District of Columbia

I'll admit from the start that I tend to be more libertarian than conservative, but to be perfectly honest I see the libertarian wing as one of the more intellectually consistent and honest components of the conservative movements.  That being said, I also think the foundation of the conservative movement that began in the 60s borrowed heavily from libertarian ideology, specifically when it comes to the power of the private sector, lower taxes, less government spending, and free trade.

The conservative movement today is a far cry from the conservative movement of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan that made its national debut in Reagan’s speech at the Republican National Convention in 1964.  That movement united socially conservative, small government types who steadfastly opposed the intrusion of government into all aspects of people's lives, or wallets I should say.  They were ideologically consistent between their claims and their policies (again, I'm speaking of the economic policies).  But rather than glorify the conservatives of yore, many of whose social policies I personally disagree with, I'll comment more on the GOP of today.  They claim to adhere to free-market and federalist principles, but they have also been responsible for a massive expansion of the federal government in the past decade.  I personally disagree with this.  So do many true and proper conservatives.  This phenomenon is what makes the GOP so difficult to defend these days.

However, If you can separate Republicans from conservatives, it becomes abundantly clear that it is unfair to claim that there remain no intellectual stalwarts among conservatives. (I'm not attacking all Republicans, but I am suggesting that many of them would prefer to pander to the extremists than partake in the intellectual debate.  I wouldn't necessarily include Joe Wilson in this camp, either.  To be fair to him, his concerns over illegal immigrants seemed vindicated when you examine the change and scope of language on illegal immigrants in the Baucus bill versus its predecessors.  Clearly, there was something missing in those previous versions.)  I hear the claim that, as it was mentioned a few posts ago, the intellectual conservative simply does not exist.  This is, of course, a false, arrogant, and not at all shocking piece of “misinformation,” so I thought I would offer a suggestion for the proponents of this claim and perhaps any skeptics who may be having a hard time identifying a counter-example. 

I see George Will as one of the most thoughtful and thought-provoking leaders in any intellectual arena.  Whether or not you agree with his assertions, I challenge any serious thinker to read some of his more intriguing articles and not admit that he is, indeed, an extremely intelligent, ideologically consistent political commentator.  Unlike some of his counterparts on the Left, like Paul Krugman – who in 2004 (note the party affiliation of the commander-in-chief that year) proclaimed that the federal deficit should be one of our biggest concerns and could eventually lead to an economic collapse, while in 2009 (likewise) assuaged his readers that the deficit really is not that big of a deal – Will is willing to either challenge or simply rise above and ignore many of the mainstream reactionaries on the Right who can turn any modest event into a nationwide cause for outrage (I have in mind those who claimed that Obama speaking to children, urging them to stay in school and avoid drugs, would somehow lead to a form of Socialist indoctrination). 

Set aside social issues, and I think the right and center – a group that is largely composed of fiscally conservative, socially liberal, partisan independents – would have a much easier time identifying conservatives whose arguments could be defended on an intellectual rather than rhetorical level.  The reason, in my opinion, that George Will has remained a respected political commentator for so many years is precisely because he chooses not to focus on social issues, knowing not only that they are more difficult to defend logically but also that they should, ideally, not have a place in politics in the first place.  As a constitutionalist (or at least I would imagine he would describe himself as such), he understands that a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages would move well beyond the powers granted to the federal government.  As a result, he instead focuses on economic policy, foreign affairs, clear instances of encroachment on civil liberties, Supreme Court decisions, and the like. 

Perhaps my perspective of Mr. Will is distorted by my relatively limited time following him – I am, after all, barely 22 years old – but I have followed him for a number of years, read hundreds of articles and op-eds that he has authored, seen him countless times on Sunday morning shows, and every time reaffirm my faith that intelligent conservatives are in fact out there.  

The right has lost its way and a lot of people are starting to recognize this.  Books are being written (The Death of Conservatism, Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement that Shattered the Party, etc.)  Here are my thougths on what is wrong and what needs to be done about it.

