-
IRS Union Chief Stonewalls
May 21, 2013 | 56 comments
-
Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?
May 20, 2013 | 55 comments
-
The Liberal Union Behind the IRS
May 16, 2013 | 146 comments
-
Cumulus Media: Suicide of a Company?
May 14, 2013 | 64 comments
-
From Bimbos to Benghazi
May 9, 2013 | 162 comments
Political Hay
Patricia Harrison and the 2012 Republican Divide
Bush CPB appointee and NPR defender is symbol of GOP fight between Conservatives and Statists.
(Page 3 of 4)
And campaigning on them too. Here is Weaver’s view (as reported in 2009 by Byron York over at the Washington Examiner) in which he insists that the GOP must stick with Statism or neo-Statism because if “our party is defined by Palin and Limbaugh and Cheney, then we’re headed for a blowout…. That’s just the truth.” In other words, Limbaugh is a Reaganite and unless Republicans stop listening to him and start campaigning on the Statist principles that elected Presidents Dewey, Ford, Dole and McCain and re-elected President Bush 41 in 1992 the GOP is headed to certain defeat.
Thus… Jon Huntsman, Statist GOP candidate selects the perfect Statist consultant.
• Internal Party Nomination Fights: The Conservative-Statist fight in 2010 dominated the news when the Delaware Republican Party and its Statist candidate for the Senate, Congressman Mike Castle, battled against the Conservative Christine O’Donnell. Versions of the same battle were seen in Senate GOP primary races in Kentucky, Nevada, Utah, Alaska, and Florida. Frequently choosing the Statist side of the argument was the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee and its chair, Senator John Cornyn of Texas. Opposing it — and raising money to oppose Statist GOP candidates — was South Carolina Senator Jim De Mint.
And so on. And on.
Limited government? From Patricia Harrison to President Bush 43 to Senator John McCain to Senator Scott Brown to Governor Romney and Governor Huntsman and ex-Bush Solicitor General Ted Olson and political consultant John Weaver…all are believers in it. Sort of. Kind of. Unless, of course, we’re talking about the government’s right to decide the wattage of your light bulbs, take your tax money and give it to a favored special interest group (Planned Parenthood in this case), insist that more tax money be used to fund NPR, remove your ability under the law to decide the definition of marriage, mandate that if you live in Massachusetts you must buy health insurance, or believe that the government should be taxing you for the latest global warming fad.
Again, these aren’t bad people. Surely to the contrary. But they simply cannot find it in themselves to sign on with the seriously real idea of what “limited government” really entails. Which is precisely why there are so many Republican fingerprints on that telltale $14 trillion deficit some 8 decades in the making.
SO WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN for Republicans and conservatives in 2012?
Let’s assume what is most probably the case, based on past history. There will be another Republican in the White House. At a certain point, simple incumbency problems overtake the Ins, and that’s before one’s name becomes synonymous with being a political disaster as president — Hoover or a Carter or, conservatives would argue today, Obama. Whether a he or she manages this Republican victory in 2012 — or later — happen it will. And when it does, then what?
Is the new president a GOP Statist or neo-Statist prepared to fill his or her administration with appointees like Patricia Harrison — appointees always on the lookout for ways to expand the role of the federal government and the funding that goes along with it? Will he or she take advice from Statists like John Weaver and just shrug as did President Bush when signing on to the newest version of McCain-Feingold or banning of 100-watt light bulbs?
The other day an attorney named Kent Masterson Brown had a remarkable piece in the New York Post that illustrates the problem. It seems Brown was the lead plaintiff attorney in a case that had a federal judge allowing Social Security Administration bureaucrats to institute “three internal rules …that make receipt of Social Security retirement benefits contingent upon enrollment in Medicare. Plus, a person who withdraws from Medicare would not only have to give up Social Security benefits, but repay all benefits previously received.” (Emphasis added.) The latter would be, of course, the benefit program that you have already paid into for the duration of your working life.
Now what happens if a Statist Republican sits in the White House when this issue comes to a head? What would be the response here? And what kind of federal judges would that president be appointing?
Upon learning of Mr. Brown’s revelation, would he or she demand, say, the firing of the Social Security Administrator? Issue stiff instructions to the Republican Secretary of Health and Human Services to eliminate these rules post-haste?
Based on the Statist views on display with Republicans from Patricia Harrison to Ted Olson to Scott Brown to Mitt Romney to Jon Huntsman to John Weaver — unlikely. Case in point?
Who is it that appointed the federal judge Mr. Brown is writing about here? The federal judge whom Mr. Brown describes as allowing “unelected bureaucrats to make up their own laws” by issuing a ruling that “would allow the ‘health reform’ law to become even more Orwellian than it already is, without any action from Congress”?
That’s right.
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (93) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jeffrey Lord
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/29/patricia-harrison-and-the-2012
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Steve G| 3.29.11 @ 6:53AM
Rgiht on, right on, right on, Mr. Lord. (Or perhaps write on! write on! write on!)
Make the "muddled moderates" pick a poison, left or right. Just pick one, for crying out loud.
Kenny| 3.29.11 @ 6:54AM
"Ms. Harrison is doubtless a good person."
Why assume this? Is it just to be polite?
Actually a 'good person' does not take the fruits of my labor like this woman does.
Sheila| 3.29.11 @ 10:14AM
Precisely my thought when I read that phrase. I don't assume anyone is a good person, or worthy of my respect. "By their works ye shall know them."
Decline and fall.
Frisbee| 3.29.11 @ 6:12PM
Maybe Mr Lord by calling her a "good person" was using a euphemism for the term "do gooder".
