and Republicans two years. Democrats controlled both Houses for 23 years, and Republicans six years, with five of those since 1995.
The ice cream strategy was implemented by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s. Arguably, this strategy created the modern Democratic Party. It rescued a floundering party and enabled it to become dominant. From a political standpoint, the strategy was pure genius. From an economic standpoint, it produced a slower growth path for the country.
Flaws in the Democrat Strategy
One problem with the “ice cream” strategy is that you cannot promise ice cream to everyone. As a result, the political base for Democrats developed as a motley collection of beneficiaries “bought” at various times. These include minorities, government employees, big labor, trial lawyers, teachers’ unions, gays, radical women’s groups, and environmentalists, among others.
Another problem is the lack of commonality. Whatever is provided to one group demands that less be available for another. An underlying tension between groups must always be managed. This surfaced when Dems tried to attract Hispanics. Blacks looked at this as a threat to their importance.
Governing presents another problem. Interest group politics, while perhaps a good election strategy, is not conducive to effective governing.
The fatal flaw in the strategy, however, is the dependence on the continuing flow of goodies. Once you run out of ice cream, you can no longer buy or maintain your “clients.” As Margaret Thatcher famously said, “The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later, you run out of other people’s money.”
Thatcher’s end point has arrived. For eighty years, government grew, as did the welfare state. The Democrat strategy was dependent upon this flow of largesse. Funds are no longer there, and the Democrat strategy is now bankrupt.
The Ice Cream Is Gone
Welfare states around the world are insolvent. Welfare State R.I.P. discusses the debt burdens. Governments will begin defaulting on promises and obligations. It is mathematically impossible to honor all promises. The ice cream is gone, and so is the key to eighty years of Democrat success.
Voters know government is insolvent. That knowledge was the driving force behind the Tea Party movement. While no one wants his or her goodies reduced or removed, a majority recognizes the problems and is willing to vote to at least stop the growth in government.
This new reality is devastating for Democrats. They are dependent upon a diverse, disjointed collection of groups pieced together over the years by ad hoc, quid pro quo tactics. Holding a disparate coalition together was tenuous when benefits were available. Holding them together when benefits are being cut is unlikely.
The Democrats have no coherent message other than bigger government and more benefits. Both parts of that message are now obsolete. Is it possible for them to develop a meaningful strategy that can keep them alive? I think not. Their coalition is too fragmented to hold under a governing rather than electing strategy. Furthermore, the groups are so conditioned to “more” that it is unlikely that they can be maintained under the “less” strategy in store for the country.
It is not impossible for the Democratic Party to survive, but only unlikely. If there is a strategy that they might successfully adopt, it is apt to be that we will give you less than you got before but more than the other guys will. With so many voters sucking on the government teat, it is possible that such a strategy could be implemented with some success.
My guess is that the Republicans will become the party of the left, although not much left of where they are today. A new party will evolve to the right of the Republicans, probably based on an original interpretation of the Constitution. Many Democrats will migrate to the Republican Party, while many Republicans will migrate to the newly formed party.
This realignment, which will take place over a decade or two, will formalize a major shift rightward in the politics and policies of the country. Similar adjustments will occur in other social welfare states.

The Real Tsunami

Lost in the noise of the landslide republican take over of the US House of representatives is the fact that at every level of state government there was also a mandate or repudiation of leftist policies.

Following are some very exciting statistics.

  • Republicans picked up over 500 state legislative seats.
  • Republicans gained 11 governorships with a few still out.
  • State chambers were 66 democrat 33 republican and 1 tie it now stands at 55 republican and 40 democrat.
  • Alabama has a republican dominate state house and senate the first time since reconstruction.
  • Republicans have not had this much legislative power since the 1920s.

This is a good link to look at state results.

Now is the time for all liberty groups to start working. We need to make sure the newly elected republicans stay on track. We can change things locally a lot easier than at the national level. Let’s support local petitions and issues. Let’s write letters, emails and make phone calls to our state representatives. We have to let the local people know we support them.

