Democrats Stop Pretending and Words Re-Gain Their Meaning

Here's the latest from R.C.'s Blogger Christian Stockel.....

Thoughts from the Right Side
May 6, 2009

The first 100 days of the Obama Administration has come and gone. While the mainstream media has spent their time shouting accolades for Obama's looks, his coolness, his dog, and his “swagga” (yes CNN hit a new low there), I have my own list of “achievements” upon which I could provide criticism – some of which I have discussed here on ReaganConservatives.us. However, I have to admit that President Obama has been very successful in packaging a radical, leftist agenda in a moderate veneer. Obama's skill at sounding like a moderate and the Democrat's uncharacteristic discipline to stay on message have handed Republicans a string of political defeats. Fortunately, there appears to be an unlikely trend developing that provides Congressional Republicans an opportunity to seize the initiative in the public debate over key issues. It is becoming clear that Congress is even more liberal than President Obama and willing to act on their pent up desires to implement what they consider to be the “Great Society Part II”. Some members are no longer content to rely on Obama's soft euphemisms like healthcare reform, energy independence, and education investment to sell policy. They are boldly declaring their intentions without fear of being called socialist or liberal – they are seizing on the political environment as an opportunity to implement policies and programs that have been - previously - impossible to achieve politically. This change in strategy offers conservatives a rare opportunity.

One example of this can be seen in the discussions on health care reform. To date, Obama's objectives have been described in broad and comfortable terms and has managed to explain a $680 billion budget line item for healthcare as a down payment. Obama's stated objective is to lower cost and increase access (the difficulty of doing both will requires a separate discussion) yet he fails to explain that accomplishing this will require reduced levels of care spread ever more thinly among the people. During these discussions, President Obama has been careful to not utter the words single payer or National Health Service. Well it appears that some on the Democrat bench are tiring of that restriction and are ready to lay bare their plans. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) has publicly, and on camera, stated that the goal of “healthcare reform” is to bankrupt private insurance and implement a single payer plan (Click on the Link to watch the video). She states her objectives boldly:

“I know many of you here today are single payer advocates and so am I … and those of us who are pushing for a public health insurance don’t disagree with this goal. This is not a principled fight. This is a fight about strategy for getting there and I believe we will,” Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)

Granted, this is only one statement from one Congressional representative from Illinois. However, it is one of many examples illustrating a trend away from President Obama's strategy of using moderate and obtuse language to steer clear of controversy. With absolute control over the White House, Congress, and favorable polls, Congressional Democrats are losing the fear of these labels and are more open about their objectives. They are going for “the gusto”. While Representative Schakowsky's comments are grating to conservative sensibilities, we do have to see this as a positive trend that can clarify the public debate on key issues and restore the meaning and value to the words used in such a debate. Up to this point, conservatives and the Republicans have been rather ineffective to counter President Obama's lethal ability to look and sound moderate while implementing radical policies. Since the cost of Obama's budget and stimulus bill has not impacted American taxpayers, his personal poll numbers have stayed relatively high. A reasonable person can assume that as Obama's initiatives on healthcare (as well as energy and education) come into focus and the reality of their impact become clear, Obama's obtuse use of language will lose its effect on voters who are still under the impression that they elected a moderate Democrat as President. However, by the time this happens, the damage done to the country could be too much to overcome.

Republicans and conservatives should take advantage of the new clarity in language offered by the Democrats and contrast them with clear, bold, and Conservative approaches to healthcare, energy, the economy, and entitlements. Conservatives have a small opportunity to pull the curtain back and expose the charade that is this Administration and the current Democrat party. More importantly, we need to illustrate the ultimate impacts of these policies in ways that overcome the seductive power of offering people something for nothing. Once voters are provided with an understanding of what the Administration's proposals mean to their freedom, their property, and control over their lives, it will be easier to make an alternative argument and increase resistance towards government expansion and the populist arguments that have defined the Obama administration thus far. Clarity will reveal President Obama and Congressional Democrats as the same old liberals that has haunted Washington DC since the days of FDR.

President Obama and the Democrat's in Congress have achieved significant political gains through the clever use of language, obfuscation, and moderate terminology to package their policies and disguise their real objectives. Obama was successful in convincing a large segment of the voting population that he was a Reganesque moderate Democrat. His policy initiatives were couched in vague terms like healthcare reform (i.e., government healthcare), energy independence (i.e., ban on domestic drilling, nuclear power, and a push to buy Dutch windmills), and education investment (federalizing K-12 education and the elimination of private schools). Obama has been able to convince the American people that he is not interested in running corporations. Meanwhile he fires the CEO of General Motors and hands over American industrial icons over to the Treasury and labor unions. His skill at oratory in general and the ability to sell the American people one thing while doing another in particular is a core pillar of Obama's political strength. It seems the Democrats are feeling confident about the political environment to abandon his strategy and to go “naked” with their plans. This is an opening that must be exploited if Republicans are to begin their long journey back to political relevance.

History has shown that liberals succeed when they disguise their policies in moderate and dishonest language. Conservatives thrive when they use clear, concise, and bold language. Recently, Republicans have tried to use the same strategy as the Democrats in an effort to seem more moderate resulting in a muddled message. It is time to change the playing field back to our advantage. I just hope there are still members in the Republican party with the intellect and the backbone to do so.

Audaces fortuna iuvat

We Are All Extremists Now

The latest from R.C. Blogger Christian Stockel...

Mental Thoughts from the Right Side
We Are All Extremists Now
April 18, 2009

April 15th has come and gone. A day where the productive members of society were busy sending in their tax returns to the government and in many cities there were tea parties being held protesting the unprecedented economic power grab by the Obama administration through higher taxes, unprecedented borrowing, government confiscation of companies and property, and the reckless creation of new government mandates. This infamous day was preceded by the release of a Department of Homeland Security report outlining what they perceive as threats to American security against which Secretary Napolitano and the DHS will be applying considerable resources. It appears that the DHS is less concerned with terrorists captured on the battlefield and more concerned with the legitimate activities of American citizens, specifically people who fit the profile of a "domestic right wing extremist". Many Americans will be surprised to learn that "right wing extremists" are people who hold mainstream political views at odds with Obama's vision for America. This report should not be seen as a simple security assessment by the DHS. Instead it is a political expression - made by the Obama administration - and an opening shot in an attempt to isolate political opponents and competing viewpoints that don't fit into his grand design, and broadly indict conservatives as a whole. It should also serve as a chilling sign as to how far this administration is willing go to isolate political groups or political views that run contrary to their design. There were many stories about President Clinton using the IRS as a tool to silence uncomfortable critics. It appears the Obama administration is prepared to go further.

