ledeagenda.com

From Rasmussen:

Running under the Tea Party brand may be better in congressional races than being a Republican.

In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.

Among voters not affiliated with either major party, the Tea Party comes out on top. Thirty-three percent (33%) prefer the Tea Party candidate, and 30% are undecided. Twenty-five percent (25%) would vote for a Democrat, and just 12% prefer the GOP.

Among Republican voters, 39% say they’d vote for the GOP candidate, but 33% favor the Tea Party option.

…

Seventy percent (70%) of Republican voters have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party movement while only seven percent (7%) offer an unfavorable view. Interestingly, 49% of Democrats have no opinion one way or the other.

Forty-one percent (41%) of all voters nationwide say Republicans and Democrats are so much alike that a new party is needed to represent the American people. Republicans are evenly divided on this question, while Democrats overwhelmingly disagree. However, among those not affiliated with either major party, 60% agree that a new party is needed, and only 25% disagree. Men are far more likely than women to believe a new party is needed.

Perhaps the most telling statistic:

Among the Political Class, not a single respondent picked the Tea Party candidate.

Enough said, I believe.

From The WSJ blogs:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin fired a shot at the Federal Reserve in her coming-out speech in Hong Kong today, blaming the central bank for the current crisis and disagreeing with the idea that the Fed should have a greater role in preventing the next crisis. It was an echo of fellow Republican and Texas congressman Ron Paul, who has led the charge in Congress to perform an audit of the Federal Reserve with an eye to eventually eliminating it.

“How can we discuss reform without addressing the government policies at the root of the problems? The root of the collapse? And how can we think that setting up the Fed as the monitor of systemic risk in the financial sector will result in meaningful reform?” she said. “The words ‘fox’ and ‘henhouse’ come to mind. The Fed’s decisions helped create the bubble. Look at the root cause of most asset bubbles, and you’ll see the Fed somewhere in the background.”

More generally, Mrs. Palin took the tack that the financial crisis occurred because government got in the way of free enterprise.

“Lack of government wasn’t the problem, government policies were the problem. The marketplace didn’t fail. It became exactly as common sense would expect it to,” she said. “The government ordered the loosening of lending standards. The Federal Reserve kept interest rates low. The government forced lending institutions to give loans to people who as I say, couldn’t afford them. Speculators spotted new investment vehicles, jumped on board and rating agencies underestimated risks. So many to be blamed on so many different levels, but the fact remains that these people were responding to a market solution created by government policies that ran contrary to common sense,” she said.

On the question of more complex economic issues, Mrs. Palin told the hall filled with bankers and economists, that would come later.

“Maybe you’re hoping to hear me discuss the derivations of the formula for effective rate of protection, followed by a brief discussion of the monetary approach to the balance of payments,” she said. “If time allows, a quick summary of factor price equalization. Maybe some thoughts on quantitative easing, but that’s for next time. Because I have spent my life closer to Main Street. That’s what I want to talk about is that view from Main Street,” she said.

See Also: WSJ Blogs: Ron Paul Q&A: Audit The Fed, Then End It

Nothing is more important at this period of time than auditing the Fed and stopping forced “swine flu” vaccinations. Any politician who tries to distract you off these two issues does not have his finger on the pulse and heartbeat of liberty.

From KTVB:

Sen. Dean Cameron, R-Rupert and chairman of the Joint Finance-Appropriations budget committee, told the Times-News that July tax revenue that was about $27 million shy of the same period in 2008 could force the 2010 Legislature into difficult choices.

Cameron says, “Now it’s going to force us to discuss what programs are necessary…and maybe even eliminate agencies.”

Cameron declined to name what agencies might be dumped.

Finally! It appears that the polls have finally caught up our representatives.

Consider this from Rasmussen:

Seventy percent (70%) of likely voters now favor a government that offers fewer services and imposes lower taxes over one that provides more services with higher taxes, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

That’s up five points over the past month and is the highest level measured in nearly three years.

Given the alarming rate of state power consolidation under the Presidency of Barack Obama, it’s no surprise to see 70% of the public saying no to increased government intrusion into our lives. The ’silent majority’, a large demographic represented by a limited government philosophy, has been shaken awake by the radical vision of President Barack Obama.