I was at a fund raiser for a state representative and I was told that a couple of phone calls or emails mean a lot more when they receive them than it means for a US representative. The reason is no one really ever communicates with the state level politicians.

I’m excited about moving forward in this country, it seems like a dark cloud is starting to lift.

UPDATE: Here’s a link to an article at Red State that expands on my original post.

The Communist March On Washington

I have been surfing the net and all my favorite sites looking for information on the Communist march on DC. There is some really good information but I think the best written article is here and I wanted to share it with everyone. There are also links to images and videos of the march.

Update:

Sitting here on a gloomy Sunday morning checking out the information on the 10.2.10 rally. The lefty blogs like the Huff Po and Daily Kos are barely covering this. It is the last nail in the coffin of the radical left. They are exposed now. When people in the march are chanting Obama ain’t no Socialist, We are We are or you see groups like the International Socialist Organization or The Communist Party USA, you understand how the radicals have hijacked the Democratic party.

This rally was more about sheep being led by Union bosses afraid of losing their power. These people aren’t creators of wealth they are the looters of wealth. They are not freedom loving individualists they are collectivists with a herd mentality. This rally makes me think about the Samuel Adams quote again.  “….Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you may your chains rest lightly upon you……”

The Party of Racism – It Starts with a D

Great video. Near the end he talks about a lawsuit filed by blacks against the Democratic Party that went to the Supreme Court but wasn’t heard. I need to do some research on it and see what I can find out. Everyone needs to watch this video.

The Counter-Revolution Has Begun

From The American Thinker

The Tea Party victories of last week have clearly revealed the movement for what it actually is: not a tantrum, not a voter mutiny, not a short-term insurrection, but something never actually seen before in this country — it is a counter-revolution.

A lot of attention is being paid to the candidates and their chances. Carl Paladino will have an uphill battle in New York, divided as it is between an ultraliberal NYC and environs, and Mohawk Valley and adjacent mountain regions, in which the population has been reduced to a peasantry doing what they’re told and voting the way they’re supposed to. (This explains the election of Hillary, if you were wondering.) So says this old Utica boy, and I have my doubts that Paladino can overcome such a level of stasis. As for Christine O’Donnell, I can’t do better than Peter Wehner’s comments here. O’Donnell has aroused a lot of enthusiasm in the past few days, but whether that will translate into votes in one of the most liberal states in the Union remains to be seen. Clearly, she is the most vulnerable conservative candidate in this election cycle. That said, there’s one thing that can’t be denied: she ain’t Mike Castle.

But such speculation, I think, misses the point, which is this: the Tea Party tsunami is knocking down every obstacle in its way, no matter if it’s Republican or Democrat. If there were Whigs or Ghibellines running, they’d be dropping too. The Tea Parties are a political phenomenon the likes of which we have not seen in our lifetimes, one that occurs once every century or so. It is exhilarating to witness.

Confronted with polls suggesting an unprecedented turnover come November 2, the Dems have woken up to the fact that this is something extraordinary. Give credit where it’s due: they are throwing everything they can against it — racism, classism, homophobia, Palin-Beck-Limbaughism — but the monster just keeps coming. I have serious doubts that they will find anything in their arsenal that will knock out more than one or two candidates. The Republicans (and paradoxically, the GOP has suffered more to date than the Dems, with five major defeats of chosen party candidates) haven’t grasped even that much. They still seem to be operating under the assumption that they can move in and take over once the Tea Party votes them in. When Robert Bennett went down, I wrote that the GOP hierarchy needed to straighten out its agenda and get right with the electorate. But the party had other things in mind, and now the pirates are swarming over the gunwales, and it is just too late.

