A Conservative Pro-Growth Austerity Plan

Conservatives have come out and endorsed a debt reform plan that will work called the Cut, Cap, and Balance Plan.  I believe we can do more.  I believe America can do more.  Let me be very clear: default would be and will be a serious problem that would make an already serious problem worse.  Nobody, including Conservatives, is advocating for going into default.

We must substantially cut federal spending.  The notion that we can continue to raise taxes (I mean, “raise revenues”) to cover our debt and deficits is outrageous.  The only way to nip our debt problems in the bud is to cut spending.  Looking at what our annual deficit is, it looks to me like we’d need to cut spending ranging from $120-130 Billion per month to cover our annual deficit (that's if our annual deficit is about $1 trillion).  The biggest spending drain on our economy is the so-called “entitlements.”  We need to either restructure or eliminate the entitlement programs.

We also need to cap federal spending.  Caps are the only true enforceable way we can put federal spending on a path to a balanced budget.  We ought to cap federal spending at 20 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and designate 4 percent of that 20 percent towards military and defense spending while eliminating wasteful spending.  Then force the federal government to balance the budget with a Constitutional Amendment that both limits spending and requires a super-majority for raising taxes.

Now that we’ve begun to get federal spending under control, we must have sustainable economic growth through keeping taxes low.  Take the corporate tax rate to zero percent.  Corporations do not pay these taxes; individual consumers pay them through increased prices.  The corporate tax was just Congress’ way to raise individual income taxes indirectly.

Next, eliminate the capital gains tax and the tax rate on repatriated profits of foreign profits for US companies, so that the business sector can make investments and create jobs.  Then make the tax rates permanent.  Give both workers and employers a 6.2 percent payroll tax holiday for one year so that the economy can grow faster.

Eliminate all subsidies because a subsidy is just another name for a tax on consumers.  Force companies and products to compete on a level playing field in the free market.  We also need to streamline, and possibly eliminate, all unnecessary and burdensome regulations.  Get the government out of the way.

The plan that I have outlined will be hard, but it will work.  America will need leaders who will be able to make the hard decisions to keep us from becoming the next Greece.  It’s time we start self-governing ourselves and get the government out of the way.

The Case for Conservative Economics

Our policy makers and the “experts” debate what the best policy is to fix our economy and get it growing again.  Supply-siders argue that we must keep taxes low so that the private sector can create wealth and increase production, and create jobs.  They seem to be willing to ignore the problems of our high debt and deficits to keep taxes low on individuals and small businesses.  Then there are the deficit hawks who are willing to raise taxes while cutting spending to shrink the overall size of government.  Conservatives argue for both low taxes, and low government spending.

Why can’t we have an economic plan that does both – focuses on the supply-side of the economy and shrinks government?  I call this economic philosophy “Conservative Economics.”  This economic philosophy has seven core principles: low taxes, sound money, free trade, less regulations, balanced budgets, less spending, and property rights (with an ultimate goal of fundamental tax replacement).

Keeping taxes low will help individuals and businesses, particularly small businesses, keep more of their earnings so that they can save and invest more of their own money.  The supply-siders are correct that lower taxes can lead to greater wealth creation and increased production by the private sector.  I fundamentally reject the idea that having low tax rates increases our deficits.  What increases our deficits is spending in excess of our receipts; i.e. excessive spending.

The real solution that will close our deficit gap and fix our deficits is not to raise taxes, but to cut spending and shrink the size of government.  However, I believe deficit hawks are also correct to point out the dangers of having such a high deficit and national debt.  That is why Conservative Economics proposes cutting spending, cutting unnecessary regulations, and shrinking the size of government, while keeping taxes low.  I believe the decreased spending and regulations, and smaller government will be what pays for the lower taxes.

How can “We the People” force Washington to spend within its means?  We Conservatives argue that a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) that requires a balanced budget every year, requires a two-thirds supermajority to raise taxes, and limits spending to 20 percent of GDP will bring accountability and checks on the federal government.  If we can’t systematically encode these principles into the system by law, then we have no ability to force our elected officials to do what must be done.

Conservative Economics also proposes that we need to expand free trade.  Free trade helps grow our economy because when American companies can buy and sell more goods and services to more people, we get more jobs and growth.  According to Kim Holmes at The Heritage Foundation, free trade has “created millions of jobs and is responsible for almost a third of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP).”