Frisbee| 3.29.11 @ 6:13PM
She made a million taxpayer dollars! De-fund her.
CalMark| 3.29.11 @ 12:10PM
Well said!
Her enabler, "W," didn't think conservatives were "good people" when we opposed medicare expansion, No Child Left Behind, Harriet Miers, amnesty...
In fact, the only time GWB called anyone "un-American" was for conservative opponents of the last two above-named controversies.
Enough ascribing noble intentions to tools of tyrants!
Mel Torme| 3.29.11 @ 12:19PM
This is what I want to comment on also. In a great article, this is one phrase that I don't agree with.
Mr. Lord, it's a philosophical question, but don't you think that people who "mean well" can still be bad and sometimes downright evil? Yeah, you've got your race hustlers and your Al Gore types that both don't care for doing good things and are cynically are into politics for the money. (There are many of these kinds, not just these two examples, of course).
However, there are also the Chairman Maos, Hitlers and Castros who really think they are doing what's best for their country - really, you know from history they have principles, however dicked-up those principles are. In Mao's case, his stupidity caused > 30,000,000 of his countrymen to starve. In Hitler's case, it was more that he thought only the right kind of people alive in his country would be the "right" thing. Then, Castro and his butt-buddy Che were just two stupid romantic commies who think the Cubans just love being poor, so long as they are equally poor (BTW, left Stalin out of here, as he might be closer to the 1st type).
I am not by any means comparing Miss Harrison, with or without the dicked-up name, to any of above based on LEVEL. However, being part of the cause of our once-great country going to hell makes you a bad person, pretty much by definition - it doesn't matter how good your intentions are. A lot of people are on that list.
martin j smith| 3.29.11 @ 6:57AM
Excellent reason for no more Bushes for President. I would put in a list of our worst Presidents in modern times: Obama,Carter,Bushes I and II and Nixon and Clinton there are others.
GWB was a false President in the sense of not being honest about his actualyideology or his intent for the nation, He and Obama perfect together.
Occam's Tool| 4.4.11 @ 8:21PM
Hmmm...good and great and rotten Presidents of the Twentieth Century.
Well, FDR was a great one in his effect. Not all of what he did was good; much of it was bad. But he was a colossus. TR was better in many ways than FDR. Certainly smarter. Coolidge was very good.
Truman was another substantial one. Ronnie, as well. Ike was a very good one. (12+ approx 8 plus approx 8, plus 8, plus 8, plus, I think, 5?= 49 years of very good leadership in 100 years.
Execrable Presidents in that time span---Wilson---8 years, Harding--2 years, Hoover, 4 years, LBJ Five years, Nixon, 2nd term--two years, Carter---4 years, Bush I 4 years---Clinton was a rotter and an ass, but we did well economically and avoided any major wars---I will defer on this one. Total---29 years of truly rancid leadership, possibly 37 if one includes Clinton, who was better morally than LBJ and JFK, more competent than LBJ, Carter, Nixon, Harding, Wilson, Hoover and Bush I---I can't really count him, therefore.)
However, of the two Presidents of the 21st Century---Bush II was mediocre at best, and Obama is the fourth worst in history, so far---trailing only James Buchanan, Harding, and Hoover so far that I can tell. Possibly better than Pierce and Fillmore, as well. But that's the company he keeps. Carter's right with them, as well.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.29.11 @ 7:00AM
One of your best articles ever. Let me follow it up with this quote from F. A. Hayek:
"The successful politician owes his power to the fact that he moves within the accepted framework of thought, that he thinks and talks conventionally. It would be almost a contradiction in terms for a politician to be a leader in the field of ideas. His task in a democracy is to find out what the opinions held by the largest number are, not to give currency to new opinions which may become the majority view in some distant future"
Another quote on alleged conservatism:
"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Dai Alanye | 3.29.11 @ 9:08AM
The Hayek quote about Conservatism describes European conservatism, the defender of the old order and the old way of doing things. It has very little to do with modern American conservatism.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.29.11 @ 9:13AM
Tell me what's different. It's precisely what's happening with alleged American conservatism which is simply statism.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.29.11 @ 9:13AM
Tell me what's different. It's precisely what's happening with alleged American conservatism which is simply statism.
PaulyD| 3.29.11 @ 9:38AM
He just told you. The European definition is "the old order of doing things."
In America, the old order of doing things in Liberalism. The Obamanites are operating off a 1930's New Deal playbook and its ideas have dominated the Federal government ever since.
It is American conservatives that have dynamism and a new ways of doing things. American Liberals are the "Establishment." They have become the modern version of European conservatives.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.29.11 @ 9:54AM
Once again, what is different? The quote in fact was aimed squarely at what passes for conservatism in this society.
By the way, you're completely wrong that it is American conservatives that have dynamism. The article pinpoints that what has passed for conservatism is actually just another form of statism. Hayek also saw that clearly.
Frisbee| 3.29.11 @ 6:16PM
Bill: as a libertarian, please try to distinguish the baby from the bath water.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.29.11 @ 9:40PM
We are led by statists from both parties with few exceptions. Anyone who believes anything else is a fool.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.29.11 @ 9:40PM
We are led by statists from both parties with few exceptions. Anyone who believes anything else is a fool.
Frisbee| 3.29.11 @ 10:17PM
I'd be interested to learn who you think the exceptions are. Hopefully there are more than just a few. Maybe Mr Lord could share who he thinks the exceptions are, too.
Occam's Tool| 4.4.11 @ 8:23PM
Exceptions: Allen West, the Pauls, Jim DeMint.