What is even more encouraging is that these voters will not be satisfied with simply cutting taxes, they want a legitimate and real rollback to the power of the state. For example, consider the polls- forty-nine percent of people say workers should be able to opt out of Social Security, fifty percent of people oppose health care reform, and forty-six percent of people are deeply worried about the Stimulus money being wasted.

Another encouraging sign- most voters seem aware of the scope of the battle that we are facing. Sixty-eight percent of voters expect to see their federal income taxes rise under President Obama. The general consensus finds that fifty one percent of Americans are deeply distrustful of our financial (Federal Reserve) system and seventy-five percent favor auditing the Fed.

Ludwig von Mises wrote in 1929, “Government is the negation of liberty”. In the wake of the economic collapse, the bailouts, the radical expansion of government power and nationalization of our economy it appears that a majority of American’s are wanting government to be replaced with personal responsibility. This will involve shrinking government by eliminating programs and reducing regulatory reach. Taxation, if we are successful in also stopping Cap and Trade, Obamacare and increased government spending, should also plunge a result.

Note the shift: cutting taxes is a result of our action, not our main purpose.

We can claim legitimacy to our case by advocating a strict return to the enumerated powers of the Constitution, rolling back the Federal government to its proper size, scope and role. This requires outreach, education and organization. If you haven’t already done so, may I suggest networking with the Campaign For Liberty, the We The People Foundation or the American Liberty Alliance?

Something to watch- if the motivation to cut government lies only in pure fiscal/budgetary reasons, our representatives may well find themselves with even further dissatisfaction among their supporters.

This presents a real danger to the Republican party as it’s political base has essentially organized themselves separate from the Party itself (i.e. “Im a conservative first, Republican second“). Viewing the Tea Parties, et all as a groundswell of support for their cause is a very big miscalculation of the politcal winds. This has all the markings of an idealogical shift- one that will leave the party playing catch-up with the political direction of it’s base.

He voted against the Stimulus plan. He co-sponsored HR1207. He has opposed the banker/auto bailouts. He opposed Cap and Trade. And now….

 From KTVB:

Idaho’s two U.S. House members are joining the opposition forming against legislation designed to reform the nation’s health care system.

Rep. Mike Simpson, a Republican, is vowing to vote against the bill supported by President Obama and many congressional Democrats.

While Simpson agrees changes to the health care system are needed, he says the bill awaiting debate would raise taxes, cost too much and not do enough to fix the problems.

Democratic Rep. Walt Minnick says the bill is flawed, fails to guarantee affordable health insurance for all Americans and calls for too big of a role for government.

Still, Minnick says he is hopeful that he can support a final version of the bill that is more fiscally sound and has broader, bipartisan support.

I will withhold my firm judgement in hopes that the “more fiscally sound, broader and bipartisan” health care bill” never emergres from the cespool of Congress.

To the believers of freedom and liberty these times are proving dark and onerous indeed. Obama, under the guise of, “fixing the economy” has proceeded to add to, complete and surpass every statist goal of the administration prior to his. In fact, I think I have finally figured out what Obama meant by “hope and change”- he is advancing the completion of total state control (”hope”) by finally removing that which limited politicians in the past, caution and prudence (”change”).

National health care. Cap and Tax. A Supreme Court justice nominee who has opined that, ‘no one has a right to a gun’. Increased Federal oversight of the economy. More bailouts and Stimulus spending.

Is this what most voters wanted?

From a pure economic perspective, I highly doubt it.

From Rasmussen Reports:

Eighty percent (80%) of Americans now say Wall Street benefited more from the bailout of the financial industry than the average U.S. taxpayer.

Only eight percent (8%) of adults say the taxpayer benefited more, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Twelve percent (12%) are not sure.

This marks a notable increase in skepticism from October when 63% saw Wall Street as the chief beneficiary as the first bailout of the financial industry was working its way through Congress. In February when the Obama administration announced another bank bailout plan, 67% said Wall Street would benefit more than taxpayers.

…

This opposition has been consistent since a government bailout for the financial industry was first proposed last September.