What about our money?  Conservative Economics argues for sound money.  A good example of seeking sound money is that during the Ronald Reagan Administration, Reagan’s monetary policy was to keep inflation low and strengthen the Dollar through price stability.  Another aspect of having sound money is making the value of the US Dollar reliable, constant, and certain.  Conservative Economics endorses the idea of going back to a Classic Gold Standard, and even argues for an International Classic Gold Standard.

The final economic principle of Conservative Economics is property rights.  People should be encouraged to acquire and possess their own property, and have the freedom to use their property the way they think is best and not dictated by central planners.  The government can seek justice by protecting property rights against people who encroach on others, which should also include encroachment by government itself.

Therefore, deficit hawks and supply-siders should unite around these core set of economic principles.  Conservative Economics focuses on the supply-side to create jobs and growth by keeping taxes low and expanding free trade while also addressing the dangers of high deficits by shrinking spending, regulations, and government.  Conservative Economics includes accountability and justice by requiring balanced budgets and the protection of property rights against encroachments by people and government.

Why the Tea Party is More than a Fad

The Tea Party is a definite wave of antipathy towards all things big government, and more specifically, corrupt incumbency.  Nearly all the Washington pundits love to compare the Tea Party and the year of two thousand and ten to that of the Republican Revolution of 1994.  I view this wave of antipathy a bit differently.

Is the Tea Party and two thousand and ten really just a 1994 Republican Revolution repeat?  I think not.  The biggest difference between then and now is that in 1994, the revolution was largely a conservative revolt of conservative politicians from within government.  In 1994, there was virtually no grassroots uprising (with the exception of established political organizations), as opposed to today, except at the polls when the American people gave the Republicans the majority.

Though both movements were instigated due to similar concerns, the Tea Party revolt is much larger.  It is not a group of conservative politicians developing a set of principles and policies to pledge to the American people, although there is some of that going on.  The Tea Party is largely the people standing up to locally organize and pledge to the politicians that if they do not support their principles and policies, then they will fire them and elect someone who will.

The Tea Party movement is similar to the 1994 revolution in that they both are conservative revolts.  However, I believe the thing that makes the Tea Party a much larger and a more long-term, sustainable revolution is the fact that it started not from within government like in 1994, but from little pockets of average Americans in towns and cities all over the United States.

Another substantial difference that I see between the 1994 revolution and the Tea Party movement is organizational.  The conservative politicians in 1994 did not really organize as the Tea Party has.  For the most part, the conservatives in 1994 developed a list of policies that they would sign and pledge to bring them to a vote if the American people gave them a majority.  The Tea Party has taken a different route.  The people have chosen to organize themselves primarily in local communities to push an organized grassroots pressure on Washington in support of liberty and American Exceptionalism.

The 1994 Republican Revolution was about conservative politicians telling the American people that they were going to stand up for principle and commit to bringing certain policies to a vote.  The Tea Party movement is not about conservative politicians making pledges, although there are politicians doing just that.  The larger idea behind the Tea Party movement is the people telling the politicians: listen to the American people and do not ignore us once you are in Washington.  Hear what we are saying and then stand by it no matter what.  The Tea Party takes the first line of the Constitution very seriously: “We the People.”

Bold Solutions Requires Bold Leadership

America is at a crossroads.  We have a national debt that is reaching a record 16 trillion dollars and climbing.  We have political leaders who are either too inept to do what is necessary, or are too corrupt to do the will of the people because they love their power.  America has a radical Islamist enemy that is hell bent on destroying us and establishing a worldwide caliphate, and Secular-Marxists are committed to collapsing our capitalist system and transforming our society into a collective utopia.  We also have a culture that is in shambles, which seems to tell us that everything is good.  That there is no right or wrong, everything is relative.  What are Americans to do?

In years past, we have had great leaders with great solutions to restore America back to her exceptional self.  We have had leaders that put forth pro-growth economic policies to grow America’s economy, with marginal spending and deficit cuts.  As if their strategy was to grow our economy out of our fiscal crisis, and the small spending and deficit cuts would eventually add up and we’d come out of our fiscal mess.  However, the practical and gradual solutions haven’t worked because these strategies have allowed the big government forces to increase spending more than our cuts in spending.  We’re still in a fiscal crisis; in fact, our fiscal crisis is much worse.