The problem with the Pauls is their complete blindness to the problem of Sharia.
BA Cyclone| 3.29.11 @ 12:03PM
I think your quotes are perfectly apt and right on point.
The "true conservative" has a real job to do, because it takes genuine intellect to catch the intrinsic value of the honestly conservative view.
I bristled at the 2nd quote's use of "anti-intellectual" but in its colloquial use (particularly in most educational institutions) it is sadly on point. The nature of a "conservative politician" is by definition difficult, because the nature of our civil society and lack of any pure education on civics and the Founding is almost non-existent.
From Ronald Reagan:
"Government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us."
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden."
-First inaugural speech, 1/20/1981
Larry| 3.29.11 @ 5:04PM
The best quote of all, from Reagan's inaugural address. We are blind to the power of government to hurt all of us. Some are more blind than others. If only we could raise Reagan from the dead. If only someone else in the GOP could say and truly believe this.
missbosslady| 3.29.11 @ 8:09PM
Larry,
I have to disagree with your suggestion of either raising Reagan from the dead or finding that "one" person who's going to lead us where we want to go. In fact, it is the crux of the problem.
If we are indeed a government for the people, by the people and of the people, then one person just won't cut it.
It is a criticism that I have leveled at the black community - still looking for the next MLK. But, what if he never shows up? Don't wait for a leader, lead yourselves!
How long do we wait for this mythical politician that will perfectly fit the bill?
Or do we make ouselves so formidable that any intelleigent person, that is ready to follow the will of the people, will suffice?
I believe that union busting of public workers is essential, just as essential, is the busting of the political class and all of their entourage.
Of course they're statists! Who signs their paychecks?
My job requires that I am in government facilities every single work day. I have been doing this for over 12 years. I am notorious for being the most vocal and demanding of customers. Lately, I am almost unbearable.
I have thrown down the gauntlet in my county. My daily protestations are vociferous and spectacular. I represent the tax paying public in my role and it's a bad day when a government worker finds themselves in my crosshairs.
I'm done! I refuse to take it anymore!
At the end of the day, though, what bothers me most is that I am usually the only one willing to stand and fight. Many, many customers will stand and watch me in action, mumbling their agreement under their breath or out of ear shot, but none step up and join me. They are fearful! Can you believe it!
I always ask my fellow customers if it doesn't give them pause to admit that they fear their own government. My query is usually met with a blank stare.
These are indeed bad days.
Pelligrino| 3.30.11 @ 9:04AM
Miss BL, Good for you! You are correct.
One, the mythical new inspiring conservative leader is indeed mythical. I like your line about the conservative movement being so formidable that many could be in the leadership roles.
Don't back down inside government agencies or when dealing with them. Keep up your assertiveness where they demonstrate their foibles, laziness, and mismanagement.
The sad part about the fear: It can be real; they have the databases on all our information. Law enforcement can/does. Other agencies will be able to tap into the medical electronic records.
God Is Truth| 3.29.11 @ 7:04AM
Excellent column Jeffrey, but I think we both know the answer to your question. Today it's all about "electability", "conservatives don't garner the independent (fence sitting) vote", & "I can't stand his/her voice, hair style, speaking style, etc. Therefore he/she is a moron!" The answer to your question requires no thought Jeffrey. Prepare for incoming GOP establishment Statist in 2012. Conservatives need not apply. Thanks Jeffrey for writing a column that needed to be written. Take care & God bless!
wodiej| 3.29.11 @ 7:08AM
Great article. Real conservatives absolutely must come to grips with this solid reality that the GOP has turned into a bunch of reach across the aisle RINO's with no guts. We need a real conservative on the ticket in 12 who will hold Obama accountable. Who has the courage to withstand the onslaught of lies and attacks that will be thrown at them. Who has a stellar reputation and is grounded on principles. Who believes in the constitution and limited government and will work to implement it.
Gov. Sarah Palin can do the job and I know she would select a solid conservative to run on the ticket with her. Let's do it.
Mimi| 3.29.11 @ 5:13PM
I Thought for a minute there you were talking about Mark Levin !
Louis Jenkins| 3.29.11 @ 8:41AM
Mr. Lord:
An excellent article. Yes, we have the king amist our labors, and he eats more than his fill. If we are to have a government that will happen. Unfortunately, the king has grown so large that he is about to implode and there are so many of his kinglets that we hardly know were to begin. It exists on both sides of the aisle, although more so on the left. This past year we had a good beginning, a slap of their jowls so to speak. The true conservatives must gain more momentum, and if God be with us, win more seats. It is all that can save us.
C S Lewis| 3.29.11 @ 8:49AM
I agree with you wodiej....Gov. Sarah Palin can do the job because she is a Constitutional Conservative. There will only be a fight to get our country back from years of progressive permissive corruption of what the founders established if Sarah Palin is elected President of The United States. Otherwise everything will continue as is and worsen until we cease to be home of the free and land of the brave.
Vern Crisler | 3.29.11 @ 9:50AM
Mega dittos...
Pelligrino| 3.29.11 @ 1:42PM
C.S.L., I am with you. Fundamentally, yes. But have we heard from Ms. Palin on the ending of perks for Alaskan state residents. I know its tough to live up there in that environment and cost of living and all that....but no special interests should mean that, 'No!' as in none.*
Bigger issue: Why do we have no men as prospective national-level candidates with the obviously strong (conservative, values, family, American exceptionalism) Ms. Palin qualities?
