Are Republicans Using Conservatives?

The answer to that question seems to be an apparent and emphatic: YES!  I was reading the Conservative news sites that I often frequent and ran across something that is very astonishing for Republicans.  At least so I thought.  They're changing the party rules to make it harder for Conservative activists to impact Republican primaries.

This sounds something right out of the the liberal-progressive playbook.  In fact, I thought the news stories were talking about Democrats, then I read further and realized that it was Republicans changing the rules.

Do Republicans support the Tea Party, or Conservative, agenda or not?  If so, then they need to help us elect Conservative leaders who will implement it.  However, they need to stop treating us like we're stupid because if they doing anything to squelch Conservatives ability to elect our leaders, then we're just going to create our own Conservative National Committee (Conservative Party).

I began to have high hopes for Mitt Romney when he chose Paul Ryan to be his running-mate.  I thought just maybe he is the Conservative he claims to be.  I started thinking maybe his changes in positions really are as sincere as he says they are.  But if he supports these rule changes, then I don't know if I can support Romney for President.

Send a message to the RNC by contacting the Rules Committee delegates and tell them don't change the rules or they will lose their base.

Breaking News: Mitt Romney Taps Paul Ryan

Mitt Romney has spoken.  He has made his first important decision he can make before he becomes President of the United States of America.  His decision is Representative Paul Ryan.

This was truly one of Mr. Romney’s most important decisions he would make during the campaign.  Most importantly, Mr. Romney needed to choose someone he believed could step in as President if something were to happen to Romney.

However, probably even more important was whether Mr. Romney would choose someone that could convince Conservatives that they could trust Governor Mitt Romney as their nominee to defeat President Barack Obama.  Mr. Romney also needed to pick someone that would complement Mr. Romney’s strengths and not necessarily steal the spotlight from the candidate himself.

Choosing Paul Ryan

The Establishment calls Paul Ryan a policy wonk and too wonkish.  The Tea Party likes him because Paul Ryan is bold and seeks real solutions to America’s real problems.

Mr. Ryan is an excellent choice for Vice President.  He is a capable, articulate, and a great communicator.  Mr. Romney needs to let Mr. Ryan be Paul Ryan.  He needs to not try to micromanage Mr. Ryan the way the McCain Campaign tried to do with Governor Sarah Palin.

This choice helps Mr. Romney solidify his commitment to restoring America’s economy and creating real jobs.  It also is a choice that could convince Conservatives that Mr. Romney is committed to their Conservative budgetary and fiscal solutions.

Endorsing Paul Ryan for Vice President

When Herman Cain announced that he was running for President, I was so excited because I thought, “Finally, we have a leader that can restore America!”  I was fully committed to helping Herman Cain defeat Barack Obama.

Newt Gingrich was the best Conservative choice after Herman Cain was forced out of the race.  I believed Mr. Gingrich was the next best choice because he had the ideas and he had the leadership that led a revolution that began to restore America back in the 1990’s.

Let me be honest.  I didn’t know whether I could support Mitt Romney no matter what because he seemed like an Obama-lite.  Mr. Romney’s plans seemed to show that he had no conviction and was more committed to practical, timid policies.

However, this choice of Representative Paul Ryan has, at the very least, convinced me that just maybe Mitt Romney really does want to find real solutions to America’s real problems.  That is why today I am announcing my endorsement of Paul Ryan for Vice President to defeat Barack Obama.  I will be casting my vote for Paul Ryan for Vice President, even if that means voting for Mitt Romney for President.

Romney's Tax Returns and Obama's College Records

Although the general election doesn’t really start until after the national party conventions, it’s pretty much already started between Gov. Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama.  Mr. Obama has such a terrible record as being the anti-freedom, anti-jobs, food stamp president that he can’t run on it.  He knows this and this is why he is viciously attacking Gov. Romney.

I’m not a Romney fan by any stretch of the imagination.  Gov. Romney wasn’t as Conservative as he says he was in his political career, and his current policies are timid at best.  However, no matter what you think of Gov. Romney, the attacks from Mr. Obama’s campaign have been vicious.

Mr. Obama first started with attacking Gov. Romney’s private sector record at Bain Capital.  As vicious and personal those attacks have been, they seem to have not gained much traction for Mr. Obama.  That brings us to the new string of attacks on Gov. Romney from Mr. Obama.

Mr. Obama and his team have decided, in my opinion, to go even more personal by choosing to attack Gov. Romney’s tax returns.  They seem to imply that Gov. Romney is this rich, profit-making corrupt twit (that’s my version of an expletive).  How does Mr. Obama want Gov. Romney to prove he’s not corrupt?  He wants him to release his tax returns as far back as 10 years.

Gov. Romney should continue to resist and continue to talk about his plans to grow America’s economy.  Better yet, Gov. Romney needs to get bolder in his plans to grow the economy.

However, Gov. Romney could also hold a Press Conference to make a big announcement.  That big announcement could be for Gov. Romney to ask President Obama to release his college records.  If Mr. Obama will publicly release all of his college records, then Gov. Romney could release more of his tax returns.  Gov. Romney should not run away from the wealth he has built for himself and his family.  He worked hard to get where he has gotten financially.  He should praise wealth creation.

The Establishment Just Doesn't Get the Tea Party

I meant to comment on this article that I found over at FoxNews.com earlier.   In this article, Fox News’ James Rosen poses the question: “Is the Tea Party the new ‘Establishment’?”   That question assumes that it’s about who has the organization and the money to win elections.

That’s a false understanding of what both the Tea Party and the Establishment are.  The Tea Party is about principles and ideas, and electing leaders who will stand up for those principles and ideas.  The Establishment is a political machine that is concerned with one thing: how to keep and maintain their power.

Yes it is true that there have been people and organizations that have money backing the Tea Party candidates recently.  However, if you compare the Tea Party candidates’ money to the Establishment candidates’ money, the Establishment still has the edge over the Tea Party.

That gets me back to my point.  It is not about who has the money and the organization.  It is becoming increasingly clear that the Tea Party is making elections be about what they should have been about from the beginning: Principles and Ideas.

The antithesis of the Tea Party is all things Establishment.  The day the “Tea Party” becomes “Establishment” is the day it will cease to be the Tea Party.  What has made the Tea Party so successful is not the money behind organizations like FreedomWorks or people like the Koch Brothers, but the fact that the Tea Party is a people-based movement.  The Tea Party has a lot of people who are passionate about their principles and ideas that they have shown they can turn out the vote.

The Tea Party is not some political machine that is trying to gain power.  It is a movement of people that believe in the Founding Principles of this great country known as the United States of America.

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.”