When it comes to our radical Islamist enemy, we have had some bold leadership in confronting them head on.  Moreover, I applaud the leaders who have taken bold action against those who want to kill us.  However, we still aren’t really trying to know who these radical Islamists are and why they want to destroy us.  We’re too busy trying to convince the Moderate Muslims that we aren’t against them, we’re against the people who kill innocent life in the name of Islam.  We need some bold solutions to help us understand these radical Islamists and their motivations.  Understanding their motivations will help us anticipate their moves.

We also have another enemy.  However, this second enemy of America’s is an invisible enemy.  By invisible, I mean we have yet to acknowledge them as a credible threat to our way of life.  This enemy wants to destroy our system of free market capitalism and replace it with a collective utopia.  What makes this enemy different from the radical Islamists is that this is a secular enemy that is seeking to erase God out of America’s heritage and history.  I call this enemy Secular-Marxists.  We aren’t really trying to learn about them and understand their motivations either, so that we might be able to anticipate their moves against us too.  Where the radical Islamists are somewhat of a global threat to America and American interests, the Secular-Marxists I see as more of a domestic threat to American society.

Our culture is in the toilet.  What are we doing about it?  In my view, we’re doing nothing about it.  Sure, there are people speaking out about the decline in American culture to moral-relativism with God out of the picture, there are even people who are in positions of power to make a significant difference.  However, those people are few and far between.  Let’s face it the secularists are winning this cultural fight.  They control the media, academia, and the politicians seem not to care as long as they can stay in power.  There are some leaders in our camp, but even those leaders are focused more on what are more visible and understandable threats to American society: a declining economy and foreign enemies.  I’m not saying we should ignore those threats, but if we ignore our declining culture, then fixing our economy and fighting our foreign enemies will be all for nothing.

Maybe it’s time we tried a new strategy.  A strategy of bold solutions.  However, the media and the establishment tell us that bold solutions cannot succeed.  They claim that bold is radical and no one likes radical.  They say if we try too much too fast, the American people will punish us at the next election.  To those Conservatives who believe moderated and gradual solutions is the best strategy to restore America: Have those moderated views succeeded?  Have you ever thought that maybe the people who claim that bold solutions don’t work are the very big government, Secular-Marxists that are trying to collapse our system?  It would be to their benefit to throw out falsehoods about bold solutions never working because they’re too bold to keep us from restoring America to her founding principles.  Why do we let them set the rules of the game?  If the Secular-Marxists succeed in convincing the people that our bold solutions can’t work, then they will eventually succeed with their secular and collective solutions because we weren’t bold enough to fight them.

How do we make our bold solutions to restore America to her great exceptional heritage and history work?  Simple.  We need bold leaders who won’t be afraid to roll up their sleeves and tell the truth about the threats that American society faces.  Those bold leaders also need to have the characteristics that make them fearless to stand up and push hard for bold solutions no matter the pressures that will be pushing against them.  A quality of bold leadership is also the ability to communicate and articulate the bold solutions in such a way that rallies the American people to pressure their representatives to support the bold solutions.  To fundamentally restore America to her founding principles, bold solutions are required.  For bold solutions to succeed, bold leadership is required.

Israel and the Obama Doctrine

When President Obama announced his Middle East policy, as it relates to the State of Israel and Palestinians, the Obama Doctrine is in essence a policy of anti-freedom.  As is usually the case with the President and foreign policy, his plan also came with controversy.  His plan comes down to a two-state solution with the 1967 borders for both Israel and a Palestinian state.  What does it all mean?

First, I think this Middle East policy makes the definition of the Obama Doctrine clearer.  As I view the Obama Doctrine, it has two parts.  Under the Barack Obama Administration, the United States government will:

1. Reject American Exceptionalism, seek to limit American leadership in the world, and expand the use of unelected international organizations; and
2. Come to the aid of the “victims” of United States, Western, and Capitalist imperialism.

