Resisting A Rebirth Of Freedom

President Obama recently told a group of supporters that Republicans should expect “hand to hand combat” on Capitol Hill if they take back the House in November. This bellicose reference represents a brief flash of honesty from an administration otherwise cloaked in deceptive calls for magnanimity. The Obama White House has proven reckless and obstinate in implementing its progressive agenda. Irrespective of popular opinion and public consternation, the President has relentlessly advanced his long sought-after goals of universal healthcare, cap-and-trade, stimulus spending, public sector takeovers and a litany of less publicized, social-restructuring initiatives. Notable, however, is that this brazen fortitude is only discernable in the President’s domestic agenda.

President Obama’s antipathy for compromise on domestic issues seems to evaporate with issues of foreign affairs. With regard to international diplomacy, the White House has conceded much, yet accomplished little for America. Note the Russo-American arms treaty in which Vladimir Putin’s Russia achieved remarkable success in convincing the White House to curb its missile-defense technology while granting minimal concessions in return. Although Russia and China each brokered deals with President Obama to support U.N. sanctions against Iran, neither Moscow nor Beijing has upheld its end of the bargain. Remarkably, President Obama does not appear bothered by this blatant affront to America. Take into account the fact that Iran has rapidly advanced its nuclear programs during the past two years, with little admonishment from the White House, and it becomes quite clear that the Obama Administration lacks the conviction in foreign affairs that it mulishly demonstrates at home. Mr. Obama is quick to insult his political rivals, his predecessor in office, the U.S. Supreme Court, dissident members of his own party, domestic media outlets, and particular American States, yet he softens his language when speaking about perfidious tyrants who are openly disdainful of America, e.g., Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Fidel Castro.

The question then becomes: What can a Congress achieve with a President in office, armed with the veto, declaring open-warfare on his rivals? The answer is simple in nature, yet poignant in effect. A Republican Congress, Tea Party and all, can stop the national bleeding. It can do so by ensuring that no new taxes are implemented, that no new spending is approved, that Obama-Care loses its funding, and that the size and the scope of the federal government begins to reverse its expansion. These measures, in and of themselves, will bring stability to the U.S. market and will strengthen the value of the dollar. Notwithstanding the likelihood that President Obama would veto any bill that is aimed at repealing his entitlement programs or reducing the public’s tax burden, Republicans should continue to pursue such measures. At a minimum, passing these laws in Congress would send a message to Americans of better days to come, and would serve to lay the groundwork for initiating these programs in January of 2013.

The President’s fondness of domestic “combat” is futile and misdirected. Perhaps by applying his considerable pride and steely resolve to matters of foreign affairs, the nation could be better served. The American people are overwhelmingly opposed to the policies of the Obama White House. Their voices will be heard on Election Day as they begin to reclaim their constitutional rights and liberties. A rebirth of freedom is imminent. How quickly it is instituted will depend upon how fiercely the President resists it.

Jeremy Pitcoff

Bearing The Brunt Of The Burden

Government exists to secure the rights and to protect the liberties that are innate to the spirit of mankind. In so doing, it fosters the human propensity for healthy competition and enterprise. Business exists to secure the profits and to foster the growth that is innate to the spirit of capitalism. In so doing, it enables society to flourish by creating wealth and affluence. Government and business are vital components of a burgeoning society that must coexist by necessity. Government requires a source of revenue in order to maintain a stable infrastructure of communication, transportation and defense. Business and commerce provide the impetus for wealth that a thriving nation requires. A portion of this wealth is transferred to government in the form of taxation and levies. In return, the government provides a platform for commerce by ensuring peace and stability. Business and government, when fairly balanced, lead to national prosperity.

Experience has shown, however, that when government taxes reach inequitable levels, society suffers proportionately. Companies and corporations, no longer capable of creating profits, are compelled to downsize their workforce, to pass on their costs to the public, or to move their operations elsewhere. America’s current tax-rate for new corporate investment is 35% - nearly double that of the world’s average. This excessive burden merely serves to drive American investors into more competitive markets or to refrain from investing altogether.

Incumbent Democrats from New York, California and Ohio have recently adopted a protectionist bent, attacking opponents from the private sector for participating in global trade. New York Congressman Timothy Bishop has relentlessly assailed his Republican challenger, businessman Randy Altschuler, for “outsourcing” jobs overseas. Ironically, Mr. Bishop, whose record in Congress is replete with examples of excessive taxation and reckless spending, is now crying foul at the entrepreneurs who have suffered the consequences of his policies.

In the words of Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, “Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.” Business exists to turn profits. Government exists to secure rights. A harmonious balance between these forces is the key to American exceptionalism. However, in times such as these when the size and the scope of the federal government has exceeded its natural purpose, liberty and commerce must suffer. It is the American people who will ultimately bear the brunt of the public burden through rising taxes, increasing debt and capriciously regulated trade. This is the price of big-government.

Actions Have Consequences

There is an old saying attributed to Benjamin Franklin: “In this world, nothing is certain but death and taxes.” Fiscal conservatives, I among them, seek to limit the severity of the latter as to enhance the legacy of the former. Lower individual and corporate tax-rates, long the bête noire of the American left, would provide the populace with an engine for growth and a tool for economic recovery. The Obama policies of massive spending and excessive regulation have merely served to inflate the national debt, to weaken the U.S. dollar, and to considerably increase unemployment. If we seek a rebirth of prosperity, tax-cuts, free-trade and spending cuts would be the logical measures to implement. President Obama and Congressional Democrats, however, are incapable of conceding this point. Having created the laws that have led to this mayhem, they now blame others for its consequences.