Discredit those who are not helpful

Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, etc. have said a lot of downright crazy and dumb things (people with AIDS should be quarantined, etc.)  and are far too tied to Christianity.  They should be called out for that and pushed to the side so that true leaders on the right can rise to the top and give the right a real chance at regaining credibility and the minds of those who are undecided or in the center.  Those who espose hate, and anger should also be discredited and pushed to the side (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.).  It is long past time for Conservative talk radio to become more academic, constructive, and hopeful sounding, and cater to the best in us (love, hope, unity, civics, etc.), rather than the worst (fear, anger, race, etc.).

Stop catering to the Christian right

Christianity has nothing to do with conservative ideas and theory on money, foreign policy, etc.  There is also supposed to be a strong seperation of church and state.  Our country was formed partially for freedom of religion, and if our government is run by someone who wants to impose their religion through laws and perspective, then we lose that.  In addition, America is not a Christian nation; though nearly 80% are Christian, there is still another 20% that are not.

Stop simply opposing every idea President Obama has and propose alternative solutions

The right has really been a thorn in our Presidents side instead of working with him to solve the problems in America.  The way to gain credibility and get some conservative ideas into law is to honestly work with the left to create good policy, and also proactively propose laws to solve some of our problems before the left takes up the problem.

Stop supporting causes that have nothing to do with Conservative ideology

The right should disassociate itself with such issues as abortion, and other things that are outside of the ideas of conservatism.  Abortion is an issue thats argument against it is primarily based in religion.  The same applies to marriage equality for gays; the argument against it can only be made from a religious standpoint.  Because of this, and because no party should be tied to any religion, just as our government should not be tied to any religion, the right as a whole and Republicans as a party should disassociate theirselves with abortion and start supporting equal rights for gays.  These two issues alone keep some of those in the center and on the left from ever supporting a Republican candidate.  It might cause a lot of those on the Christian right to be upset, but then they can choose the party that best conforms to what their idea of government should do on all other issues, or form a new 3rd party that is tightly tied to Christianity.

Stop being inconsistent

Right now many on the right are opposing government run health care on the idea that even though it may save a lot of lives, it isn't proper for the government or taxpayers to help others.  Yet, many of those same people are in support of the war in Iraq to give people in another country freedom and save their lives.  Why should we spend taxpayer dollars to police the world yet not spend taxpayer dollars to save those within our own borders?  Either we shouldn't spend money to help others, or we should and if we should then we should definitely want to help those within our own borders before those who are not within our borders.

Stop being hawks

The right has become a group of hawks and this is contrary to conservative ideas on foreign policy.  Conservative ideas on foreign policy are as spelled out by the Cato Institute:

Cato's foreign policy vision is guided by the idea of our national defense and security strategy being appropriate for a constitutional republic, not an empire. Cato's foreign policy scholars question the presumption that an interventionist foreign policy enhances the security of Americans in the post-Cold War world, and maintain instead that interventionism has consequences, including the formation of countervailing alliances, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and even terrorism. The use of U.S. military force should be limited to those occasions when the territorial integrity, national sovereignty, or liberty of the United States is at risk.

Conservatives need to re-embrace those ideas.  They are the ideas that our nations founders had in mind, and they are the ideas that are the most ethical and that might also allow some on the left to consider the rest of our ideas.

Have a well thought out income tax policy

There either should not be an income tax as Libertarians would like, or there should be an income tax that works to support Conservative values.  A tax that is progressive helps strengthen families at the lower incomes and therefore helps literacy rates, etc. which helps to preserve conservative values of strong families, an educated populace, etc.  Right now the government has taken on far too much responsibility and therefore spends too much and our national debt is growing because of it.  It is time to start cutting back on spending, but at the same time increasing revenue and the only realistic way to increase revenue is through a progressive income tax because those in the middle and lower class cannot support any higher tax burden.