An example of rejecting and limiting American Exceptionalism and leadership is its lack of leadership within the NATO structure in the fight in Libya, and throughout the "Arab Spring."  Another example is putting people like Harold Koh, Legal Advisor to the State Department, in the Administration who believes in putting international law above US law.  An example of part two of the Obama Doctrine would be this Administration’s willingness to negotiate with evil regimes like Iran or Venezuela without preconditions, or siding with the Palestinians over Israel.

Next, how is Israel supposed to view this new American policy?  This plan shrinks the State of Israel, and takes East Jerusalem away from Israel and gives it to the Palestinians.  What does Israel get out of this plan?  Israel gets to live in peace, supposedly.  If the Obama Administration really believes that, then they are even more naïve than I thought.  On some level, the President obviously believes that if we give the Palestinians what they want, then they will live in peace next to Israel.  However, because of part two of the Obama Doctrine, I believe Obama views Israel as an imperialist oppressor backed by the Great Imperialist: The United States.  The obvious choice on which Obama is going to support is whom he views as “victims” to Western imperialism.  In the case of this new American policy, Obama views the Palestinians as the “victims.”

Finally, will this new policy ever happen?  In the end, no it will not.  Thank God, literally.  As a Christian, I do not believe God would allow anything to happen to Israel.  Although, to be theologically correct, I believe the Israel that God protects does not necessarily mean an Israel tied within tangible borders.  However, with that said where the State of Israel is today is the land that God gave them.  Another reason this plan will not happen is that it is far too radical.  The Obama Administration has the entire pro-Israel lobby, which is huge, plus the vast majority of the Jewish community (if not all of them) thinks they were snubbed by Obama.  Who overwhelmingly supported Obama in 2008?  The Jewish community.  Is this how Obama repays them for their support?

I submit to you, the Obama Administration will begin to walk back this plan.  I do not think He will fully renounce it, but I think he will stop pushing the radical aspects of the plan (the 1967 borders) and only push the two-state solution part, which is not a change in policy.  I do not think he will necessarily support Israel, I think he will still view them as imperialists, he will just try to help the Palestinians a different way.  If I am wrong, then Barack Obama is more of an ideologue than a pragmatist.

Oil and Democrat Hypocrisy

In this election year, those of us who are political junkies know that the economy and jobs has been the number one issue.  So when a jobs creating initiative through the development of the XL Pipeline rears its head, what did Obama and the Democrats do?  They blocked it!

They blocked it because their environmentalist special interests would've crucified them in elections.  What was a result of blocking the XL Pipeline?  Communist China would get the oil deal from Canada.

What has happened recently with Canadian oil?  Oh yeah...the Communist China oil company is buying a Canadian oil company.  And Senator Chuck Schumer of New York is now vowing to block the China-Canada deal?  My question for Senator Schumer is: What did you expect to happen when you and your fellow Democrats blocked the XL Pipeline?

As a Conservative, I am completely fine with finding new alternative sources of energy.  However, get the government out of the energy business, and let the free market find different energy sources that will work and can compete in the marketplace.

Fossil fuels will still be the energy sources of the near future because we know they work.  And they will be, and should be, expanded in the free market.  Decades later there might be a new source of energy that the free market will find.  Americans need to realize the new fossil fuel technologies that have been developed and improved over the years actually have very little negative environmental impact.

The Olympics and Renewing American Leadership

The Olympics have been a time a great global fun.  Where countries can come together and compete in the games in a mostly friendly manner.

The Olympics can also be a great time for the USA to stand for freedom and promote freedom on the global stage.  With the Olympics in London this year, the Obama Administration has a perfect opportunity to restore the Special Relationship between the US and the UK that Obama appeared to throw under the bus at the beginning of his Presidency.

Obama should use the global stage that the Olympics create to send the message that America stands with her friends and allies like Britain and Israel.  The Olympics gives Obama the perfect opportunity to restore America's leadership in the world.

Of course, Obama's not going to do a thing to restore our global leadership.  He will go to the Games and cheer on the USA Olympic Team, but that's all he will do.  Obama appears to want every country to be equal in their quality of life and prosperity.  He seems to want a kind of fairness among the nations.

America has never truly been a global leader in anything since Obama became President.  The reason for this is because Obama doesn't believe that America should be a global leader.  He secretly views America as this imperial country that is trying to control the world for ourselves.