“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases. If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” Ronald Reagan’s pithy analysis is as true today as ever, the difference now being that America’s present leadership has effectively implemented this agenda. The goal of President Reagan, and of Reagan-Republicans today, encompasses limiting the role of government in American private enterprise. To this end, the U.S. Constitution grants the federal Congress limited and enumerated powers, thereby ensuring that government tendencies to consolidate power are perpetually checked by lawful rights to property.

Presidents Reagan and Obama, both entering office during times of economic hardship, enacted fiscal policies that were consistent with their respective views as to the proper role of government. Whereas Reagan cut taxes, decreased regulations, encouraged open markets and reduced non-military spending, Obama has increased taxes and regulations, initiated trade-wars with Mexico and China, neglected trade-agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea and administered over the greatest expansion of government debt in the history of the United States. Whereas Reagan’s policies served to transfer power from the government to the people, Obama’s policies can fairly be judged as Reagan’s in reverse. President Reagan’s policies resulted in a thirty year period of economic stability and growth, while stagnant markets and increased unemployment have defined the present administration.

Defenders of the Obama Administration have rationalized these results by claiming extraordinary circumstances and by transferring blame to a litany of conservative ‘villains’, including George W. Bush, Fox News, the Tea Party movement and syndicated talk-radio. In the end, however, these tactics are self-defeating. Perhaps this defense can best be summarized by another Benjamin Franklin quote: “I didn’t fail the test; I just found 100 ways to get it wrong.”

The American people are not as easily manipulated as the progressive-left may think. Actions have consequences, and in the case of politics, they can make or break a party.

If Men Were Angels

In this hotly contested 2010 election season, the issues at hand can be readily broken down into two, apparently irreconcilable philosophies. These sparring theories are those of constitutional conservatism on the one hand, and social progressivism on the other. These precepts have been in conflict with one another, in varying degrees of intensity, throughout American history and perhaps at no time more virulently than at present. As a conservative Republican, as a journalist, and as a politically active resident of Smithtown, I feel an obligation to offer my neighbors an historical backdrop to the modern conservative movement.

There is little doubt that while drafting our Constitution, the intent of America’s Founding Fathers, was that of creating a national government capable of maintaining a cohesive union of the states, while simultaneously guaranteeing the general sovereignty of those states, and the individual liberties of the people. While James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, the architects of the U.S. Constitution, agreed that a strong central government was necessary in order to collect the taxes and support the military that a prosperous America would require, they did so with many reservations. Through a series of newspaper opinion pieces that were written during the 1780’s, we are able to ascertain a fair representation of Hamilton’s and Madison’s respective intents in crafting the Constitution.

Throughout the constitutional debate, Alexander Hamilton’s paramount concern was that of creating a centralized government capable of collecting taxes, which, in turn, could be utilized to fund an American military, capable of defending our nation and providing for the general welfare of the people. This should not be misconstrued, however, as an attempt by Hamilton to advocate for a government based economy. In fact, Hamilton was the first American known to advance the ideas of what is presently referred to as supply-side economics. In his “Continentalist” essays of 1782, Hamilton had the following to say of the self regulating nature of the American economy that he envisioned: “The motive of revenue will check its own extremes. Experience has shown that moderate duties are more productive than high ones.” These views were preludes to the economic policies of the Kennedy and Reagan administrations of the 20th century. Hamilton believed that the first clause of article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, gave sufficient protection to the American taxpayers by guaranteeing that “all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” This “uniformity” clause was created to ensure that all citizens were equally affected by tax increases, therefore guaranteeing that special interest factions would be unable to consolidate undue power at the expense of the majority of Americans. This is why the modern, progressive income tax system was twice ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme court, before the 16th Amendment was ratified in the 1913 wave of progressivism that truncated Hamilton’s dream.

James Madison, though in accord with Hamilton in regard to the necessity of a centralized government, was even more emphatic than his colleague in regard to the dangers posed by an overreaching national government. In “Federalist” number 10, Madison voices his concern for the tendency of governments to consolidate their own powers, “and particularly for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.”This distrust of big-government is what led Madison to initiate a system of checks and balances within the federal government, and between the national and state governments as well. This would provide for four walls of defense against a usurpation of the people’s will.

“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” Madison writes in “Federalist” number 51, referring to the necessity of independent branches of government. Madison goes on to explain that it is within man’s nature to continually strive to wrest power from others, that the Constitution was drafted with the express purpose of insuring a continuity of rival ambitions so that no one faction could completely subdue the opinions and interests of another. Madison then bluntly declares, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

After the Constitution was ratified, Madison became the chief proponent of the 10th Amendment. This final amendment to the Bill of Rights grants that “all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

There is no question that the Obama Administration, and our present congressional majority, tends to favor progressivism. Over the past 20 months, these two branches of government have effectively functioned in unison. Their actions reveal their apparent view of the Constitution as an obstacle to be overcome. Conservatives seek to preserve the functions of American government in accordance with our Founder’s intents, while adapting to modern realities. Progressives seek to move beyond the Constitution, while acknowledging that some of its tenets hold validity. I do not seek to pontificate as to which view of government is the correct path to follow for all; I merely speak for myself and for others of my political ilk. A strong national defense, fair and equally apportioned taxes, and the maximum individual liberties that are consistent with law and order, are the tenets of my brand of conservatism. These were the visions of our Founding Fathers, of Abraham Lincoln, of John F. Kennedy and of Ronald Regan. They remain the dreams of many today.