There were a couple of questions last night about healthcare; both candidates were in favor of repeal. Ken Buck acknowledged that Congress, even with conservative majorities in both houses, could not repeal Obamacare over a presidential veto; Jane Norton said we need to pull it out by the roots. Ken gave some options to deal with it in the short-term by not funding it and then going for the repeal in 2012. Jane, reflecting her background in the Department of Health, gave practical alternatives to Obamacare such as the kind of tort reform we have in Colorado. Both favored a balanced budget amendment. So far, so good.

Later, Jeff Crank asked a question about budget cuts: with $13 Trillion of debt, what five programs and two agencies would they eliminate? It was a tough question which appeared to have caught both candidates a bit flat-footed. Ken mentioned a few pieces of low-hanging fruit and described how education should be pushed down to the state and local level; Jane said that cutting spending was “the absolute reason” she’s running and gave examples of foolish spending on the part of government. No real specific examples, though.

Jeff was not satisfied and with the aid of modern technology when it came his turn again he said that the amount of cuts Ken had suggested off the top of his head amounted to “only” $6.7 billion—the amount, Crank said, that the federal government spends in 2 ½ days.  Sobering. Jane began by saying that we should abolish the Department of Education and block-grant the money to the states. However, since 80% of the department’s budget is already going directly to the states, this is no savings at all. She also mentioned Social Security and Medicare saying that we wouldn’t touch 55+ but would revise it for those under that age. Ken mentioned cutting the Department of Energy and said we should look hard across the board.

I don’t think either of them had great answers; the questions highlighted just how serious the budget crisis is and how much must be cut. I’ve mentioned before the Cato Institute’s Downsizing the Federal Government site for a great analysis, department by department, of how cuts can be made. The House GOP has also started the You Cut! program which highlights five wasteful programs every week.

These are all great ideas but the problem is that this administration is spending so much, so fast, that it will be very difficult to fix. Just wait until they lose in November: see how much pork they can pass between November and January. That’s exactly the way the Democrats want it.  Obama has already dared us to cut. We’ll see how serious you are, he said.

He’ll find out. We’re dead serious.

The core problem is that our government has become a government of the elites and for the elites with enough bones thrown around to make a majority of the population either subservient or dependent on government handouts. This Aristotle called Oligarchy, an unjust form of government. The corresponding just form is Aristocracy, in which the elites rule not on their own behalf but on the behalf of all. Many on the left who call themselves Progressives believe that’s exactly what they are doing. They think they are smarter than the rest of us and can rule on our behalf better than we can rule ourselves. They tell us they are bringing us justice.

They are wrong, of course. Our country was founded on the principle that the people, through democratically elected representatives, can and ought to rule themselves. James Surowiecki, in The Wisdom of Crowds, convincingly makes the case that crowds are always more right than the most expert of experts. Trust the people, with some safeguards against mob rule, and you have the principle behind the Constitution.

Long before Surowiecki wrote his book Plato, in The Republic, sets up a form of government in which the wisest rule by common consent; in The Statesman he admits  that this is just an illusion and ultimately relies on a Nocturnal Council to rule in secret. Does that remind you of the midnight votes in the Senate? Plato, history shows, was wrong; Aristotle was right. The Founders studied Plato and Aristotle and others in a depth unknown today. In the 1940s, Friedrick von Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom, in which he convincingly proves yet again that rule by experts doesn’t work. His book was extremely popular in the early 1950s, even being reprinted by Readers’ Digest. When Glenn Beck mentioned it earlier this month, it shot to #1 on Amazon’s best seller list. Today it is still #7.

In short, neither form of rule by the few works as well as a true republic in which the interests of all are balanced. Hayek shows that even Aristotle’s just form of government by the few is fated to become unjust.

The fight, then, is about who is going to rule this country: the people or the political class? Will this country remain, as Lincoln said, a government of the people, by the people and for the people? Or will it be the rule over the people by the self-appointed elites? Talk about “the failed policies of the last eight years”! They are pushing the failed policies of recorded history.

This fight is all about the re-founding of America on its original principles. We may not look like the America of 1787, but the principles are the same.

Each week, the GOP offers 5 spending cut choices on his Republican Whip website. When I first got the email about this, I didn’t quite get it. I thought it was a one-time deal. Hardly. Every week there are five different ones–each one worthy of enacting in its own right. You can vote on them either on the website or by texting. And if you don’t like any of them, there’s a spot to suggest your own.