The DHS report clearly identifies the threats the agency deems as a threat. Interestingly enough, before it goes into any detail it states the following:

"The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic right wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but right wing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for right wing radicalization and recruitment."

So right before it indicts political opponents, the DHS states it makes such allegations based on no objective or specific data, information, or proof. It is identifying these domestic threats using assumptions and supposition. On a side note - it is also interesting to note that Secretary Napolitano has lost her distaste for using the word "terrorist" - I guess she only likes this word when referring to her fellow Americans. Let's take a look at what the DHS considers domestic right-wing extremists:

"Right wing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly anti government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

The bulk of the document references right wing extremists and hate groups, etc - but as seen by the excerpt above that broad term includes anyone who may be pro-life, anti-illegal immigration (not immigration as they assert) or disagree with a reckless expansion of the federal government. When read carefully, this report justifies scrutiny and tracking of individuals who hold legitimate and mainstream political positions that contradict those of the Obama administration. This report uses terms that Secretary Napolitano deemed "unpleasant" when referring to terrorists and terrorist attacks. It seems she has a lower regard for American citizens who disagree with her than illegal combatants capture by our military forces on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, the DHS report goes further and indicts all US veterans returning from the Iraq and Afghan wars as extremists who pose a threat to the nation's security.

"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right wing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that right wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities."

This is a shameless charge and is supported by Secretary Napolitano through her reference to Timothy McVeigh and the attack in Oklahoma City. Secretary Napolitano, in her stumbling explanations in response to harsh questions after the report’s release – gives the impression that Timothy McVeigh is the only soldier she really knows and forms her judgments accordingly. Only the most cynical and hateful of people could look upon the best this country produces and label them a threat. However, I am not surprised, these are the same people, the same party that called our volunteer Army and Marines murderers, Nazis, and terrorists at the start of the Iraq War. Their inclusion in this report is a reflection of the latent hostility liberals and Democrats have for the armed forces and this country. Is anyone really surprised by this?

One also has to wonder why only “right wing” extremists are included in this report. Is the Secretary's hidden message that only conservatives are a threat? I guess Sec. Napolitano has never heard of leftist groups like The Earth Liberation Front. This group has burned down homes (felony arson) to 'protest' in addition to a ski resort and a Bureau of Land Management horse corral in Oregon. The founder of this organization has actually issued a field manual guiding members on how to sabotage property to reach their radical environmental goals. You can add groups like Mecha that want Latinos to take back the American Southwest or organizations like the Weatherm... oops – can't go there can we?

In addition to targeting conservatives, this report demonstrates how language and terminology can be used to isolate and demonize political adversaries and delegitimize their viewpoints through the organs of the federal bureaucracy. The fact this report was released a day before the planned "Tea Party" protests - protests by people who would be considered "right wing extremists" by Secretary Napolitano - is chilling. Even more shocking is that this administration spends great effort to accommodate terrorists, give them civil trials within US territory and even offer them welfare benefits and government assistance while they are here. Meanwhile, American citizens are targeted for scrutiny or if they dare protest against policies that they believe will harm this country's future. This unbelievable policy position combined with Obama rhetorically throwing his own country under the bus during the G20 Summit and his meetings in Mexico and Latin America would make most reasonable people wonder where Obama's favor lies. Obama sat and listened to dictators like Daniel Ortega and Hugo Chavez publicly chastise and insult the United States with absolutely no defense or retort offered by President Obama. He showed no emotion or even responded with any visible body language. He sat, nodded, and took notes while these thugs painted the United States as the world’s devil. His lack of words or response speaks volumes about the President.

In the end, the specifics of this report are really the side show and are not the main issue. Conservatives are not really surprised by the DHS report and have grown to expect such treatment from liberals/leftists in power. Aside from demonstrating an inherent disdain of conservative viewpoints this report serves as a reflection of the sensibilities of President Obama. He is a man who clearly is uncomfortable with the very nation that put him in its highest office and to a certain degree a man who dislikes the traditional aspects of the United States. Everything this President does overseas from his 'Apology Tour 2009' and accepting America's fault for all the world's woes confirms his disdain for the United States. His warm handshakes with Hugo Chavez and his outreach to Castro to change the “errors of the past” demonstrate his reflexive understanding and sympathy with the viewpoints of our enemies. He reinforces this notion by constantly repeating his goal of “remaking America” or “remaking the foundation of our economy”.

The nation-wide series of Tax Day Tea Parties demonstrate that the American people are waking up to the fact that Obama is not what the change for which they bargained on Election Day. How long can Obama's popularity last as people begin to realize they have President that doesn't like them very much and is willing to say so in public, overseas, and in front of cameras? How long will his magic last as his administration explicitly demonizes American citizens who hold pro-life views, believe in limited government, might support a third party candidate, or who might have just stepped off a plane after serving their country in multiple tours in Iraq? How long will the American people accept a president who sacrifices chunks of American sovereignty to international institutions in an effort to pay for “past sins”?

Americans deserve better from their President.

Obama's War on the Private Economy

Another outstanding submission from R.C. Blog's very own, Christian Stockel...


Thoughts from the Right Side
Obama’s War on the Private Economy
RC Blogger -- Christian Stockel
March 19, 2009

Charles Krauthammer authored an outstanding and insightful article in the Washington Post discussing the gap between President Obama's policies and his public statements on the need to get the economy out of a recession. Mr. Krauthammer clearly points out that his stated priorities - universal health care, clean energy, and universal access to college do not address our current challenges in any way shape or form. The issues impacting the banking industry and credit markets will not be addressed by any health care, energy, or education policy – as President Obama has argued. Mr. Krauthammer is correct in the effect of Obama’s current policy; however, I feel that there is a larger narrative that best describes the policies coming out of Washington; there is a deliberate effort to destroy the private economy and replace it with governmental institutions. Yes I am saying it; President Obama wants to establish the United States as the newest member of the club of socialist economies. If there were any doubts that Obama was a far left liberal – they can now be comfortably laid to rest.