Start supporting alternative energy and embrace that global warming is real and might be caused by us

The science is in, global warming is real and it is probably caused by our actions (and can we afford to gamble that it is not?).  Most of the oil that is easily available is in countries with citizens that do not like us.  Because of these two things, it is long past time to start looking into energy sources that do not emit CO2, and that do not require us to work with countries that are not friendly to us.

Stop catering to Israel

We give far too much money and support to Israel and it hurts our credibilty around the world and doesn't help to reduce the hatred towards us in the Muslim world.  It is time to treat Israel as we would any other country that is a friend and ally of ours.  We should work with them, and be friends with them, but we should point out when they are doing something that works against peace in the middle east and use our monetary aid as a tool to help control their actions rather than blindly supporting them at all times.

Start rethinking drug policy

The war on drugs does not work, and will never work so long as it is punitive rather than based in medicine.  It only makes organized crime stronger, and leads to a larger role of government and often leads to violations of our constitutional rights.  The punitive war on drugs was originally based on racism, and is now based in morality that is derived from religion.  For these reasons, it is time for the federal government to take a non punitive role and start considering policy that would put organized crime out of business, make drug use safer and less damaging to society, and help those who are ready to reform their lives through cessation of drug abuse.

Medical malpractice insurance has skyrocketed in the last 5-6 years, hitting certain specialties extremely hard. As a result, many health care providers feel they have been forced to raise prices to compensate for the increase in insurance premiums. This may well be the case, but a simple solution based on free-market principles has not received much attention and would alleviate much of the price inflation. Not only would doctors benefit, but the vast majority of patients – and insurance companies – would be left paying reduced prices and lowering the cost of care for those willing to participate.

Currently, only a small percentage of cases involving perceived malpractice are brought to court and plaintiffs awarded hefty sums for their suffering. But that small handful – who are largely responsible for raising liability insurance premiums over the past half-decade – are charged the same as the vast majority who avoid using the legal system as a means of redress.

One possible solution is the following: at the time of purchasing an insurance plan, individuals would determine their own cap for non-economic damages in the case of malpractice on the part of their provider. Poorer people might be willing to forego more expensive plans in exchange for a promise not to bring lawsuits against doctors and hospitals except in extreme cases of negligence. As a result, healthcare providers will know their personal level of liability ahead of time and price their services accordingly. Patients less inclined to seek damages in the case of something going wrong will likely be charged less, while those more inclined to do so could be charged more.

When punitive damages are either unlimited or capped at one global rate, many in need of care are still priced out of the market. On the other hand, if that limit is adjusted on the basis of one’s willingness to avoid litigation, price discrimination may just do a better job matching what the doctor is willing to charge with what the patient is willing to pay.

In turn, liability insurance will decrease as a result of insurance providers being able to more accurately predict what a policy will cost them based on the category of patients (those more willing to seek damages versus those who are not) a doctor is treating.

Ultimately, poorer patients benefit from reduced prices for the same services, doctors benefit from peace-of-mind as well as lower liability insurance, and insurance companies benefit from improved mechanisms of gathering information on what patients and doctors will cost if they choose to offer them a policy.

From the Times-Union:

For Mike Wortenberger, an area small-business owner, this is not his first tea party. Wortenberger has been to two in Indianapolis and one in Warsaw. This week he attended one in Mishawaka.

Wortenberger said it's not an issue of being anti-Democrat or Obama or pro-Republican.

"Basically, I feel the government is out of control," said Wortenberger. "It's not just the Democrats, it's Republicans, too. I don't blame Obama. The system is broken."

Wortenberger said he believes government is ignoring the will of the Founding Fathers. "The Founding Fathers were a lot more intelligent than we are," said Wortenberger. "They used God as guidance and I don't think that's the case anymore."