*I had a work colleague who is still Alaskan; he just moved back after 17 years away. Somehow he kept his Alaskan state residency all those years away (this is my understanding -- from him) despite not physically living in the state. He did this for obvious financial self interest reasons.
BA Cyclone | 3.29.11 @ 1:57PM
Seek out Herman Cain. Seriously.
http://www.thinkersvoice.com/
RPFAE| 3.29.11 @ 3:09PM
Are you aware that Herman Cain is a former chairman, deputy chairman and member of the Federal Reserve Board of Kansas City? How's that for some serious statism? He doesn't mention his tenure at the Fed much but a "google" will tell you all about it.
Frisbee| 3.29.11 @ 6:19PM
Sarah Palin is more than just a Constitutional Conservative. She is an Honest Wholesome Hard-Working Grass-Roots Pro-Life Constitutional Libertarian Conservative, with Spunk (and pretty too).
Anthony| 3.29.11 @ 9:39AM
An excellent article. You have summed things up very well, Mr. Lord.
The fight is against the entire Washington paradigm that has been feeding on itself for decades. They know no other way because the agenda of the statist, be they liberal or conservative is CONTROL and POWER.
While I agree with C S Lewis and wodiej that Gov. Palin has the strength and the courage to break this Washington paradigm, she will not be able to do it alone, as Reagan was unable to do so.
You can expect to see the likes of John Boehner and Eric Cantor stand toe to toe with the leftists in order to maintain the Washington status quo.
No, Gov. Palin can't do it alone, she needs the folks of the heartland with our pitchforks to storm the capitol and tear down this horrible centralized, bloated behemoth.
They know it, which is why both the establishment Ds and the Rs have turned on the people. This is not going to be pretty sight.
Redstateboy| 3.29.11 @ 9:51AM
Once again it must be repeated... right now in the Republican Party.. the only few people with balls are the women.. Palin, Bachman, Malkin, Coulter.. and unless DeMint can gut it up - Soon! we're going to have - atleast I will - go with the ladies... Anyone but Hussein!
ColorMeRed| 3.30.11 @ 9:32AM
De Mint and Ryan are the only MEN in the bunch. And neither will run.
Petronius| 3.29.11 @ 9:55AM
Democrats and RINO's are united in their goal to deprive liberty to any and all outside of their control. And they have succeeded in halting upward social mobility for average people. The Powerball jackpot is now our only hope. And when an unreconstructed white male wins one, that galls them even more.
To Patricia Harrison et al: I don't want your money, club memberships, or your daughter in marriage. I want MY Freedom back! In a Free society, any person should be allowed to climb the social food chain through lawful means and become totally independent without jumping through any Politically Correct hoops.
Who Knows?| 3.29.11 @ 10:14AM
Another bright line article, Mr. Lord---thank you!
No doubt Lincoln’s quote is probably THE Manichean either-or, with respect to economics AND politics, and has been stated in many ways.
For myself, I always like to classify the two sides as TAKERS verses MAKERS.
Also, in the class of TAKERS, there are FOOLS or KNAVES.
The ones in the TAKING class are either receiving unearned largesse or being ripped off, themselves. Takers are knaves. Fools get taken, without knowing it.
Here’s another most basic “however” for us to take into account---
Even before the Lincoln split, there exist separate humans, and these days their essence is clearly gotten in the myth of Narcissus.
We all assume we are conscious. We seem to be certainly aware of other people and the flow of activities “out there”, beyond “our” bodily form. We use “our” minds to create useful mental images and memories in order to make---order, for survival’s sake.
Being conscious, or Truly, being Consciousness ITSELF, absolutely requires---choosing.
Precious instant by instant, we must make choices. Such is our decisive life!
So, this poster woman, Patricia Harrison, while definitely useful as a hook for our freedom-loving attention, is simply CHOOSING her reality, given what she observes as the “open field” of options before her.
Hence, take Washington D.C. as a moniker, and transcend the word by trying to entirely comprehend that it tries to stand for a status quo of successful Narcissists who’ve simply understood how to best further their OWN aims----and, there are MILLIONS of them!
NOW.
Meditate on the trillions of words by people like Mr. Lord, over the entire history of conscious humans, but especially Americans since the USA was created, about this TAKE or MAKE “break” split---and, still the government continues to grow.
As I irregularly like to recall, from my own youth in the 50’s, those Sunday mornings when we fought over the funny papers, I’ll never forget one of the most eye popping “political” cartoons, called, “There Ought To Be a Law”.
Every week it played Mr. Lord by exposing the latest outrageous “law”, or usually, one that was really old and not only useless but stupid and unnecessary---which always got a laugh: stupid lawyers!
“However”---it’s always the LAWYERS who get the last law laugh, eh?
Perhaps the key Manichean ongoing splitting process concerns how to divvy up the (hopefully) continuing profits gained by increasing productivity.
Heretofore, both the takers and the makers have been able to get at least some of this, so the golden goose that is the American economy is still alive.
We’ll probably always have to fight over the whole gamut of creative goods, including the fruits of man’s labor AND the profits.
Meanwhile,
“Be Consciousness.
Contemplate Consciousness.
Transcend everything in Consciousness.”
This is the epitome of the Way. By Da Free John, “The Liberator (Eleutherios)”, 1982
George S| 3.29.11 @ 10:34AM
You speak of statism as a force that overcomes the ruling class and kings and is imposed on us against our will. I think not. Lincoln's axiom applies to us, not government. We are the ones who wish to see our neighbors do the heavy lifting, whether it is voting, political activism, joining the military or making the high income that makes our own taxes lower. How many say "ABC corporation should sue... those citizens should protest... people should stop paying..." but never themselves get involved. Worse yet, their little corner of government is sacrosanct, whether it is a pension guarantee or a social security check. Oh, yes, they are quite content for others to earn the bread and have a piece given to them.