There is little partisan disagreement that Wall Street benefited more than the average taxpayer, but that consensus breaks down over support for the bailout itself.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans and 65% of adults not affiliated with either major political party say the bailout funding for banks and other financial institutions was a bad idea. But Democrats are evenly divided over the question.

I think it is pretty clear, the public despises the bailouts. Period.

Or how about this one, again from Rasmussen:

Just 35% of U.S. voters now support the creation of a government health insurance company to compete with private health insurers.

 

 

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 50% of voters oppose setting up a government health insurance company as President Obama and congressional Democrats are now proposing in their health care reform plan. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.

In mid-June, 41% of American adults thought setting up a government health insurance company to compete with private health insurance companies was a good idea, but the identical number (41%) disagreed.

I think these polls are significant, it demonstrates most clearly that the battle for maintaining the free market is winning the minds and hearts of an increased number of Americans. Still, a great sense of unease remains.

I know many of my libertarian friends are fit-to-be tied with their fellow American’s perceived stupidity. From a pure libertarian perspective, it can be said, there should be no wavering from the principals of liberty and freedom. Many Libertarians view this Republican reawakening with disgust, “where have you been the last six months/two/eight years?” they ask with emphasis in the gritting teeth and tension spurred by political strife.

And yet still, most people who have actually been involved in the process with more mainstream political candidates and ideals know that a great amount of re-education will be needed to restore a significant enough coalition and voting block to truly be competitive in the marketplace of ideas.

Bryan Caplan, writing for CATO Unbound, summarized the tension between what people want and how they vote this way:

To see if the average voter’s beliefs about the economic effects of immigration are right, for example, you can ask the general public and professional economists, and see if, on average, they agree. Is this an infallible test? No; experts have been wrong before. But it is hard to get around the strong presumption that if experts and laymen disagree, the experts are probably right, and the laymen are probably wrong. More importantly, if you have some specific reason to doubt the objectivity of the experts, you can control for it. If you think that economists’ high income biases their beliefs, for example, you can check whether laymen and experts agree after statistically adjusting for income.

This was precisely the approach that I used to analyze the best available data set on economic beliefs, the Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy. The overarching finding: Economists and the public hold radically different beliefs about the economy.[4] Compared to the experts, laymen are much more skeptical of markets, especially international and labor markets, and much more pessimistic about the past, present, and future of the economy. When laymen see business conspiracies, economists see supply-and-demand. When laymen see ruinous competition from foreigners, economists see the wonder of comparative advantage. When laymen see dangerous downsizing, economists see wealth-enhancing reallocation of labor. When laymen see decline, economists see progress.[5].

In other words, there is a huge disconnect between those setting policy and those who vote for the people who will set the policy. This is a very disturbing revelation indeed, especially considering that the public has turned so sharply against the policies of a President they elected a mere eight months ago. 

Consider- despite nearly 72% Republican opposition to the bailouts, Senator John McCain suspended his campaign in September 2008, just shy of a month and a half away from the general election, to vote IN FAVOR of the bailout package.

Consider- a united Republican House stood in opposition to the Stimulus Package, only to find a few short months later in June that eight so-called Republicans voted for the Cap and Trade bill. This is even more significant when you consider that the ‘Cap and Tax’ bill, as it has become known in Republican circles, passed with a mere seven vote majority.

Consider- despite having 271 Co-Sponsors in the House, HR1207, Ron Paul’s bill to Audit The Federal Reserve, has been denied a floor hearing by House leadership. Furthermore, Senate leadership is also equally missive, refusing to allow the Senate counterpart, S. 604, to be attached to a Stimulus spending bill. Still more, the Administration, being directed by his Wall Street backers, is pushing a bill that would expand the powers of the Federal Reserve to nearly every corporation in America. This is intended as a pushback and threat to those wanting Federal Reserve transparency.

So, where do we go from here?

Our backs are up against a wall, but this is the hand that we have been dealt. Our charge, given to us when the hour is late and the stakes are high, is to infiltrate and restore the small-government mindset that has held as a great cohesive glue holding both the conservative and libertarian wings of the Republican Party intact.