If America continues on this path, its private sector economy will be murdered and buried next to Jimmy Hoffa (and yes I am betting someone in the Democrat party knows where he is). Private wealth is being devastated by the lack of a coherent economic policy addressing the real issues affecting the economy. Instead, the Administration has focused its efforts on pushing through a historic expansion of government that will increase the size and scope of government to unprecedented levels. With the economy in free fall and the American people shaken, President Obama has the perfect political environment to foist radical and alien policies on a country built upon the traditions of limited government, free enterprise, and private wealth. He can use his gifted communication skills and political slight of hand to sneak in government run healthcare, appropriate private retirement accounts, and get its hands into the banking system and credit markets with little or no resistance. Using the cover of the current recession President Obama is achieving in a few short weeks what far left radicals have only been able to dream about in coffee shops and universities. One only has to look at the proponents of President Obama's budget: Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, and any one of the traditional Democrat Party constituencies to determine the radical bona-fides of his agenda.

Contrasting his words against his actions and measuring the disconnect between the objectives of his policies and their obvious results, I cannot help but conclude that President Obama wants to damage the private economy to such an extent – through rhetoric or policy – so as to dismantle public confidence in private enterprise and engender within the body politic the sentiments of class warfare and a default reliance on government instead of private initiative. The market has looked at Obama's policy initiatives and reacted accordingly. Share prices for major industrial icons like General Electric, General Motors, and Citibank are in the single digits. The 401K and IRAs of average Americans are plummeting in value leaving them scared and unsure about the future. Obama responds to the precipitous drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average with indifference and tries to refocus the discussion towards “remaking America”. He has done very little to address the core issues impacting the economy or developing a coherent package of policies that would strengthen the private economy. Instead all of his policies, his budgets, and the actions of his Administration have only moved to strengthen the hand of the federal government.

Just in case the private sector economy starts showing signs of life, one can be confident that a Congressional hearing on executive excesses or "mismanagement" will be held to keep private industry in check or President Obama will simply take the credit using whatever twisted logic he can palm off to the press. If a company or an industry gets out of line, it can expect Congressional scrutiny, new regulations, IRS audits, or targeted taxes.

In fact, we see it now with the AIG “bonus scandal”, this very scenario. Despite the fact that the bonus payouts were contracted and announced a year ago before the bailout, Congressional Democrats knew about them, and Senator Dodd put an amendment to the bill - that enabled the government bailout of AIG - that specifically protected bonuses under contract prior to any government aid we are hearing howls out of Congress and threats about taking back “our money”. All the hue and cry is for show. These bonuses are 1/10th of 1 percent of all the TARP funds given to AIG – most of which has been paid to European banks to keep them afloat. All legitimate concerns about the actions of AIG management aside, what we should be worried about is the precedence this situation established for federal intrusion into the economy and private companies.

Let’s review some of the events of March 17, 2009:

Senator Chuck Schumer makes an ominous threat regarding legal contracted bonuses paid to AIG employees – “If Mr. Liddy does nothing we will act and we will take this money back and return it to its rightful owners, the taxpayers," Schumer warned. "So for those of you who are getting these bonuses, be forewarned -- you will not be getting to keep them." If the Senator can specify specific individuals against whom the government will confiscate assets – he can do it to others.

President Obama considers policies making veterans pay for healthcare related to battle injuries using private insurance. This is not only a spit in the eye to our Armed Forces it is also one of many back door ploys to break the private insurance system leaving a government run healthcare system as the only alternative.

Congress pushes the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act that will make every business a hostage of big labor and ensure that the government is party to every negotiation point between a private business and unions. This will go a long way towards slowing the growth of small and medium business – the backbone of the American economy.

Nancy Pelosi has urged the Department of Justice to relaxing anti-trust restrictions on news-media companies – specifically those in her area that are left leaning and supportive of her policies – so they could consolidate and stay in business. This is an obvious move to protect a constituency and support union jobs. This maneuver could also open the door for future government bailouts of media corporations which would result in the government having a hand in the operations of newspapers and media outlets in the same way they are exercising control over AIG.

These are examples from just for one day and signal the things to come. As this Administration continues to implement its policies, we will be hearing and seeing more Congressmen and federal entities getting involved in the day-to-day management decisions of major American corporations or whole industries. If you thought taxes and regulation were a pain, imagine Nancy Pelosi sitting in on your Monday morning planning meetings!

We are witnessing nothing less than an all out war on private industry and capitalism. The United States stands before a crossroad and the decisions made in Washington will determine its future course. One path leads to America’s traditional founding principles; while the other path leads towards an expansive federal government, socialism, and a subservient citizenry.

Given these circumstances, where is the Republican leadership highlighting the Trojan horses hidden in the spending plan passed by Congress? Who is sounding the warning bell about the economic and social impacts of an all encompassing welfare state? Who is pointing out the intellectual and political fraud being committed by the administration? If President Obama's agenda gets passed unchecked, we will have government rationed health care, government managed banks whose primary business will be to enact a left-wing social agenda, and industry held sway to the ever changing political winds of an activist Congress and White House. More importantly, the idea that individuals must look first and foremost to government for their needs will displace the traditional American values of initiative, self-reliance, and individual liberty. Once established, such public sentiment is hard to displace or reverse. The United States will be disfigured into a shadow of European social democracies. The economic and social sclerosis that goes hand-in-hand with EU style socialism will soon follow.

The question before conservatives is this - will we go quietly into that dark future or will we fight? Will we fight and resist every action of this administration to turn us into a failed socialist utopia? Our freedom, our lives, and our property hang in the balance.

Hypocrisy and Irony Meet In Congress

Mental Brief from the Right Side -- by R.C. Blogger Christian Stockel
Hypocrisy and Irony Meet In Congress

One cannot complain that the Obama administration does not provide opportunities for entertainment. On Tuesday, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was testifying before Rep. Charlie Rangel's Ways & Means Committee. He made a bold promise to Chairman Rangel that the Obama administration intends to propose "a series of legislative and enforcement measures to reduce . . . tax evasion and avoidance." Geithner looked Charlie Rangel straight in the eye and made that statement and neither one burst out laughing. No one even flinched – they both kept straight-faced.