That is where statism comes from in a democracy, so it is only natural for the political class to capitalize on this selfishness. Very easy to promise bread without work. You want to get rid of statism, simply do away with all federal entitlements. The hard part is that the people feel as if they are kings and will never part with their piece of the entitlement pie. As long as they can vote.
Pelligrino| 3.29.11 @ 2:13PM
George S., you are correct. We all expect some large "other" groups to have to give-in, give back. But, no! Not me....
One very large segment of our society that will need to do the right thing is our military, present and former (the veterans & retirees). They need to say, "Enough!" (loudly)
Having the Veterans' Administration as a cabinet position, having annual new legistlation to add to the long line of perks and bennies....it is disgusting.
Anyone who served can tell you that one was given a salary, often a place to live (rent free, no utilities payments), an education within the military in one's specialty and the MGIB (Montgomery GI Bill) education benefits once back as a civilian. VA home loans, VA hospitals for the down and out....
Some of the most powerful, well-heeled lobbyists in Washington, D.C. are military interests groups. And they haven't slowed down -- despite the fact that military service today is a golden path.
There is no comparison to what G.I.s had or didn't have just 40 years ago.
(It's why we have so many in the ranks there for the wrong reasons.)
This is one more area where politicans pander bit time. They roll out more perks (costing taxpayers millions) and try to wrap themselves in red, white, and blue.
The real problem: The vets, retirees, etc. accept these handouts (on top of what already is sufficient in programs).
Folks: We cannot afford the coming tsunami of military benefits/outlays on retiree checks monthy. Think about it: A man leaves the armed forces at age 42 and lives until 75 years old. 33 years of retiree paychecks. (he only served 20 or 21 years)
The example above is NOT the American way. If one did it for the financial benefits, one did not serve; one was in the ranks for the wrong reasons.
**Obvious: As a nation we do ALL we can to help those with horrible burns, missing limbs, truly broken on the battlefield.
Yes, our military community is going to have to stand up and say, "No more. Military service is not designed to be a potentially lucrative place to work with perks aplenty."
The Old Chief| 3.29.11 @ 6:29PM
I'm sorry but I must take umbrage at this. During my 30 years of active duty I spent many long months separated from home and hearth while undergoing long days and nights of drills, work and study. The pension I now recieve, even with all the COLA's, still doesn't match up to what a person of equal pay grade recieves now.
Pelligrino| 3.30.11 @ 12:54AM
Old Chief, you illustrate the point perfectly well. Police chiefs, firemen, first responders, and teachers across the nation will say the same thing -- with some variations.
If you did not like the rigors of military life (And it was not always soooo rigorous now, was it? Be truthful) and months away from hearth & home, you had ample junctures during the 30 years to walk away and pursue another occupation.
You are retired now. Fine. Be honest enough to let your fellow Americans know how much they are paying for you right now.
And...you had a salary all those 30 years from American taxpayers. Ample opportunities to sock away monies for the "rainy days" and retirement years.
A Balrog of Morgoth| 3.30.11 @ 11:40AM
I'll do the work you are too lazy to do yourself:
A 30 year Master Chief, who could retire at age 48 (if he joined when he was 18) would get 75% of his highest three years of salary, i.e. @$55,000.
A 20 year Chief, who could retire at age 38, would get 50% of his highest years of salary, i.e. @$22,000.
This may sound like a lot compared to what's available to the average insurance company office potato in Peoria, Il. Note that said office potato does not work in an inherently dangerous environment, and no, I'm not even talking about the guys who get shot at. Other than shoreside admin jobs, almost every Navy job is inherently dangerous, e.g. even the office clerk types still go to sea. So, let's tell those people how much we value their service by cutting them loose with NOTHING at age 42 or 48 to start NEW careers.
What Pelligrino does not understand, as is readily apparent from his airy dismissal of the rigors or military life and his worship of the WW2 GIs is that A) This is an age of limited wars and professional armed forces rather of the levee en mass and B) You get what you pay for.
De-professionalizing the U.S. Armed Forces may seem fiscally prudent-until we get our asses kicked by someone who did not. That will be very expensive.
Occam's Tool| 4.4.11 @ 8:28PM
I'm not in favor of cutting military pensions. Sorry.
There are many other things to cut first, like pensions for Congressmen.
Bill| 3.29.11 @ 10:43AM
This is the most succinct and accurate definition of the issue facing conservatives as they struggle to find a home in the Republican Party. Is there any hope?
Redstateboy| 3.29.11 @ 10:58AM
Gimme my choice of Lightbulbs or gimme death!
TL| 3.29.11 @ 11:31AM
Excellent article, with one quibble. The article makes clear that the divide is between liberty and tyranny. Fine. But why then does the article repeatedly say that those with tyrannical tendencies are "good" people. Tyrants are not good. It is not okay to be one, or to side with one. These are not good people. Don't give them more credit than is their due. They are bad people. They don't "mean" well either. A common thief may mean to do something good for himself, or for someone the theif cares about, with the victim's property. But the thief still means to steal. He or she is a thief. That is all.
Al Adab| 3.29.11 @ 11:33AM
Just another of a whole panoply of agencies which should be eliminated. A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon we are saving real money, to paraphrase.
PA Conservative| 3.29.11 @ 11:44AM
Great Article.
Clearly, it is time to support a true Conservative like Michele Bachmann for president in 2012!