Wortenberger said he knows of several people making the trip and is traveling with a couple of people. Having been to several tea parties previously, Wortenberger admitted that for some people attending it's "strictly political," but for the majority of those in attendance they feel like Wortenberger in that both sides have let down the American people.

"Our Republicans have ignored us as much as the Democrats," said Wortenberger.

The resignation of "green jobs" czar Van Jones over the weekend drew little attention from mainstream media (even the New York Times admitted they were late on the piece) with the exception of those who were outraged that such an extraordinarily accomplished man -- author of a best-selling novel with a law degree from Yale to boot -- could be vilified so egregiously and forced to resign prematurely. Sure, he's made a few nasty comments about Republicans, admitted to converting to Communism (while in prison!) in the 1990s, and signed a petition to investigate the involvement of the Bush administration in the attacks on September 11. But come on, a Yale Law degree! And a best-selling novel! Aren't those ample qualifications to work at the White House?

I would suspect that Jones' very own mentor, Karl Marx, were he alive and writing today, would not have a difficult time being accepted to Yale on the grounds of "academic diversity" and would remain on the New York Times' Best-sellers list for years. After all, Columbia invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak for those very reasons, and the Communist Manifesto isn't exactly the least popular item on reading lists across the country, I hear.

The amazing thing to me is that he is being defended by the Left despite these revelations. They often cite his apologetic tone for signing the petition or becoming a communist, and instead focus on his passionate pursuit of creating “green jobs” that will, admittedly, need to be created to compensate for the millions of jobs inevitably destroyed if current environmental legislation is passed in the Senate. He is, of course, a victim of a “smear campaign” being propagated by the Right, not to be confused with the smear campaigns of the Left brought against people like, as a random example, Joe the Plumber, who has absolutely no role in government but instead had the audacity to challenge future-president Barrack Obama. The result of his confrontation with the candidate was an investigation into his past personal and financial records to determine if he was in fact as indigent as he had initially claimed. If only the White House dug this deep when appointing czars, the whole situation with Mr. Jones may have been avoided entirely.

ht - James Taranto

 Hey all.  A while back, on a day in St. Louis when I found Tim Geithner's bailout atrocity to be particularly offensive, I tweeted at Karl Rove that I was a Hopemonger on the fence, and asked him What is the one Republican text he would recommend to shift me Right?  He recommended Barry Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative & the early Reagan radio tapes.  If anyone in the Washington, D.C. area has a copy of either I could borrow, or that they are looking to get rid of cheap, please let me know.  I intend to review Goldwater's book, and would love to give The Gipper a listen.

Cheers.

Let me begin by pronouncing the agreements that I share with Democrats. Or rather: let me be clear. The Earth is a gift from God, and is, aside from perhaps the feminine form, the most stunning thing in existence. No man alive is so base as to devalue what we have. This vehicle, like the Hand that created it, yields beyond sustenance and gives inspiration.

Now with that caveat out of the way, I submit that the Liberals, the Greens, and the Radical Left’s feel-good ideas of castrating the industrial machine are reckless and downright dangerous for America. The Left (and by extension the Democratic Party), in what has become an international battle royale for energy, prefers to surrender our arms and engines.  They are gruelingly unable to comprehend nuclear and fossil energy as a game-changing tactical weapon like steel and gunpowder. Nor are they able to accept that environmental stewardship treaties ratified by international bodies actually hold deliberate, ulterior motives to tightly bind America in other ways. And a shrugging regard at such powers is one of the most imminent dangers of the new century.

And to temper this sentiment, I believe that America can and should reduce its negative impact on the environment; namely by shifting from coal to nuclear power as a staple like France did and John McCain suggested. It seems that Liberals only like the bad ideas from Europe, but none of the good ones. As a case in point, we would have already reached the Kyoto emissions goals through the nuclear option that Republicans have proposed for years.

