Conservative Perspective

PERSPECTIVE

Conservatives need to stop playing with Clean Elections fire

By Nick Dranias, Goldwater Institute
April 9, 2010

PHOENIX -- Bills that could end taxpayer-financed elections in Arizona are fighting their way through the state legislature. They are encountering resistance from self-described small government conservatives who have no trouble with the irony of using big government policies to their own advantage. But taxpayer-financed elections violate basic conservative principles and it is unlikely that politicians whose careers depend on taxpayer money will be able to resist their government benefactor over the long run.

Genuine conservatives understand nothing is more dangerous to liberty than force. As government is force, nothing is more dangerous to liberty than government. Government is a necessary evil, however, because men and women are not angels. And, as such, government must be structured on the assumption that evil people will inevitably seek to control it. It should be limited to as few functions as possible. Its powers must be divided, checked and balanced. And, in particular, the electoral process must keep government under control.

Taxpayer-financed elections violate all of these principles. Subsidizing politicians with taxpayer money violates the basic principle of keeping government as small as possible. It is an obvious extravagance, not a necessity. Even worse, by doling out the resources that are needed to run for office, the government wields control over the electoral process. This undermines a crucial check by insulating elected officials from the people they represent and rendering them dependent on the government for their political success.

No one should seriously believe smaller government will result from the abandonment of these principles. Angels do not run bureaucracies, not even the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission. As George Washington reportedly said more than two centuries ago, "government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." It is time for conservatives to stop playing with fire.

Haunted by the Passed

By Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council
March 22, 2010

He was the one none of us expected to be talking about today. For five months, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) stood guard on the wall between Americans and his party's army--a stubborn sentinel for life in a chamber of abortion-hungry Democrats. Without him there would have been no Stupak coalition, no Stupak language to ban taxpayer-funded abortion. In the end, conservatives couldn't live without him. Now, neither can the unborn. In the last moments, when members tried to incorporate Stupak's language into the bill, 21 pro-life Democrats voted for it. And for the first time in this Congress, Bart Stupak wasn't one of them. Instead, the bill--completely devoid of pro-life protections--passed with his help, 219-212*.

With the clock ticking down, the Democrat from Michigan stunned everyone by trading away five agonizing months for a meaningless piece of White House paper. With one-sixth of the economy in his grasp, the President agreed to Stupak's deal: an executive order that would somehow negate the abortion funding in the Senate bill. It was meant to reassure wobbly Democrats that the administration would protect taxpayers from any involvement in the abortion industry. Unfortunately, it does nothing of the sort. Just ask Planned Parenthood. In an email to supporters (subject: "VICTORY!"), the organization brags, "We were able to keep the Stupak abortion ban out of the final legislation and President Obama did not include the Stupak language in his executive order." For once, FRC agrees with pro-abortionists like Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) who told the press that the executive order "doesn't change anything."

That's exactly what FRC Action was frantically trying to convey to pro-life Democrats when the idea surfaced on Saturday. In a flurry of calls, visits, and emails to the Hill, we warned members that this order would be worthless in the long run because it cannot trump statutory law. Even the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) appealed to Rep. Stupak to reject the compromise. Its legal experts were unanimously opposed. " The statutory mandate construed by the courts would override any executive order... only a change in the law enacted by Congress can... address this very serious problem." The Wall Street Journal seemed surprised with the deal. "...[O]f course," the editors write, "such an order can be revoked whenever it is politically convenient to do so." As an attorney, Bart Stupak would have known that this was an empty gesture on the President's part. More importantly, he turned away from beliefs and put that trust in the most pro-abortion President in U.S. history. Americans have come to expect this kind of betrayal from this White House--but they never expected it from the man fighting for life in his party.

The march toward a complete government takeover of health care is almost complete. As of Friday, the business community was already bracing for the hit. Caterpillar, Inc. reported that when the ink dries on ObamaCare, its health care costs will rocket to $100 million. Others, like Medtronic, Inc., will pay for it in employees. The plan that was supposed to create jobs will force Medtronic to cut 1,000 of theirs just to soak up the heavy taxes, according to the Wall Street Journal. If House and Senate leaders believed the American people would forgive and forget by Election Day, they were mistaken. Right now, the bill's new taxes and mandates are scheduled to start hitting homes in the heat of the campaign season. Meanwhile, nine state attorneys general will do their best to fend off the federal invasion at their borders. In Alabama, North Dakota, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington, a collective lawsuit will launch the moment ObamaCare becomes law. Before then, Senate Republicans hope to have killed the plan's clean-up bill, which is headed their way as soon as Tuesday. With a stash of parliamentary procedures at their disposal, they plan to lob amendment after amendment at the chamber until Democrats cry "uncle." If the GOP succeeds, it would be especially irksome to House Democrats who agreed to vote for the plan on the condition that it would include their list of changes.