A counter-revolution — not merely a reaction against Obama, although he was certainly the trigger, but a nationwide backlash against politics as-as-usual as it has been defined over the past seventy years. Though the New Deal did nothing to ease the Depression, it did succeed in rearranging the political landscape, utterly wrecking the contemporary Republican Party, and converting the Dems to a working political philosophy of permanent revolution. Since the 1930s, American politics has been a madhouse of Fair Deals, New Frontiers, Great Societies, and Green this-and-thats, topped with a genuine, certified messiah to lead us all into the Promised Land. Liberalism was converted into an ideology, much like the other ideologies of the epoch, and with similar flaws: fanaticism, political blindness, and dedication to an invisible, ever-receding goal. It has left a trail of destroyed traditions, wrecked institutions, betrayed minorities, and failed policies (not to mention tens — and perhaps hundreds — of thousands of dead Americans). Its accomplishments are comprehensible only in terms of the ideology itself, which means that they are imaginary. This process has brought us to a point where we’re looking at the possibility of an actual authoritarian society comparable to the type that we destroyed wholesale across Europe and Asia during the 20th century. If this succeeds, it will be one of the most cynical and bitter historical ironies on record.

It took the GOP several decades to adjust to this state of affairs, but by the late 1950s, it had adapted a kind of modified “me too” stance, in which Republicans claimed to be able to achieve liberal social and political goals more cheaply, more effectively, and more in line with traditional values. This has been the strategy of the party’s liberal wing from the Rockefeller Republicans through today’s RINOs.

But the voting public wanted no such thing. Public opposition to the liberal program, whether Democrat or Republican, was expressed through the conservative wing of the GOP, which regularly produced such figures as Goldwater, Reagan, and Gingrich. Goldwater lost the 1964 election but set the blaze that culminated in a new and vibrant conservatism. The Reagan Revolution was effective at setting the leftists back, but by itself, it could not overcome a half-century’s worth of abuse. Gingrich had a serious impact but failed in the end due to lack of follow-through.

At the same time, the GOP elite, directly descended from the Rockefeller moderates, consistently steered the party back to the left. Congressional Republicans in large part were satisfied to remain a party of doppelganger Democrats, stifling any impulse for serious change. (A single example will suffice: In the midst of the Gingrich insurrection, with Bill Clinton on the ropes due to indiscretions with half the women on the East Coast, the best the GOP could come up with as an opponent was Robert Dole, Mr. Go-Along-to-Get-Along in the flesh.)

It is this establishment that the Tea Party counter-revolution is working to overthrow. This is not merely a matter of sending a few candidates to Washington in vague hopes of “reform”; it involves a complete upending of this country’s political culture. Not only the Obama leftists dumped on the curb, but the Republican trimmers piled right alongside them and a new, reformed GOP established that will stand for actual American values. This process is not limited to a single election cycle — it’s a long-term program. It is a counter-revolution.

Counter-revolutions can be tricky. Revolutions are straightforward — you simply destroy the standing system and replace it with your own. But the conundrum of the counter-revolution is that you can’t step twice into the same river. Due to passing time and changing circumstances, you can’t simply return things to the way they were. You have to adjust, to examine the system clearly and decide what has to go, what can be reaffirmed, and what needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, with the sure knowledge that the results will never be perfect. It’s in this that counter-revolutions tend to fail. As yet, the Tea Parties have not demonstrated that they are capable of carrying out such a process, or even that they even recognize that such a process is necessary.

But the important thing is that the American counter-revolution has begun. After the truncated Reagan and Gingrich revolutions, here is the real thing propelled and directed by the anger and will of the American people. O’Donnell and Paladino may well fail –many of the candidates may fail in one way or another either before or after the elections. But it will make no difference in the long term. It’s no longer a matter of counting seats, making compromises, and hustling deals; it is a matter of smashing a rotten, corrupt, and enervated system based on an errant and repellent view of human nature and replacing it with something perhaps not perfect, but at least in tune with our constitutional traditions, the political nature of this country’s people, and the century we live in. The people are leading, and the politicians will follow — or they will go to the wall.

At last, we have the opportunity to tear away the dead hand of collectivist ideology imposed during the ’30s. We’ve heard a lot lately about the “decline” of America, of our “diminished status,” our “lowered expectations.” This country isn’t in decline — it’s being held back. Throw off the restraints, and we will astonish the world.

J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker and will edit the forthcoming Military Thinker.