There could be no better example that the United States has fallen down the rabbit hole than this little piece of history. We have a Secretary of the Treasury, a known tax cheat, making that statement to a Chairman of the Ways & Means Committee who is also a known tax cheat.

Priceless.

Blind Men In A Dark Room

The latest from R.C.'s Exclusive Blogger, Chris Stockel...

Thoughts from the Right Side
Blind Men In A Dark Room
by R.C. Blogger Christian Stockel

President Obama’s first five weeks has included a poorly orchestrated and less than competent effort at addressing the principal issue for which he was elected to address. In fact, President Obama’s approach has been to outsource the whole affair to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and play the role of pitch-man for a legislative monstrosity. Apparently, the only requirements President Obama provided to Congress could be framed in the phrase – “make it big and make it quick”. In fact, the whole approach outlined by President Obama and the Democrats in Congress is to jolt demand so that the U.S. does not enter a ‘lost decade’ like Japan did in the 1990’s. The mammoth economic stimulus package has been followed up with a $275 billion mortgage assistance program, and a $410 billion budget Omnibus bill. We are only in the fifth week of an Obama administration. Unfortunately, Obama and Congress are ignoring the lessons learned from Japan’s experience in the 1990’s and are jeopardizing America’s financial future in the process.

The American people expected that President Obama would come to the White House with a plan in hand (as he repeatedly said his team was preparing since his election victory) crafted with specific, targeted, and effective plans to address the core economic problems facing the nation. Instead, Obama’s promised change took the form of spending bills no different from the pork laden bills passed in Congress’ past. In addition, these bills include hidden foundations for an aggressive expansion of the federal government into healthcare, education, and energy. The American people voted for a brand new type of politics, a cool image, and an idea that was neatly packaged and delivered by an adoring media. Instead, they got Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. The term ‘buyer’s remorse’ does not do the situation justice. When asked to defend the particulars of the Congressional stimulus plan, the only defense Obama could provide was that “stimulus is spending – what else could you expect?”

Painful Facts
The unfortunate truth is that no amount of spending, tax cuts, or any combination of the two can get us out of this mess quickly or painlessly. Our current economic situation is the not the result of Bush tax cuts or even a failure of capitalism. It is the result of over 15 years of lax monetary policy, here and abroad, and reckless fiscal policies that has resulted in an over exposure to real estate investments in the U.S., shoddy loans to corporations in the EU, and over extension of consumer credit in the UK. The broad spectrum of poor asset quality on bank balance sheets and the overhang of corporate and personal debt have set off a deflationary cycle across all of the major economies resulting in slowing or declining economic growth. It is the price to be paid for individuals, companies, and governments living beyond their means. There is no sound logic that supports a stimulus program relying on the very fiscal and monetary policies that got us into trouble in the first place. The sheer scale of the financial crisis precludes any effective Keynesian policy coming out of Washington.

Japan’s lost decade was a single country’s experience with deflation in the midst of a global economy that was expanding at a fairly torrid pace. Japan issued multiple stimulus plans similar to the ones we are proposing now – roads, infrastructure, studies, industrial plans, etc. The result was unneeded roads and “bridges to nowhere”. Japan’s stimulus programs during the 1990’s were very large, quadrupled Japan’s national debt, and yielded little to no results. If the United States were to enact programs of a similar scope – we would have to spend $19 trillion – an amount that makes the current stimulus package seem paltry. So, what makes the administration think this bill – as ill formed as it is – will work? Recent historical precedence indicates it will do nothing except add to our national debt and risk future potential growth. It also ignores the dire situation our largest trading partners are experiencing.

The Scope of this Problem Precludes Any Quick Fix
The situation facing the United States and the western world is larger in both depth and scope than what Japan experienced in the 1990's. Japan could leverage world wide economic growth to help inflate its economy. Unfortunately, the United States is only one of many countries facing a shaky banking system, frozen credit markets, and decreasing demand. The EU has a reported $16 trillion in toxic loans sitting in its bank’s balance sheets approaching almost 95% of the EU GDP – and this does not include government or consumer debt. There are signs of weakening demand in the EU zone and a large financial meltdown in the UK. In fact, personal credit card debt in the UK exceeds its annual GDP. China is also impacted since its primary export markets are all in the same boat. China can look to internal demand for its primary industries, but even astronomical growth in Chinese demand cannot reverse the inertia in the broader global economy. A large number of the largest corporations in Europe have loans that cannot be paid because of falling demand for goods and services. Japan is also starting to re-experience what it had in the 1990's. More importantly, the EU and Japan are in the throws of an extreme demographic decline. They are both aging rapidly and having fewer and fewer children. In the long run, the EU and Japan will not have any large body of consumers buying or producing goods or services. So where in the world is there enough pending demand to reverse this current cycle of deflation? There is none.

Doing Nothing is An Option
The Obama administration is throwing old thinking at a new and unprecedented problem. A world-wide deflationary cycle with structural problems in major trading partners that point towards a long term economic slow down. The President explains that the current situation requires swift, immediate, and substantial action. According to him, doing nothing is not an option. Well actually it is an option and it is the only feasible option for the U.S. government to pursue. There is no stimulus package that the U.S. Congress can craft – regardless of content – that will be sufficient to counter-act the inertia in the world economy. Some will counter-argue that doing “something” is better than nothing. This argument ignores the fact spending all this borrowed and/or printed money in a vain effort to counteract worldwide economic trends will have real and substantial negative impacts on the long term prospects of the American economy that will greatly outweigh any short term benefits. It also ignores a simple fact that President Obama, Democrats, and liberals have never been able to accept. The government does not control the economy. It is merely one of many actors in the economy and is still subject to the same laws of economics that govern every business, household, and individual. It has size and the ability to print money on its side, but over time economic constraints and reality will impose themselves on the government’s capacity to impact the economy.