As devastating as yesterday's result may be, don't lose hope. If this debate proves anything, it's that the abortion movement is losing supporters by the millions. America is radically shifting in its opinion of the unborn--so much so that the only way Democrats could pass this bill was by putting a pro-life veneer on it. Those who ignore the people on this issue do so at their own peril. During his victory lap, President Obama said smugly, "This is what change looks like." With all due respect, he hasn't seen anything yet.

* Who Voted for What?

Twenty Democrats were urged to change their vote from a "yes" to "no" on pro-life grounds but failed to do so. They are: Reps. Carney (Pa.), Costello (Ill.), Dahlkemper (Pa.), Donnelly (Ind.), Doyle (Pa.), Driehaus (Ohio), Ellsworth (Ind.), Hill (Ind.), Kanjorski (Pa.), Kaptur (Ohio), Kildee (Mich.), Langevin (R.I.), Mollohan (W. Va.), Oberstar (Minn.), Ortiz (Tex.), Perriello (Va.), Pomeroy (N.D.), Rahall (W. Va.), Stupak (Mich.), and Wilson (Ohio).

On the positive side, 19 Democrats voted against the Senate bill and for the pro-life motion to recommit, which would have added Stupak's ban to the Senate bill. They are: Reps. Altmire* (Pa.), Barrow* (Ga.), Berry* (Ark.), Boren (Okla.), Bright (Ala.), Chandler* (Ky.), Childers (Miss.), L. Davis (Tenn.), Holden (Pa.), Lipinski (Ill.), Marshall (Ga.), Matheson (Utah)*, McIntyre (N.C.), Melancon (La.)*, Peterson (Minn.), Ross (Ark.)*, Shuler (N.C.), Skelton (Mo.), and Taylor (Miss.). (* Denotes members with a limited or mixed pro-life voting record.)

One Caucus, Under God...

Hours before the turmoil would unfold, the Congressional Prayer Caucus gathered in Statuary Hall on Sunday under the Capitol dome. Together with families in churches all across America, they lifted up our great nation and prayed for God's guidance. One congressman told me it was the first time in 130 years that members had held a church service on the site. As we try to cope with these frightening new realities, let's hope--no, let's pray--that this is the beginning of true change in America.

** Don't miss a fantastic column in one of Capitol Hill's most circulated newspapers, Roll Call. Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) and FRC's Dr. David Prentice teamed up for the piece, "Stem-Cell Health Care Must Put the Patients First." Click here to check it out! **

One Arizona doctor inspired national movement to protect health care freedom

By Clint Bolick, The Goldwater Institute
Feb. 9, 2010

Even before an array of national groups and taxpayers mounted a brave and seemingly unwinnable challenge to nationalized health insurance, an Arizona doctor began the fight to strengthen protection for health care freedom at the state level. Three years later, his idea has spread like wildfire.

Eric Novack is a superb orthopedist (as my once-shredded rotator cuff can attest) and a family man with no background in politics and little time for a crusade. But in 2007, he was worried about threats coming down the road to the freedom to practice medicine. He decided to do something about it.

Working with the Dr. Jeffrey Singer and the Goldwater Institute, he drafted the Health Care Freedom Act, which would amend Arizona's Constitution to protect two essential rights: the freedom not to participate in a government health-insurance system, and the right to directly purchase lawful medical services outside of any insurance system.

Despite being heavily outspent by special-interest groups mobilized, the measure failed on the 2008 ballot by less than one-half of one percent of the vote. Last year, the Legislature referred a revised version to the November 2010 ballot.

Meanwhile, the election of Barack Obama highlighted the threat to health care freedom for everyone. So the American Legislative Exchange Council adopted the Arizona legislation as a model bill. It has been introduced in 36 states, leading both the New York Times and the Washington Post to cover it extensively. Earlier this month, the Democrat-controlled Virginia Senate approved the measure, and other states are moving forward with plans to adopt it.

The act would provide a shield with which states can protect their citizens against excessive federal regulation. The Goldwater Institute has pledged to defend the constitutional amendment against legal challenges if Arizona voters decide to approve it.

And it all started with one man's good idea--proving once again how big a difference each of us can make.

Obamanomics sending America reeling

By Clint Bolick, Goldwater Institute
March 5, 2009

PHOENIX -- I think I understand Obamanomics. I buy a yacht that I can't afford. I default on the loan. The bill is sent to my children and future grandchildren (and to yours). The best part: I get to keep sailing.

Obamanomics is the New Deal on steroids. At the same time the administration pursues a gargantuan bailout, it is pushing massive new government entitlements, shrinkage of the private sector (such as the virtual wipe-out of the private student loan sector), and huge tax increases. The Arizona Republic's Bob Robb reports that Obama's budget forecasts a deficit that is a larger share (67 percent) of the Gross Domestic Product than at any time in over 50 years. And that is only if Obama does not add any additional new government programs--fat chance of that.

Little wonder that Sen. Jon Kyl aptly called the budget "terrifying" and "mind-boggling." CNBC financial analyst Jim Cramer, who supported Obama's election, called the president's agenda "a declaration of hostility toward capitalists."