If President Bush had not pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol that President Clinton signed in 1997, we would have shouldered the burden of what other nations turn and ignore. Sadly, many of the global shirkers were Kyoto's chief architects within the European Union! Aside from ignoring the pollution of China and India which clearly no longer deserve special exemption, it held America to an unreasonable standard.

Europe's Performance:       

The European Union has had mixed results since signing the Kyoto Accord. Spain failed abysmally at achieving its goals and Italy approached underdeveloped Russia to buy carbon credits. To contextualize Russia’s position, the fall of the Soviet Union led to "Perestroika" and an industrial collapse, and Kyoto’s lax standards on Russia were assessed on this collapse. Similarly, Germany claims to have decreased their overall emissions. Yet, the integration of East Germany and the other ex-Soviet states (whose outmoded production stood to be revamped anyway) has tilted this statistic grossly. The reunification of West Germany to East Germany made it much easier to restructure the rusting coal-fired production of the Cold War. This overhaul was slated to happen anyway, making such a benchmark much easier to reach. Now having lived in Spain, I saw the staggering unemployment that fluctuated between 12-18%, and that is one thing that haunts me with upcoming legislations in the pipeline. Spanish Economist Gabriel Calzada detailed the consequences of these legislations in his “Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources,” which demonstrates the damaging falsehoods of the “green job,” whatever that is. According to this perplexed academe, the subsidy of every 1 green job costs 2.2 regular jobs through inefficiencies, displacement, and re-allocation, and he expects the same results in the United States with President Obama’s Cap-and-Trade deal.

The liberal admonitionary chatchprase that “the debate is over” has battered many eardrums, not just yours. In the video below is an interview with Ex Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar of Spain. It’s not in English, but I can tell you that he treats the question of climate change as we do in America. His affiliates call climate change a religion, fettered with dogma, and state we have a “blue planet, not a green one.” Like many in the US, he claims not to be a “denier,” as that label presupposes something to deny. He concludes by stating that the debate is not over, because it has yet to even commence, and that there has been a marked decay in parliamentary spirit and democratic debate in Spain in years past, and that people should return to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MD_bDfFaeI

China’s Performance:    

    The People’s Republic of China had recently surpassed the United States in CO2 emission in mid-2008, debunking the notion that America is the #1 offender.  But according to the environmental lunatics on the Left, we, The United States of America, must lead by example through blind faith and hope without assurance, that a military despotism like China will get warm fuzzies and turn green long after we have sacrificed trillions in GDP, millions of jobs, and the strategic high grounds that come with robust productive capacity. Yep. After watching America sadomasochistically self-immolate for a decade, China will want to join the rip-roarin’ fun!

India’s Performance:

Recently, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited India, and India’s Environmental Minister laid out a stalwart launch pad from which to negotiate future accords with the West. In short, he was not willing to sell his nation down the postmodern drain. I wish I could say the same for our leaders. Take a look for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyfJKgIQPXQ

Hillary’s refuted olive branch in New Delhi will be a microcosm of times to come, as we become the poor little match girl, passing from door to door and selling our eco-wares at no avail to a world hurtling in the opposite direction towards Ayn Rand.

The Ghosts of Energy Present and Future:

In America, we are a nation of people, not “masses” as the planeteers tend to esteem us. Hence, Carl Sagan’s hint at microbes having rights superseding those of humans will not fly far amidst a people unable to subtract anthropocentrism from stargazing, and who care little to imagine the giant unknowable workings of space and time after humans. Politically, it would be madness for a politico to expand his constituencies to mother earth, time, and space (gerrymandering would have to be done in either 3D or parsecs). The only manner in which to mobilize the public, or massage them into becoming pliant, would be to create a false sense of crisis, fear, and to literally demonize opposition as paid off or "flat-earthers." So it comes as no surprise that both Cap-and-Trade and ObamaCare are to be rushed. Despite that, the pending Waxman-Markey Bill puts forth many of the directives of “Old Europe” that will scare away manufacturing to the hills of Asia and Latin America. And Washington DC is counting on your docility to pass it.