The U.S. government, the EU, the UK, and even Japan has increased borrowing and spending to stimulate their economies, support failing banks, and aid hurting industries. This constant flow of currency and bonds into the market will result in a flight of capital from monetary assets damaging the value of fiat currencies. Investors and institutions will move wealth to hard assets like gold, silver, copper, metals and other commodities. The result will be sudden inflation. However, it will not be demand-pull inflation, but monetary inflation. We will revisit the stagflation of the late 1970's as the major currencies drop in value and the price of gold, silver, metals, oil, etc go up and people's wages stay the same. We could quickly face a situation that makes our current one look mild. More importantly, the damage done to the world economy by out of control spending and a relentless growth of government will take at least a generation to reverse. The social impact on our Republic will be more profound than the financial impact. We have reference within American history that can provide an idea of the dangerous territory we are entering.

As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the federal government should let the markets work through this recession. Poor performing companies need to go through bankruptcy and restructuring. People who over-extended themselves should face foreclosure and learn how to rent. Congress and the Administration should look to securing the value of our currency, cut back on government spending, address regulatory failings that contributed to this crisis, and improve the condition of the nation's public finances. More importantly, President Obama should stop handing out candy to his political constituents and speak plainly to the American people as if we were adults. Explain to them that we are paying the price of financial and fiscal profligacy at all levels of our society. The United States, and the rest of the west for that matter, has been living beyond its means for two to three generations. He can offer real hope by implementing real and constructive solutions that while painful in the short term – will lead to real long term stability, growth, and prosperity. It will also go a long way to reversing the growing mentality of entitlement that has taken hold of the American people. As a free people, we should be looking to friends, family, and community to address the challenges in our lives – not look to the government.

I am not holding my breath.

Profiles in Chutzpah

The latest from RC Blog Contributor Chris Stockel....

Thoughts from the Right Side
"Profiles in Chutzpah"
by R.C. Blogger Christian Stockel

God Bless Governor Blagojevich, he is the gift that keeps on giving. After thinking that I would only have hyperbolic and adolescent press coverage of President Elect Obama's inauguration to look forward to, old Blago comes out from the shadow of shame with both barrels blazing. He is the perfectly evolved symbol of the corrupt Chicago political machine. Young, brash, overly-confident, and has lots of big hair. His initial post scandal flair up speech was priceless. Despite quite detailed transcripts of phone conversations where Blago seems a bit “upset” at the low bidding price for Obama's open Senate seat, the Governor comes out defiantly and says he did nothing wrong. From his speech he stated:

"I will fight. I will fight. I will fight until I take my last breath. I have done nothing wrong. ...I'm not going to quit a job the people hired me to do because of false accusations and a political lynch mob."

Classic. I watched the Governor's press conference at least three times soaking in the hubris and hypocrisy. It was Christmas morning all over again. A few days later, after much discussion in the press about pending impeachments and warnings from fellow Democrats not to appoint a replacement until all the legal matters could be settled, the Governor comes out with both barrels blazing and nominates former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris for Obama's vacant Senate seat!

Yes – it does get better.

The Governor will not be denied the 'biggest brass pair' award for 2008-2009. Still,it got even better as I watched the reaction of Senator Harry Reid when he stated he would deny seating Mr. Burris. Unfortunately for Senator Reid and Congressional Democrats, there was no legal standing to prevent Mr. Burris from taking the seat - regardless of the political controversy surrounding Gov. Blagojevich. The appointment was made before he was impeached and was clearly valid. As the week wore on, cracks appeared in the Democrat caucus and whispers and hints at some movement in Senator Reid's position indicating that he had accepted the inevitable. This political kabuki play illuminated the mendacity of Senate Democrats whose only concern was that they would receive a politically weak candidate - who failed previously in statewide elections - to take a seat that would be soon up for re-election. The obvious political calculations of Senator Reid was magnified by his overt willingness to seat Al Franken of Minnesota who – like Mr. Burris – had not received certification form Minnesota's Secretary of State. Hmmm, I wonder why Senator Reid gave such deference to good old Al Franken? Maybe he thought by doing so it could derail Senator Coleman's legal challenge to the recount? Or could it be worse? Some African American Democrats claimed that the refusal to seat Burris was tied to latent racism and not legal propriety. It was hard not to enjoy the uncomfortable position in which the Democratic leaders in Congress found themselves. Recognizing the inevitable, Reid changed course and agreed to seat Senator Burris. It seems the Governor from Illinois was smarter than the Democrat leadership in the Senate.

Corrupt Illinois politics and the bungling of Congressional Democrats aside, the real issue surrounding this whole event does not involve Gov. “Blago”, soon-to-be Senator Burris, or even Senator Reid. It involves President-elect Barack Obama and the mainstream media. As much as I laughed, almost to tears, at watching the political theater and even greater political incompetence, I was shocked sober after seeing how Barack Obama responded to this situation and how the press covered the whole event. There was a press conference where Reporter John McCormick of the Chicago Tribune asked Obama about the particulars of the Governor Blagojevich and his approach towards filling the Senate seat. Barack Obama just responded:

“John, let me just cut you off, because I don't want you to waste your question. ..We have done a full review of this. We will release the facts of this case next week. I don't want to get into the details of this case [before then].”

The reporter apologized and sat down. Interesting. Some astute members of the press have also picked up on a disturbing habit of President-elect Obama. It seems he preselects those reporters from whom he will accept questions as recognized in the Chicago-Sun Times.

“The Obama news conferences tell that story, making one yearn for the return of the always-irritating Sam Donaldson to awaken the slumbering press to the notion that decorum isn't all it's cracked up to be. The press corps, most of us, don't even bother raising our hands any more to ask questions because Obama always has before him a list of correspondents who've been advised they will be called upon that day.”

Any bets on how many Fox News correspondents are included on that list? Let me give you a hint – its a number between -1 and 1.

So it appears that the press is being properly trained, sedated, and castrated in advance of the coming Obama administration. However, manhandling the press is not the only thing deemed acceptable in this brave new world. As President elect Obama promised, his team's internal report was released, during Christmas, week with all the “facts” deemed relevant. The conclusion was not unexpected. The 5-page memorandum stated that the contact between the scandal-plagued governor and the president-elect's staff was proper and limited in scope. The report added:

“The accounts contain no indication of inappropriate discussions with the Governor or anyone from his office about a 'deal' or a quid pro quo arrangement in which he would receive a personal benefit in return for any specific appointment to fill the vacancy," the report, authored by White House Counsel-designate Gregory Craig, said.”