This is why on November 2012 Americans need to go to the polls and elect a new leader.  America needs a leader who believes in American Exceptionalism and freedom.  Will the political leaders who truly believe in renewing American leadership please stand up?

My Pick for Romney's VP

There's a lot of talk, mostly speculation, on who Governor Mitt Romney should pick for his Vice Presidential running-mate.  On the establishment side, they claim that he should pick someone boring and safe.  Like a Rob Portman or Tim Pawlenty.  They also claim because Mr. Romney is "boring" he'll choose someone boring too.

On the Conservative side of the spectrum, we have people saying he needs to choose a solid Conservative like a Marco Rubio or Allen West.  Considering the name of my blog, I tend to lean towards this type of choice for who Mr. Romney should choose to be his running-mate.  However, I'm a little different than probably most in the Conservative Movement.

Most Conservatives seem to want Mr. Romney to choose a Tea Party guy that got elected in 2010.  I don't. In my view, the Tea Party candidates that got elected in 2010 need to stay in the Congress and do their best to represent their constituents for at least a full one or two terms.  And then we can begin talking with them about seeking higher office.

Barack Obama just got elected to the United States Senate when the Democratic Party started to court him and groom him for higher office.  He had only been Senator for two years when he started to run for President.  I believe the Democrats burned Mr. Obama out.  I don't want the Conservative Movement, much less the Republican Party, to burn out our Conservative rising stars.

However, Conservatives are correct in trying to demand that Mr. Romney choose a real, solid Conservative to be his running-mate.  Enough Conservatives will stay home or vote third party if Mr. Romney chooses a boring moderate to be his running-mate.  I believe Mr. Romney should choose someone like Senator Jim DeMint or Governor Bobby Jindal.  Mr. Romney's running-mate, I believe, should:

1. Be able to assume the presidency, if God forbid something were to happen to Mr. Romney.
2. Be a solid Conservative who isn't afraid to fight for Conservative principles and ideas.
3. Have executive and leadership experience.
4. Be a good to great communicator.
5. Is a quick and thorough study of all the national and international issues that he'd be dealing with as Vice President (and possibly President).
6. Won't necessarily steal the show from Mr. Romney, but will be exciting enough to convince the Conservative base to vote for Mr. Romney.

I choose Governor Bobby Jindal as Governor Mitt Romney's Vice Presidential running-mate in the 2012 Presidential election.

It's Time to Repeal and Replace ObamaCare

Let's be very clear.  The Supreme Court of the United States of America was absolutely wrong to uphold President Barack Obama's key legislative initiative: ObamaCare.  We can know that Chief Justice John Roberts screwed up because he had to go beyond the Supreme Courts' powers by re-writing the legislation to uphold the healthcare reform law.  The Supreme Court, in essence, unconstitutionally became the Congress in order to uphold ObamaCare.

The judicial branch is to strictly interpret the Constitution as written to either uphold or strike down laws.  They do not have any such legislative powers.  If a law is unconstitutional as written, the Supreme Court should rule it unconstitutional and let the Congress re-write the law if needed.  Although the Supreme Court did limit the Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, it did greatly expand the Congress' power under its taxing authority.  Overall, it is clear that Chief Justice Roberts and the majority's opinion continued with the shredding of our Constitution.

Now that the unconstitutional law was upheld, Conservatives and Common Sense-thinking Independents must do what we can to elect Governor Mitt Romney with Conservative majorities in the United States House of Representatives and Senate (even if we have to hold our noses the way we did for John McCain). We cannot give Mr. Obama four more years to either circumvent the Congress, or possibly appoint more secular-progressive Supreme Court Justices.

America is hanging in the balance with a national debt increasing to $16 Trillion, and the largest tax increase is coming if ObamaCare is allowed to be implemented.  We not only have to cut waste and spending, and keep taxes low with fundamental tax replacement with 999 or the FairTax, we also have to replace ObamaCare with something better.  America needs real health insurance reform that will truly cut healthcare costs.

The healthcare reforms that we need as a replacement to ObamaCare are as follows:

1. Expand the Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)
2. Expand health insurance portability
3. Allow individuals to own and control their health plans
4. Allow buying and selling of health insurance across state lines to increase competition