Now according to the CIA World Factbook, America produces 14 trillion dollars in GDP as a total of our economy while China produces over 4 trillion. We dump 5.9 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere while China chugs out a full 6 billion. Now comparing the GDP in ratio to national emissions, a revelation emerges: We produce .00042 tons of CO2 per dollar of production. China produces .0015 tons of CO2 per dollar of production. So if cleanliness is the utmost goal, then the United States should already serve as an example to China, given that with a smaller population we produce more goods for the world at cleaner levels. 

Two points highlight China’s energy strategy for the 21st century: a petroleum highway and an emissions-free nuclear grid to make up for it. They already foresaw that T. Boone Pickens would abandon windfarms (which he did) and all the takeout joints in Hong Kong cannot accumulate the biodiesel grease to power fleets of buses. To put it another way: they’re not screwing around.  

According to Westinghouse Electric International, China has made it a national priority to build 100 nuclear power plants by 2020 (more resemblant of the Space Race than ObamaCare). And this national mobilization utilizes United States technology! Lord knows that the EU is already jacked into the atomic grid as well. We are not.

What’s the matter?  Did I frazzle your hippiemojo-windpower vibe and shatter your image of the avuncular T. Boone, who you learned was so hip during the hopeandchange era? Too bad, undergrad. It gets worse.

Aside from holding our debt, China is leveraging its surpluses to purchase assets around the globe, opening up trade channels to fan out their empire. Africa has become the next battlefield for resources, and China is pulling no punches in applying the same colonial takeover methodology as the powers of Europe did a century past. Nearly one third of all of China’s petroleum imports come from the African continent, and they have begun courting nations like Angola, The Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, and yes…Sudan. With an economy growing at 9% for the past two decades, they are jealously vying for control of new sources of timber, coal, copper, and oil, and doing so in side by side competition with the United States. Traditionally, China has taken a hands-off approach towards meddling in the affairs of another nations (since they themselves have no desire for scrutiny), but has recently scrapped this diplomatic dogma by cozying up to local oil-friendly African nations and their government officials. A crux of their tactic has been to lay “investments” into roads, fiber optics, technology training, bridges, and other infrastructures that would otherwise bollix African nations to quickly build for themselves. This colonial paradox for a once insular power demonstrates that the searing growth of their nation has alarmingly trumped old wisdoms, and is goading them to do what it takes to win…Confucius be damned and anyone else who stands in their way.

In this quest to outbid America in global energy sources, arms have become a desired currency for petty dictators and warlords, and China is in no short supply. While Western powers have done the same for some time in supporting unsavory regimes for regional interest, the rabbit hole goes much deeper in China’s case. Dangerous regions like Sudan receive their arms shipments from China (and military trainers), while 60% of Sudanese oil output heads in the other direction. This transcontinental circulation of arms-for-oil has been used to curry favor with African members of the United Nations, allowing for more votes to disregard China’s human rights violations and it even compells African nations to rebuff the ineffectual African Union in overseeing Sino-African commerce in its own continent.

Brazil, the fastest-growing economy in Latin America and by far its largest nation, has announced that China has surpassed the United States as a trade partner in an historic demand sweep for iron ore. In February of this year, Brasil’s state-run oil company accepted a $10 billion-dollar loan deal from the People’s Republic of China, and agreed to supply China’s national oil company, SINOPEC, with petroleum output. Through decades of cultural drift from North America, and socialist Brazilian President Lula da Silva at the helm, who blames American capitalism for the global meltdown, totalitarian wheels have been set in motion in our own, western hemisphere.

An Old Bear, still tired of American power, has bellowed out a roar to be heard across Eurasia. It is common knowledge that Russia has been buying up utility companies in Eastern Europe, and providing shelter in the United Nations for Iran, a country with its own untapped resources. The recent invasion of Georgia and South Ossetia impinged into their Caucasus pipeline—one of the few pipelines that flows into Europe independently of Russia. It is no small wonder that Vladimir Putin threatened to sever the pipeline into Europe to keep the west at bay. 