Of course the discerning, deep thinking, crack news team at MSNBC were quick to conclude that nothing untoward had occurred and Obama was in the clear. Obama had no contact – of course, Rahm Emmanuel did. However, there was no 'quid-pro quo'. Nothing was asked of them – nothing was offered. Similarly, the CBS News room parroted the findings of the report hinting there was no “there” there. They did make some mild references to the fact Obama's transition team refused requests from the media to release emails or notes of contacts with Blagojevich's office. They also noted that Rahm Emmanuel was not a target in the investigation. The rest of CBS' report focused on Gov. Blago's legal predicament and forgot about any potential connections between the Governor and Obama's team. It seems all is well in Obama's world. His team's report clears him and his staff of any wrong doing. That is the end of it. Of course, we haven't heard the last word from the prosecutor in this case – what's his name again? Oddly, that does not seem important.

Proper reflection of this series of events should cause those of us who are not in the Obama-mania camp to pause a little and dread. The self-proclaimed hero of “transparent government” and “change we could believe in” just told a reporter who was asking an uncomfortable question to “not waste his question” and back talked him into his seat while the reporter apologizes for stepping out of line. Obama has instituted a practice of preselect lists of reporters from whom he will take questions. The Obama transition team performs and “investigation” into their role – if any – in this scandal and quickly determines there was none. This finding is issued in a report released at 4:30 PM on the day before Christmas Eve. The main stream media does a thorough review and analysis of this report and concludes at 5:00 PM on the day before Christmas Eve that there is no scandal, the Obama team did nothing wrong, and the President-elect is clear of any suspicion. Will this series of events set a precedent for the next four years? Does Obama's handling of the press and outright refusal to address any issue - no matter how scandal tinged – not raise one single eyebrow in the press rooms of America? Will we continue to see the press prostrate itself before the Obama administration to such an extent that it will lay supine for the next four years and not question/probe any statement, claim, or position made by this administration?

I am writing this the day before the inauguration, as I tune into CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and CBS, its clear that Obama will have an easy ride for the foreseeable future. George Bush couldn't have ever imagined being treated like this by a press who made it a professional hallmark to question the truthfulness of any word spoken by the President and blame him for a host of world problems including global warming, war, terrorism, and male pattern baldness. One does not have to go back too far into recent history to see examples of the Bush derangement syndrome exhibited in the media. A tsunami devastates a remote land near the Indian Ocean – its Bush's fault. If the Russians invade a small ally in the Balkans and the press furrows their brows and struggles to determine what policy mistake Bush made to precipitate such a crisis. Somewhere there is an energetic young cub reporter at the NY Times busily trying to tie the failure of the Philadelphia Eagles to win the NFC championship to Bush's presidency.

I can only imagine the broad hyperbole that will be tossed around on the cable news programs covering tomorrow's inauguration events. I am sure Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann will be comparing Obama to George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Joan of Arc. The only mystery I could imagine in the press' adulation of Obama's swearing in is which of Chris Matthew's leg will get a “tingle”. I don't even want to think what part of Keith Olbermann's body is tingling right now. God help those who believe in healthy dissent in public discourse. If the federal government decides to bail out struggling newspapers and becomes part owner in these enterprises, one doesn't have to use too much imagination to see shades of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro come out of that mess. I can only imagine the many possible mutations of the “Fairness Doctrine” that will emerge from this scenario.

For the record, I don't believe that Obama is implicated in Governor Blagojevich's effort to sell a Senate seat. However, I am troubled by his handling of the limited scrutiny he has received from the press and his approach top-down, closed-door process towards clearing “his team” of any wrong doing. Combine this arrogance with a compliant – nay subservient – mainstream press and there is the potential for future scandals to pass without scrutiny. More importantly, this lays the groundwork for potentially flawed public policy to be proposed and passed without the relevant information being provided to the citizenry or the required analysis and scrutiny from the fifth estate. As the nation looks to President-elect Obama for proposals on health-care, entitlements, the economy, national security, and a host of social issues – it should have confidence that the press will serve as a critical partner providing scrutiny to any and all proposals and asking the tough questions aimed at getting all the relevant information out into the public domain. As one flips through the satellite and radio channels, its clear that the press seems more interested in a smooth transition for a transformational and historic administration. It is a stark contrast to the tone and manner the George W. Bush presidency was given and hints at a hidden agenda to serve as a partner for the Obama administration and not an advocate for the people. Republicans in Congress should look hard at the landscape in the mainstream media and prepare a strategy for ensuring that their message is communicated accurately to the American people and that real information is provided to them in a way that shatters the alternative reality field being constructed before our very eyes.

Change is coming --- prepare for it.

A Party at a Crossroads

Thoughts from the Ride Side
"A Party at a Crossroads"
by R.C. Blogger Christian Stockel

As the Republican Party regroups itself after the 2008 elections, there have been many voices offering their advice on how to “repair” the Republican Party and return them to political relevance. Unfortunately there are some voices that are tempting the party leadership into a direction that will only lead the party (and the conservative movement) to permanent defeat and result in the transformation of our Constitutional Republic into just another social democracy. Former Governor Christine Todd Whitman complained about “social fundamentalists” ruining the party. In her argument, she stated that the Republican party is held hostage by social conservatives that alienate the moderate majority and that future success will rely on Republicans abandoning social and moral issues and focus on economic and “practical” issues. David Frum points out that Democrats won this year because – since 1988 – they have become more economically conservative and the majority of Americans have become more socially liberal. Former Senator Hagel and Senator Bye have made their positions clear as well.

In summary, many are arguing that the Republican Party needs to become less conservative and move away from “moral” or “social” issues that alienate so many Americans. What gives? Did the Republican Party all of sudden develop schizophrenia? Were these people watching the same election I was? What happened to the party of ideas and optimism about our nation and its founding principles? It appears this party has been left by the wayside or its party leadership has become too intellectually lazy to articulate a robust conservative political argument and has decided to find the path of least resistance to relevance. Can someone channel the spirit of Reagan, Lee Atwater, and Lee Marvin and beat some sense into these people?