The first week, 280,000 people voted; the second week 520,000.

Rep. Michele Bachmann offered this week’s winning cut on the House Floor; an amendment to eliminate a pay raise for federal government employees saving the taxpayers over $30 billion. The up-or-down vote was clear; the majority in the U.S. House voted to allow pay raises for non-military federal employees, while the rest of the country is facing pay cuts. Votes are recorded, of course, and you can see them from Cantor’s site. There is even video of the debate. (Having Minnesota heritage, I never get tired of listening to Michele Bachmann.)

On this particular one:

Mike Coffman and Doug Lamborn voted yes to the cut.

Betsy Markey, Ed Perlmutter, Jared Polis and John Salazar voted no to the cut.

Diana DeGette didn’t bother to vote–or else didn’t want her vote on record.

Here’s a great way to make your voice heard to someone who is actually listening. The spend-o-crats will likely vote it all down–until November. Then the new Congress will have an idea of where to begin.

For more ideas on spending cuts, go to Downsizing Government.

Today, the Wall Street Journal wrote about Taking Small Government to the Extreme–highlighting mostly Colorado Springs. (Do I sense a word pattern here?) The WSJ article is actually pretty well-balanced, quoting those on both sides of the issue and highlighting the efforts of volunteers to fill the gaps. On the plus side, the US Olympic Committee is donating $250,000 over two years for sports programs, volunteers are picking up the trash at local parks and a church has stepped forward to run of four community centers whose funding will be cut.

What is so extreme about all this? In my own small community of 130 households, the Home Owners Association already maintains a community park bigger than many of the city parks. We’re not unique. It only seems extreme because we’ve become accustomed to letting government do it for us. Richard Skorman, well-known city liberal, worries “If people are not contributing their part, there needs to be a broad community-wide solution.”

That’s what the socialist left would prefer: a government-mandated solution keyed to their ideals of “social justice” and what is “fair.” The tragedy of the commons is the result: no-one has pride of ownership, no one has a stake in the government-provided solution, costs go up and quality goes down.

Far better is the Springs’ move toward getting the citizens involved again. We actually have quite a history of it: from General Palmer, Colorado Springs’ founder, who donated the land for some of the city’s oldest parks to citizen volunteers who, each summer for as long as I can remember, plant flowers in the medians of downtown streets.

That is not “extreme”–it’s civic pride and it was a strength of the Roman Republic, as the Founders knew well. It is time we revived it in America.

Of course, this is exactly what the Democratic socialists who run the government  are counting on.  Now that the health care law is enacted, they hope the reported 110 new boards and other goodies will prove impossible to kill. Even worse, they have shown the danger of permitting sometimes obscure, arcane and even irrelevant government agencies to continue to exist. An example that came to light this week is the expansion of the Public Health Service–removing all manpower caps and making them liable to involuntary call to active service

during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel;… be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic;

It’s on pp.1312-1315 of the 2400 page bill. Do you think the Democrats have a purpose in mind for these officers beyond that of the current staff? I don’t mention this to disparage the PHS or its current mission or to question why this service exists or whether its functions duplicate those of other agencies. You can go to their site and judge that for yourself.

My point is that because it exists it can easily be re-purposed. I’ve been thinking about this re-purposing for a while now. It is clearly one of the strategies of the left as they seek to  subvert everything to their cause. It is easier to subvert an existing agency than to create a new one–and it attracts a lot less attention.

The only solution is to starve the beast: cut the funding and let these organizations wither and die. It will be good for the bottom line, too.

• Two wrongs don’t make a right. If the GOP used shady maneuvers to pass small bills, it is no excuse for the Democrats to use the same tactics to pass a big one.
• The ends do not justify the means. Right ends do not come from wrong means.  This one has actually been around since William Penn in our country and can be traced back at least to Machiavelli.
• There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Similar to, ” If it’s too good to be true, it probably is.” Somebody is going to pay for health care either with their dollars or by not getting it.
• Money doesn’t grow on trees.  It is just printed over at the Treasury.
• If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.  That’s actually my favorite; don’t know that I’ve ever heard anyone other than my other say that one.

The problem is that common sense isn’t common.  It is the result of experience.  My parents and grandparents went through the Great Depression and they learned those lessons the hard way.