Even worse than the towering deficits and dramatically increased scope of government is the corrosive effect the Obama agenda will have on the American spirit. The budget and stimulus program are not really a redistribution of wealth from rich to poor. They are a redistribution from productive Americans to irresponsible ones. The message is that if you've made dumb mistakes--whether you're a bank president or people who took out a mortgage they couldn't afford--the government will bail you out. But if you work hard and ask government for no special favors, you get to pick up the tab. And what a tab it is.

This is truly America's Atlas Shrugged moment--but it is no time for productive Americans to go on strike. We have the potential in Arizona to be an oasis of freedom: a place where enterprise can flourish and where hard work and individual responsibility are rewarded, not punished, thereby providing a bright alternative to the mega-regulatory welfare edifice being constructed in our nation's capitol. It's time to put our noses to the grind-stone, not only to preserve but expand freedom in the land of Goldwater.

Another Day, Another Trillion

By Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council
Feb. 28, 2009

WASHINGTON -- In bold white script, the words "A New Era of Responsibility" are splashed across the cover of the President's new budget proposal. Unfortunately, the responsibilities outlined throughout its 142 pages are ours--all $3.6 trillion of them. In five weeks on the job, President Obama is on his way to racking up more national debt than President Bush did in five years (2001-2006). Under this spending plan, America would be saddled with a $1.8 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2009, the highest in U.S. history. This administration seems to operate under the slogan: Why quit while you're behind? Big government is back--along with big taxes, big promises, and what will certainly be big disappointments when generation after generation of taxpayers get the bill.

Among the budget highlights are some broad social policy shifts, including: a "down payment" on government-controlled health care ($634 billion), "greener" government through pricy climate research and buildings ($12.3 billion), another $5 million to Medicaid "family planning" efforts, a second, more costly bank bailout ($750 billion), and projected revenue from a "cap and trade" clamp on carbon emissions.

Today's edition of the D.C. Examiner itemizes the cost to American taxpayers in an invoice from the President, which totals $7,371,000,000,000.00. How does Obama expect to pay for everything? Charles Hurt of the New York Post writes, "Obama's budget schemes to drain staggering amounts of money from people who worked for it and steer it to people who didn't." According to some estimates, Americans can expect $1.5 trillion in tax increases by 2019. Obviously, one of the immediate casualties of the Obama era will be President Bush's tax cuts, which have provided real relief for American families. Although FRC lobbied to make the cuts permanent, they are almost certain to expire next year. The wealthy (those making $250,000 a year or more) are scheduled to take a punishing blow for their success with hikes in capital gains taxes, income taxes, employer taxes, and the resurrection of the estate tax.

But perhaps the most troubling element of the President's proposal is a deliberate--and debilitating--attack on charitable giving. To the dismay of people across the political spectrum, the White House has asked for a 20% reduction in the amount that upper-income people can deduct from their taxes for making charitable donations. For organizations already feeling the crunch of the recession, this could be a killing blow.

Under the current plan, no one would be immune. The new code would affect everything from think tanks to food banks. As the President is well aware, the pain would be particularly acute for the community of religious conservatives, who are more generous than political liberals in every measurable way. The move would hurt traditional-values charities most, since the government is already funding the far Left's agenda on abortion, environmentalism, welfare, the arts, and "family planning" with billions of tax dollars every year.

In effect, Obama would be squeezing out any programs that are not government approved. He claims the move would bring in roughly $32 billion a year--but at a much larger cost to philanthropy as a whole. If the provision passes, the White House would be well on its way to replacing the work of churches, nonprofits, and social service agencies with more government programs, which studies have proven to be a poor and ineffective substitute. Americans should be outraged. If there's one place that doesn't need our charity, it's Washington.

Napolitano Leaving Negative Legacy ... To Say the Least

By Tom Patterson, Goldwater Institute
Jan. 7, 2009

PHOENIX -- As Janet Napolitano leaves Arizona for greener pastures, we should acknowledge that she was an innovative governor who changed the culture of her office. But not in a good way.

Her predecessors recognized the need for responsible management of the budget. Napolitano's reaction to both lean and fat budget years was basically the same: spend, spend, and spend some more. The result is Arizona's huge budget deficit.

Napolitano also earned the dubious distinction of being the first Arizona governor to introduce debt to balance general fund budgets. Debt for operating expenses is wildly imprudent and unconstitutional to boot.

Governors typically employ staff to work with the Legislature on pending legislation. Napolitano, though, repeatedly claimed that she didn't comment on legislation until it "hit her desk." This fomented a needlessly confrontational relationship between the branches of government.

Napolitano also set veto records. Vetoes may occasionally be necessary, but they are a poor substitute for good communication and at least trying to work together.

Unfortunately, Napolitano was so popular with the media that she was largely excused for such antics as intimidating a state commission into illegally changing "Squaw Peak" to "Piestewa Peak." She was allowed to hijack money meant for other projects to fund the Western States Climate Initiative. She got by with claiming credit for the positive effects of tax cuts she had fought against.

Incoming governor Jan Brewer should move aggressively and conspicuously to restore sound practices to the office. We don't want the legacy of the past six years to become the Arizona way.