Teflon93| 3.29.11 @ 12:02PM
That sound you hear is Jeffrey Lord being shunned by former colleagues at statists outposts like National Review and The Weekly Standard.
Keep this up and you won't be invited on Hugh Hewitt's show or to comment on Powerline, Jeff!
Mel Torme| 3.29.11 @ 12:36PM
Teflon, the National Review pussed-out back in the mid-90's when they fired Brimelow over too many truths about immigration. I don't know about the Weekly Standard, but I'll consider it a rag based on your comment.
You are right about Mr. Lord. He went out on a limb this time, and good on 'em. I've never heard the word "statist" so many times in one article (albeit 4 pages), and I LIKE IT! It's just that those invitations for the Washington FS cocktail parties with the NR buttlickers will quit coming, and that sort of thing. On the other hand, I could imagine his girlfriend getting quite a bit hornier, knowing she is not dating a wuss.
(huh? What does FS mean after Washington? Just what it looks like - Federal Shithole)
Teflon93| 3.29.11 @ 12:06PM
That sound you hear is Jeffrey Lord being shunned by former colleagues at statists outposts like National Review and The Weekly Standard.
Keep this up and you won't be invited on Hugh Hewitt's show or to comment on Powerline, Jeff!
Mel Torme| 3.29.11 @ 12:37PM
Teflon, the National Review pussed-out back in the mid-90's when they fired Brimelow over too many truths about immigration. I don't know about the Weekly Standard, but I'll consider it a rag based on your comment.
You are right about Mr. Lord. He went out on a limb this time, and good on 'em. I've never heard the word "statist" so many times in one article (albeit 4 pages), and I LIKE IT! It's just that those invitations for the Washington FS cocktail parties with the NR buttlickers will quit coming, and that sort of thing. On the other hand, I could imagine his girlfriend getting quite a bit hornier, knowing she is not dating a wuss.
(huh? What does FS mean after Washington? Just what it looks like - Federal Shithole)
Mel Torme| 3.29.11 @ 12:37PM
Sorry, double reply.
Bob K.| 3.29.11 @ 12:07PM
How much money does she make as CEO and will good old "W" take care of her again if she has to take a hike away from the sinecure he regally disposed on her?
That is all we have to know about her to figure her out.
CalMark| 3.29.11 @ 12:17PM
A conservative pol once said you must abolish Unconstitutional entities altogether: putting even a rock-ribbed conservative in charge of a statist fiefdom (like NPR) to run it (as opposed to shut it down) leads to savage defense of said organization.
William R| 3.29.11 @ 12:17PM
Sorry, but Levin with his views on war powers has exposed himself to be the ultimate statist.
BA Cyclone| 3.29.11 @ 2:02PM
That seems completely senseless.
Levin apparently believes the Constitution (and the wisdom of the founders) carries more weight than a joint resolution of Congress. I happen to agree with that.
William R| 3.29.11 @ 2:31PM
Levin thinks the President can launch wars against Chicken *hit countries like Libya without going to congress.
Libya was no imminent threat to the United States and it hasn't attacked us either.
Thus is Obama should have gone to congress.
Levin is a NeoCon through and through.
Mimi| 3.29.11 @ 5:33PM
Will....Turn your RADIO on 770 WABC or the internet at 6 pm......You will never hear a drop of STATIST in Mark ! He is the REAL-DEAL !
We all have some differences in views! You have the most intelligent, well spoken teacher of the constitution and a pure blue-blood of CONSERVATIVE thought bar none!!!
William R| 3.29.11 @ 11:25PM
Levin is a 3rd rate NeoCon hack. He's no conservative. He's truly reprehensible.
missbosslady| 3.29.11 @ 8:25PM
No offense William, but unless you have the same constitutional credentials as Levin I'm taking his word for it.
By the way, Levin did not say that he agreed with the military action, he said that the consitituion did not preclude Obama from making the decision without congressional approval.
Naturally, this is not what many of us want to hear, but the real question is; is Levin right or wrong, constitutionally speaking?
William R| 3.29.11 @ 11:26PM
Levin got his ass handed to him by Tom Woods on the War Powers debate.
jgo| 3.29.11 @ 12:50PM
CPB should have been eliminated decades ago, along with the National Endowment for Arts and Humanities, the Socialist Insecurity Abomination, Medicare and Medicaid. It's not just the redistribution. It's not just removing one miniscule bit of federal over-spending. It's that they're fundamentally unconstitutional and geared toward promoting expansion of unconstitutional leftist measures.
Is it that the left has successfully infiltrated?
Is it just that Republicans are too kind, gentle, and polite (i.e. wimpy simps) to carry through against the mean-spirited radical leftist party? Do they just run out of energy on election night?
Hayek was well aware of the differences between European conservatives and American, between Europe's leftists and America's, hence the reference to "true liberalism".
jgo| 3.29.11 @ 12:55PM
What is "political activism"? What is "community organizing" or just plain "organizing"? What does it mean when someone says they're going to "go out and organize people"? And why are people so reticent to say?
I mean, most people are more or less organized; they put their keys in this pocket or that part of their purse; they put their books to read over there; they put the fork on the left and the knife and spoon on the right; their under-wear in those places and their shirts in these other. But I get the impression that's not what people who often chatter about being organized mean.
Pelligrino| 3.29.11 @ 1:31PM
1. This is why Jeb Bush cannot be considered for anything anymore.
2. This is the problem with two large political parties. It is understandable that so many shun the Demoncrats....but to go where?
3. Being GOP means...? Means what?
4. There is nothing wrong with a multiparty system. Our Constitution does not define, limit, or promote political parties.