The Final Word:

With exploding demand, China, Russia, and other hostile powers will continue to buy, to seek, and to prod for more economic hegemony, and weave it into their mutual fatigue with America’s superpower status. And what do they all have in common? They purchase assets with government-run oil companies, treating utilities like defense commodities and branching out with the backing of infinite subsidy under the guise of corporate buyout. And to add insult to injury, they are all exempt from Waxman-Markey and Kyoto mandates. Here in the States, we own literally oceans of natural gas beneath our bedrock, and deluvian reserves offshore. We even have three times the reserves of Saudi Arabia in the Rocky Mountains. All of this is capable of being transported with modern technology that has come a long way since the Exxon-Valdez spill ages ago; yet drilling remains illegal in spite of marvelous precautionary advances and a clean record since. This vainglorious distaste for black crude serves as an object of haughty disdain for the Liberal elite, and from others it is merely a reckless childishness regarding the stern realities of this world. Tanks are not powered on corn oil, F-22 fighter jets do not run on solar power, and aircraft carriers do not use windmills. We fuel these battle weapons with fossil fuels and nuclear reactors—the twin strategic pillars of the Republican energy platform and still the beverage of choice for the grown-up world.  

Nothin’ like the real thing. 

As I exit stage right with reminiscence, I recall President Bill Clinton rejecting a Republican push in 1995 to drill in ANWR, a frozen desert, claiming that the project would not yield oil until 2005. This stance would then contort into blatant denial when in 2008, the Democratic Party would then accuse Republicans of short-sightedness for wanting to drill in Palin Country. Fittingly enough, either party has yet to accuse China, a 4,000 year-old kingdom, of being short-sighted.

America is under siege. I suggest we start guarding our aqueducts. >>

At the All-Star game last week, President Obama went into the booth and spoke to the announcers at the bottom of the third inning.  Not a lot was said, however, I found it very interesting that he said that "we're our of money" in response to a question.  This is not the first time President Obama has made that sort of remark off the cuff.  I'm not sure whether its intentional or not, probably is but those of use who actually believe in fixing the fiscal situation in our nation should highlight and emphasize in efforts to trim the budget, modify entitlement spending and get our country back on the right track. 

This morning's Politico had an article about the potential political situation in which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will be up for re-election while his son Rory will be running for Governor (if he makes it through the primary).

If this happens, the Rory Reid campaign will do the following:  

"Rory Reid campaign manager David Chase Cohen, who served as Barack Obama’s Nevada state director in the 2008 presidential caucus, wouldn’t say exactly how the campaign planned to distinguish between the two Reids. But he was quick to point out that the campaign would highlight the importance of local — as opposed to federal — governance." 

This campaign could give small government supporters the perfect opportunity to show local, regional or even voters accross the country the different roles that the federal government should play versus the role of state governments. 

Today the Whitehouse, via Vice President Joe Biden, are going to announce that hospitals are agreeing to $110 billion in cost savings over the next ten years.  A few weeks ago, the Obama administration also announced that they were going to save $80 billion a year in health care costs through concessions from pharmaceutical companies.  What is notable, is that these "agreements" are non-binding and won't be until Congress writes a law that is passed and is signed by President Obama. 

This sort of celebration is akin to the mark-to-market accounting practiced by Enron and other vilified businesses where they booked future profits as current revenue even when no money had actually been made.  Anyone who has been part of the legislative process knows that any non-binding agreement laid out between the Administration and industry groups now will inevitably be changed (and likely weakened) on Capital Hill. 

Those opposing the administration on health care need to highlight these fake announcements and show the world that the like Enron, these press conferences do not provide any actual cost savings to any actual Americans over any timeframe.