Listening to some of these arguments, one would think that the election of 2008 was between Barry Goldwater and LBJ and that the electorate voted for Great Society part Deux. If this assessment is accurate, I would really like someone to give me a clue on who the conservative candidate was and when did he show up in the campaign. The simple fact is Senator McCain was and is a moderate who seems slightly embarrassed to be a Republican. He ran as a moderate whose biggest selling point was that he was more apt to go against his own party than Barack Obama would is own. Senator McCain went out of his way to prove he would work with Democrats and compromise on key issues where practical. It was Senator McCain who advocated the government to buy troubled mortgages, he was a champion of the government bailout of the financial industry, and he advocated the ‘cap and trade” policy in an effort to help fight global warming. He was all over the place and had no coherent message. It seems that some in the Republican leadership want to repeat this model hoping for a different outcome. Brilliant!

Meanwhile, Barack Obama focused his campaign rhetoric on plans to give 95% of Americans a tax cut, reducing government spending, and bombing Pakistan into the stone-age if they got in our way going after Osama Bin Laden. Hmmm – who does that sound like? Granted, Obama’s approach was to camouflage his liberal background, policies, and tendencies with Reganesque rhetoric, but to a confused and exhausted electorate it worked. So in summary, the Republicans nominated a man who talked like a New Deal Democrat and the Democrats put forth a candidate that sounded like Reagan and looked “cool”. One can almost reach out and grab the irony, cut a slab out of it, and throw it on the grill with some onions and peppers.

In the end, the American voter was attracted to Obama’s moderate message that was well focused, well articulated, and well delivered. In contrast, the Republicans offered a candidate who couldn’t articulate a clear message, seemed almost apologetic to be running as a Republican, and looked like he was in a bad mood. ”. The American voter could not understand McCain’s message and what his administration would do for the country. The only spark his campaign received was the introduction of Sarah Palin and we all know how well they failed to leverage her effectively. It seems that the conservative and optimistic message still wins – unfortunately it was delivered by a radical leftist who brings with him a left-wing agenda and a party beholden to the MoveOn.org crowd. The fact this bait and switch job could have been sold so easily should alarm the party leadership because it signals that something is really wrong at RNC headquarters and their “strategy.

So where does this leave the Republican Party and conservatives? Well, in all honestly, it leaves us in a precarious position. Republicans are a minority in the House, the Senate, and are on the outside looking in at the White House. In addition, the main stream media has unashamedly aligned itself with the incoming Obama administration and promises to offer very little scrutiny of future policies and his administration in the near future. Unlike the 1964 election, we don’t have a Ronald Reagan who can articulate the foundations of a new conservative movement. We are in great danger of returning to the days of country club conservatism whose only reason for being was that they can run the government leviathan a bit more efficiently using a little less money than the Democrats. As proven in the past, that is a prescription for permanent minority status for Republicans. We might as well take tips from the Conservative party in Britain to map out our future – is John Major still available? More importantly, it robs our nation of an alternative political narrative when the federal government, under the complete control of Democrats, is rapidly preparing a European style welfare state that will bankrupt us financially and enervate us spiritually and morally.

These serious times require that we conservatives develop, articulate, and communicate a bold, clear, and strikingly conservative message. Our message has to be a stark contrast to the one being offered by the Democrats. In addition, the people who are selected to deliver this message should be able to not only state a policy, but also clearly explain how these conservative policies better meet the needs of the people and are more sustainable over the time. As conservatives, we will have to put in the time and effort to argue and explain how limited government, lower taxes, more capitalism, and more private property will address the concerns of Americans better than the “state as Santa Clause” model being offered by the Democrats. We need to expose the liberal agenda for what it is - a cynical attempt by Democrats to buy votes with government largesse to maintain their hold on power – the fate of the nation be damned. We need to do this without fear, without apology, and demand that liberals explain and justify their policy proposals. It is time to turn the tables – and do it quickly. Some will read this and say – “Hey sounds great, but it is easier said than done.” Well maybe not so hard if we Republicans decide that we want to be party of conservative ideas and translate these ideas into concrete policies.

Let’s take education policy. During the debates, Obama complained that the $9-10 billion a month spent on the war in Iraq ‘stole’ resources away from education programs. That was a huge opportunity for McCain to make a solid rhetorical point. He could have reminded Obama that the Department of Education has seen a continuous rise in its budget since its founding in 1977, that the federal government spends more per K-12 student than any other industrialized nation, and that this ever increasing budget has had no demonstrable impact on improving public education in the United States. McCain could have asked Obama to defend the money spent at the Department of Education and ask if any reasonably intelligent person thinks this relatively new agency has any impact on education in the US. McCain could have said the money spent to maintain a bureaucracy in Washington D.C. could be better spent on vouchers allowing low-income families to find schools that better serve their children. McCain could have, but he didn’t – an opportunity lost. Obama also told some real whoppers during the debates about how the excesses of capitalism caused the current mortgage crisis. McCain could have taken the opportunity to remind Obama about the role of misguided social policy (expansion of CRA), lowered FHA lending standards, and Fannie Mae’s packaging of dodgy loans as ‘guaranteed’ government backed paper to the secondary markets in causing this mess. He could have pre-empted Obama’s false narrative about our current economic crisis and clearly explained how more government intervention in the financial industry, the automobile industry, and the economy overall will only lead to more economic disasters. McCain could have also discussed how America’s military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan have gone along way towards re-establishing the credibly of American force and resolve after a decade of retreat and cowering in the face of radical Islam and terrorism. Well – we all know how that went.

What is needed now is one brave, clear voice of reason that will turn to the siren calls of moderation and capitulation and shout “Stop”! If we conservatives want to win, we need to grow a spine, a brain, and a belief in the principles and values that define conservatism. The country club Republicans need to be removed and expunged from the party. The moderates need to be shunned and excommunicated. New leaders with bold and aggressive ideas must to take hold of the party leadership. Conservatism needs to define the debate and drive the political narrative – not play on the field chosen by our opponents. Any other path will lead the party to permanent minority status and permit the slow drift of our nation towards the lazy slumber of socialism and the social and cultural sclerosis that will follow.