5. We'd be better served by 7 - 9 different parties. Then platforms matter -- who reads or even skims party platforms today? And every new voter (the youth coming into adulthood) could better see what each party stands for and represents.
6. It's too muddled today. It would be delightful to see a Lincoln-Conservative-Constitution Party Governor, Lt. Governor and sizable numbers of elected representatives and senators in the state chambers for a state like....Ohio, Missouri or North Carolina. When those Lincoln-Conservative-Constitution states start to thrive and leave the light blue and ultra blue states in the dust, like a Romney-Kerry-Dukakis-Kennedy-Brown Massachusetts, then all who pay attention see the truth(s).
We already have this now with huge migrations of people out of the Northeast and Rust Belt. Multiple political parties reveal a alot, and make truths more tangible for all. That would be a good thing. Right now many saboteurs hide under the GOP mantle.
Stacey Shoemaker| 3.29.11 @ 1:50PM
except for the author being too nice to our enemies (yes, Statists of ALL varities are our enemies) this is a really, really good article, Thank you Mr. Lord!
loulou| 3.29.11 @ 1:57PM
Unfortunately, the Bushes are part of the problem.
The statists are free to mess with the GOP.
We, the people, are free to rebel against them.
And that means NO MONEY to the RNC, etc.!
Maybe the statists will eventually get the message and switch to the Democrat Party.
Pelligrino| 3.29.11 @ 2:28PM
Since the mamouth failures of the new Republican US House of Representatives in their 11 weeks of control, how many of you have also gotten GOP fundraiser telephone calls at home about dinner time? GOP House, Senate, etc. paid callers shilling for more from our paychecks.
The pitch is for an even bigger majority following November 2012. Well, golly. If you cannot win now with a majority (and 13 Obamacare US Senators ready to be fired by their states in 21 months), then you don't know what you're doing.
(some of these US Senators will be primaried one year from today)
Feckless. Liberalism, spending, the size of government, the regulations, the anti-economy armies of government bureaucrats.....The people of the nation get it; the GOP does not.
So back to those telephone donation calls.
For what? Not a dime! LouLou is right.
RPFAE| 3.29.11 @ 3:15PM
Great article... thank you. RUN, RON, RUN!
Son of Liberty| 3.29.11 @ 3:45PM
Bush brought on the death of the RINO's. Obama has brought on the death of the Progressives. Farewell and good riddins to both.
Michael L. Hauschild| 3.29.11 @ 7:20PM
What you said!
saleboter| 3.29.11 @ 3:47PM
Based on this article the only non-statist president we've had since 1932 is Reagan.
Mel Torme| 3.29.11 @ 4:46PM
How about Ike? He wasn't too bad. Kennedy would be called a right-wing terrorist today were he alive saying what he did back then - his statist tendencies came out, however, when he allowed collective bargaining (aka unions) in the federal government. Then you had Johnson, and that's when things really started going in a statist direction.
Al Adab| 3.29.11 @ 5:59PM
Mel,
You just about cover it. Ike even used the national defense act rather than the commerce clause to justify the interstate highway system. A few years back one of the Senators read excerpts from a speech during a Senate debate. Watchers could see Ted Kennedy getting visibly red faced with anger at the comments. Then the Senator doing the reading attributed the quote to... JFK. Today JFK would clearly be a moderate in either party. That is the measure of how far we have fallen.
NJK| 3.29.11 @ 4:22PM
How hard is it? Read the Constitution and follow it. If I were in office, my first question would be when asking me to sign on to a bill, "Is it Constitutional?" If not, don't waste my time. I think I'd put a sign on my door, if it's not Constitutional, don't come in.
Bill M| 3.29.11 @ 4:23PM
It's ridiculous to talk about small government in the 21st Century. This is NOT the sleepy, agrarian society of Thomas Jefferson.
And we don't live in ANARCHY. Any society with LAWS is "statist" by definition.
So many of today's so-called Conservatives do not see the hypocrisy in their own views----they oppose government interference in people's lives, yet at the same time want to USE government to impose a religious orthodoxy on individual choices. Like telling a woman she has no control over her own body....as if she is merely a "receptacle" with no choice at all. OR using their own version of "statism" to prohibit certain behaviors they find offensive (i.e. gay marriage).
The flip side of pop-conservatism today is the lurking desire to USE the government to advance a social agenda.....despite all the rhetoric about Liberty.
The Constitution is a ferociously SECULAR document. It contains not ONE word about Gawd or Christ or any other deity. Not one.
Yet some of these folks would have us tear down the Statue of Liberty and replace it with a Cross.
Face it folks.....we need government and courts to protect us against all the whaky elements out there who are eager to enforce their OWN statist agendas.
Is it perfect? Of course not. But there's no going back to an era of small government ever again.
Get over it.
missbosslady| 3.29.11 @ 10:57PM
You poor lost soul!
You have much to learn little one.
You know not of what you speak.
P.S. That is some shop worn, thread bare talking points you dragged into this conversation. You're really going to have to do much better than that if your going to involve yourself in such discussions. An original thought would be a good place to start.
Bill M| 3.30.11 @ 2:54PM
An ad hominem response. But I don't live on a plantation where the boss has a whip over me.
I vote. I've been a Republican all my life, so this discussion is a worthwhile venture into intra-party issues.
Sardi| 3.31.11 @ 10:01AM
You've got to know~ most of the people that post here are Libertarians. They don't view conservatism as you or I do, they're all a bunch of anti-war hacks who really side with the Left. They preach fiscal conservatism and American Isolationism and that's it.