Remember the Great Depression? That was the last time people turned to government in a crisis instead of to themselves. If we don’t show some common sense, history will repeat itself.

How do you do that?  Obama’s so-called spending freeze, which exempted just about everything, was purely political theater.  It wasn’t too many days later when he pledged billions to develop nuclear energy.  We know he’s not serious.

But the Cato Institute is: They have a site called Downsizing the Federal Government. It is fairly new (October 2009) and packed with ideas. What a great concept!

Another useful site is Federal Budget. This site breaks down the budget into its parts and compares the last several budgets.  It explains useful terms like the difference between the deficit and the debt.  You can also see interesting graphs.  Can you find this information on government websites?  Yes, but it is very hard to find the clear and simple answers you’re looking for.  Surprised?

We haven’t seen this kind of discussion since the Reagan years and all I can say is “Bring it on!”

First, a little background.  Legislators proposed taxes to raise money to fund things they want to do–and hopefully these are things that are both constitutional and in the best interests of the citizenry.  In Colorado we have the extra benefit of having TABOR which actually requires a citizen vote on new taxes.  So in theory, there are no taxes unless the citizens agree to be taxed.  That’s “taxation with representation” and it is a key founding principle of this country.

In practice things go awry.  Legislators propose taxes to fund things people don’t want and they try to tax people more than the people agree to.  One way to get these taxes passed in spite of opposition is simply to exempt certain groups from taxation.  The squeaky wheel gets the exemption.  Enough exemptions and pretty soon there’s enough support to pass the tax.  Who are those squeaky wheels?  Lobbyists, of course.  If you’ve sponsored the tax break, it’s an incentive to a deserving (or preferably a disadvantaged) group.  If you oppose it, it’s a loophole given to special interests.

It’s all rubbish of course.  It leads to the absurdity of the Democrats in the state legislature calling the citizens who testified against the Dirty Dozen “special interests.”  At the same time, Republicans are saying that eliminating, for example, the tax break for soda and candy discriminates against the poor.  Equally nonsense.

Frederic Bastiat wrote over a century ago that the party in power uses its power to reward its friends and punish its enemies.  Bipartisan support for a tax bill really means that enough constituencies on both sides are given enough exemptions to gain the support of a majority of legislators.  Who is left holding the bag?  Usually it’s the ordinary hard-working, tax-paying citizen who does not hire lobbyists to look out for their interests in the legislature.  We are not represented.

But wait: isn’t that what the legislators should be doing?  Why do we the people need lobbyists?  Because the lobbyists fund the politician’s reelection campaigns as do political parties. Elected officials today seem to feel more loyalty to those groups than to the people who vote for them.

Here’s my proposal: Go ahead Democrats, close every exemption.  Make every citizen, business, and union feel the pain of taxation equally. You’re all about equality of outcome, right?

Then let’s talk about how you’re spending the money.

Secondly, it should be clearly understood by anyone not blinded by Kenyesian economics that government can’t “create” jobs.  All government can do is take money from taxpayers to redistribute it to government employees.  Such jobs create nothing–they merely consume resources.  Every time Obama redistributes taxpayer dollars the recipient is either a government bureaucrat or a union member.  Just look at the list of jobs “created or saved” to confirm that none of this money is going toward jobs that will grow the economy.

He says he’s going to save $4 million by capping salaries of his top aides–yet he has the largest, most expensive White House staff in history.  Even this $4 million is dwarfed by a new $8 billion mass transit initiative.  It seems he can’t get involved in an issue unless he can spend at least a billion dollars.

He tells us that President Bush’s budget deficits were too big but then triples the deficit.

He proposes an “across the board” spending freeze but then exempts more than 60% of the budget.

Does he think we’re all that stupid?  He must.

What polls is he reading?  Here are Rasmussen polls, some released even today:

• 57% think healthcare bill will increase costs
• 53% believe it will decrease quality
• 49% say no bill  is better than current bill
• 45% favor passage (before today’s announcement)
• 34% say the US is heading in the right direction

And perhaps most tellingly,

• 38% say deficit reduction is the most important issue while only
• 23% say healthcare is

Mr Reid: Where in all those numbers do you see a majority in favor of your bill?

The plain fact is that the Democratic party is determined to ram healthcare down the throats of an unwilling American public come what may.  They don’t give a tinker’s dam what the voters or the taxpayer think.

Continuing to voice our opposition is essential.   We also need to consider our response should this abomination be passed.