My fellow conservatives, can we do it?

Yes we can.

The Big Three Bailout – Socialism's Redux

The R.C. Blog is pleased to publish the first, in what we hope are many, regular opinion pieces on current economic and political issues from one of the most knowledgeable and charismatic Conversatives in No. Va. -- Christian Stockel.

Mr. Stockel, to be exclusively featured on the R.C. Blog, has a wealth of knowledge and experience in global economics and financial management and was a senior official in the federal government and worked directly on many of the issues confronting our current economic problems.

The R.C. Blog proudly presents "Thoughts from the Right Side"...

Thoughts from the Right Side - Christian Stockel

Congress continued its inquisition of executives from the Big Three today executed under the pretense of finding a way of "saving" the big three from extinction. Unfortunately, the political narrative being fed to the American public hides the real objective Congress and the political allies of the Democrat party. This objective has nothing to do with the survival of the American automobile industry and everything to do with saving the UAW and paving the way for a more involved Federal presence in the private economy. A brief review and comparison of the questions posed to the executives and union bosses tell the entire story. Now don't get me wrong. I enjoy the irony of having Barney Frank and Co. lecturing Detroit executives on fiduciary responsibility, fiscal discipline, and long term thinking as much as anyone else; however, if the CEOs of General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler knew what was good for them and their companies, they would run and file Chapter 11 bankruptcy before their corporate jets lift their wheels from the runways at Dulles Airport.

Despite the popular myth that 3-4 million jobs will disappear unless the auto industry get a chance to suck at the government teat, the fact is bankruptcy (Chapter 11 style) and restructuring would most likely result in a leaner, meaner, and more competitive industry that doesn't rely on UAW labor. The fact is a total restructuring of these firms will enable to follow a successful model of production employed by foreign manufacturers in the southern U.S. The Big Three wouldn't disappear; in fact, they would thrive, free of Congressional money and control. That strikes fear in Congressional Democrats. A successful U.S. auto industry setting up shop in a southern red state (yes there are still some left) and leaving blue state Michigan to fade further would put an inconvenient crimp in the Democrat model of economic development and be an uncomfortable story line to explain to the American public. It is interesting listening to Rep. Barney Frank bemoan how the the blue collar workers are being overlooked in the Federal bail-out bonanza that favors white collar industries and workers. However his real aim is to keep the UAW relevant and their members in job contracts that have hamstrung domestic auto manufacturers for over 30 years and in the Democrat party's hip pocket.

Currently, UAW workers at GM, Ford, and Chrysler earn an average hourly wage of $71.00 including benefits. In comparison, American workers at Japanese, European, and Korean car manufacturers in the US earn an average of $37.00. This does not include the extravagant retirement benefits and iron clad job protection schemes (e.g., you can't fire people that are poor performers) that have been extorted from the Big Three. Add to that the simple fact that a company like GM supports almost two retirees for every active worker and one can easily visualize the tight spot in which the American companies find themselves. Try being swift and nimble with that anchor tied around your neck. Chapter 11 restructuring would put these contracts and job guarantees in jeopardy. After backing Barack Obama and the Democrats substantially in the past election, the UAW is going to use their leverage to protect their current position – as untenable as it may be. The made their bet and won – they will make sure that they get the pay off. Add the ill-named Employee Free Choice Act and you have a business killing environment we haven't seen since 1929. To be sure, the demands and interests of other liberal interest groups will find their way into this discussion. The environmental lobby, economic justice lobby, and I am sure the gay rights lobby will find a way to interject themselves in this effort.

Congress is looking to put together a bailout package that will not only resolve the Big Three's short term liquidity problem and provide a political win for the Democrat controlled Congress, but maintain the current labor and management model that will inevitably result in the demise of our domestic automobile industry. However, in today's short-term news cycle and public memory – that is not important. As sad as this scenario may be, the long term implications will be worse than a large spike in Michigan's already depressing unemployment rate, a sudden lack of new Corvettes, some worthless stock, and the rapid deployment of executive golden parachutes.

In fact, the scenario being played out in Congress is simply a continuation of the political narrative established in the presidential election by the Obama campaign. A narrative that re-wrote history and planted the false notion of the “failure of capitalism” in the public consciousness and the need for a “responsible role” of the federal government in the private economy. This narrative was unchallenged by the McCain campaign and the leadership of the Republican party. (Remember, “our guy” is the one who talked about having the government pay people's mortgages.) This narrative changed the nature of the public debate and is what gave the Democrat party an image of being more responsible than Republicans when it comes to addressing issues in the economy. With the presidency secured and large majorities in the House and Senate, the Democrats are using the current economic crisis as a backdrop to ram through their agenda. This agenda; however, will be far less moderate than Obama let on in the campaign and will be in fact a far-left. socialist agenda. On the heels of unprecedented government ownership and entanglement in the financial industry, Congress is poised to give the government an unprecedented role in the automobile industry. Ideas that have been discussed so far have included government ownership of stock, government representation on the boards of these companies, and of course significant government input in management-labor relations. One can only imagine what the next Cadillac or Mustang will look like with the design, engineering, and management input of Congress. Envision an all electric Pacer with recycled denim interior in pastel colors with an EPA mandated governor limiting it to 25 mph.

As this circus unfolds in front of us, we conservatives should be asking who on our side in Congress is raising the voice of resistance to the steady march of managed economics and left wing madness. Who is articulating the virtues of free markets and limited government? No – sorry – those are just crickets you hear. After getting bruised in the most recent election cycle – few Republicans are offering any political or rhetorical resistance. It is even more painful to see the Republican Presidential candidate reaching across the aisle and looking to make a deal. It seems many Republicans are only looking at the short term political implications of current economic difficulties and ignore the larger risk and potential disaster that will result from this constant bail-out process. Once this precedent is established – no industry will be safe from federal meddling. As the siren call of federal bail-out funds beckons struggling companies, an ever growing list of American industries will be snared in Congress' grasp and corporate boards headed by the likes of Dodd, Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, and Waxman will be a reality. It signals the death of American free enterprise and the unique American economic model. One day in the near future, many of us who know better will all wake up and realize we are living in a cheap copy of France without the benefit of its food and wine.