You'll find this out the more you post here~ and all flavored with a disdain (and worse) for Israel.
AmSpec is a haven for these types. And some of the authors have the same "view."
Look up Lew Rockwell and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Good luck.
Larry| 3.29.11 @ 4:59PM
"Ms. Harrison is doubtless a good person. This is not a personal criticism."
The heck it isn't!! Stop being polite. The fate of our republic is at stake here. These criticisms are every bit personal, and need to be. People like Patricia Harrison are enablers, useful idiots, for the Leftist enslavers. They should be drummed out of the Republican party for good; her and people like John Weaver, who is at best a naked opportunist who seeks power without having to bear the responsibility of making difficult decisions that have serious consequences on people's lives. The type of man that Weaver is is nothing short of a coward, a grand vizier lurking in the background getting all of his perks, the perks conferred on those who, like Lincoln said, toil and work for the bread.
PCP Smoker| 3.29.11 @ 7:57PM
Fine essay as always. But as always, the GOP voters will cower in fear of Obama. The hapless David Frum already laid down the strategy, giving on the presidency and fight for the congress.
I can already see voters in South Carolina, much like voters in Arizona did in 010, deciding that Grahmnesty is a good conservative who has earned re-election.
Michael L. Hauschild| 3.29.11 @ 8:33PM
Mr. Lord,
If you feel something warm, wet and heavy on the foot of your bed........................
Dee See| 3.29.11 @ 11:15PM
NOT UNTIL we have candidates NOT selected
by the CFR, RIIA, Rockefeller capstone inter-nationaist cabals et al
NOT UNTIL we have candidates fearlessly ready
to reckon with the RED China-TREASON issue,
with the EUGENICS agendas (specialized breeding, MASSIVE population exterminations)
NOT UNTIL we have an electorate ready to look
fearlessly at our last century's staged reality
and its grisly, 'designed' CON-sequences
WILL ANYTHING ---ANYTHING AT ALL CHANGE
IN FACT, it's on schedule to get much, much, much worse.
REALLY
TRULY
UNDENIABLY------------------------------------------
Timely Renewed | 3.30.11 @ 1:19AM
Even if true fiscal conservatives are elected in 2012, attacking our bloated national government piecemeal issue by issue as Mr. Lord describes is a retail solution when the problem is wholesale. We need to redress the underlying distortions of the Constitution which have allowed the federal government to expand far beyond its original constitutional powers, not nitpick at separate individual usurpations. We need to amend the Constitution to restore the original constitutional structure which limited the federal government's ability to expand to such a ridiculous size and power.
However, this is difficult to achieve when Congress holds a monopoly on initiating constitutional amendments. The solution is an "amendment amendment" which gives the States the ability to initiate constitutional amendments without a convention. This will allow grassroots constitutionalists to press a program of amendments carefully drafted to achieve the restoration of the original constitutional structure. Only this will permanently constrain federal overreach of the sort rejected by the people last November. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com
Osamas Pajamas| 3.30.11 @ 2:31AM
SPARKS FROM WYATT'S TORCH
What this country needs is a truly LIBERAL president and congress and judiciary! And I forgive the reader for suspecting that this must be some kind of bad joke!
But the Democrats believe in "statism" --- not "liberalism."
They benefit from the imprecise American political terminology ---- we say "the government" here in the USA ---- rather than "the state." And that's a dangerous problem. Famous brands of statism in recent centuries have been Nazism, socialism, fascism, communism, and welfare statism ---- this last is a mixture of fascism and socialism.
Liberalism, on the other hand, is a political philosophy of small, cheap government ---- it is a constabulary ---- and the job of a liberal government is to enforce human rights within its own jurisdiction. I speak of the unalienable and perfectly-natural and universally-valid human rights of life, liberty, private property, and the pursuit of personal happiness.
The first article of private property is "the self" and all other rights are derivatives of and flow from these cardinal rights. These rights ---- The Rights of Man ---- are the gift of nature or of nature's god ---- and they belong to all human beings, everywhere.
Show me a Democrat who subscribes to all of the above, without qualifications or weasel words. The words "liberal" and "liberalism" were hijacked by the Democrats and socialists and fascists long ago ---- and it was the mistake of conservatives and libertarians to let them get away with it.
It is long past time that liberalism be reclaimed, defined, and explained by its rightful owners ---- by the champions of freedom, i.e.: not by Democrats.
Well, how about "progressivism?" Whuzzat?! “Cancer” is “progressive,” too. Isn't “progressivism” just another statist cancer? It chews you up, piece by piece, in the name of Da Peepul? Eat Da Rich? Moral cannibalism, anyone?
Friends of freedom! Friends of peace-through-strength! And friends of prosperity! Declare yourselves to be "liberals," then ---- and kick over the bloody coffee tables --- and overthrow and trounce the Democrats in 2012!
ColorMeRed| 3.30.11 @ 9:24AM
Amazing article....so who do you recommend for Pres? I already ruled out Huntsman, Romney and Daniels!
ColorMeRed| 3.30.11 @ 9:39AM
We need a different solution, controlled by the states and the people - not the DC criminals.
http://the4thawakeningnet.ipage.com/?page_id=2376
carol| 3.30.11 @ 2:05PM
I could care less who she was or is is rino is a rino
Just another part of the ruling class
clean house
find a real job fundraising to support what you like
Frisbee| 3.30.11 @ 10:00PM
Carol - that's why i appreciate the AmSpec: they shed light on these otherwise hidden cockroaches.
Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 11:14PM
is good