Libertarians, as much as you enjoy espousing your open-minds and free-lifestyles on issues such as drug-reform, immigration, war and gay marriage, these are not issues that are universal or approachable for most people within the Republican Party. A conservative contractor isn’t very likely to find a open-borders policy as acceptable, especially when he has seen his own field infiltrated by illegal immigrants. Gay marriage is the same for your Christian or LDS Republican voters- the Libertarian mindset that marriage is not an issue of the state would largely serve as a disqualification for office for those who serve a higher calling.

I believe that there is a very limited set of ideals that conservative and libertarian voters share. Coincidentally, these ideals just happen to be an antedote to the completion of the statist goals of President Barack Obama.

I would like to propose that the great unity of principal can be narrowed to two basic ideals: 1) limiting the power of the state and 2) returning and defending free-market principals.

Your traditional mainstream conservative voter will find common ground in preserving what is left of our formerly free market. Largely, this block of voters was most consistently against the bailouts and government spending found in the Stimulus package.

On the other side of the politically Republican coin, the libertarian voter will find him or herself agreeing with the approach for truly limited government. In areas where government has exceed its mandate, either by the Constitution or public will, we can make an effort to repeal said legislation. Libertarian voters will  be able to exhaust some of their pent-up political energy in rolling back perceived government intrusion and expansion.

It has often been said that the Republican Party is the party of limited government, smaller taxation and personal freedoms/family values. Inherently, the last part of the three follows when the first two are seen through to completion, no matter if you’re more libertarian (freedoms) or conservative (family values) in nature.

The Republican Party has already done a great job of developing interest groups for defending the free market. Be it Heritage, Americans For Prosperity, the National Taxpayers Union or just our basic pro-business approach, we have already mastered this area and should continue to do so.

However, largely, the Republican Party has sought to distance itself from the libertarian wing of the Republican party when they call for the abolition of various entities of government, be it the IRS, the Department of Education, or the Patriot Act. This is a mistake that must be corrected and ultimately will have to be engaged after Obama leaves office for liberty and freedom to reign.

So where do we start? Simple: we seek to repeal the Stimulus and TARP legislation in its entirety. We seek to stop the Cap and Trade bill and the nationalization of our health care. This will require, ultimately, significant pressure being put on Republicans like John McCain and the Cap and Tax Eight. Should they be unwilling, or unable, to help the Republican party return to its roots we should assist them with retirement or Arlen Specter them.

In short, our philosophy will be to decentralize and repeal and our gameplan will be to push out RINOs and welcome back in the libertarian and constitutionalists. It won’t be easy and probably won’t get us any points in the mainstream media. But, honestly, given what we are up against, do we have any other choice?

From the Campaign For Liberty Website:

This press release just out from Dr. Paul’s congressional office:

Washington, D.C. - Congressman Ron Paul (TX-14) is pleased to announce that all 178 Republican members of the House have now signed on as cosponsors of his Federal Reserve Transparency Act, HR 1207.

This legislation calls for a full and complete audit of the Federal Reserve by the Government Accountability Office, reported to Congress by the end of 2010.

“Now more than ever, we need to know what the Fed has been doing in secret. I am pleased that all of my Republican colleagues in the House, as well as many Democrats, understand the need for this kind of transparency,” stated Congressman Paul.

HR 1207 has a total of 271 cosponsors and has been referred to the House Financial Services Committee.

Thanks to all of you who worked so hard to make this happen! Now it’s time to keep up the pressure on the rest of the House Democrats and our senators! Click here to visit our Audit the Fed action page.

———————————————-

More proof that Freedom and Liberty loving people, by getting involved with the Republican Party, can indeed get it headed back on the right course.

I don’t make it a habit of checking out the Democratic Party website, but occasionally research and proper perspective balance leads one down that path as a libertarian constitutionalist.

I was greatly amused, ecstatic, that I found this: The Party Of NO

That’s right. House Republicans have stood up to Obama “long enough” (just over 100 days) and Democrats aren’t going to take it anymore.

The Party Of No.

It has a nice ring doesn’t it?

I enjoy being the ‘Party Of NO’. I enjoy delivering NO Republican votes for Obama’s socialism. I enjoy standing strong and united in the face of tyranny. I enjoy opposing Socialism. I enjoy stopping the destruction of our Constitution. I enjoy saying ‘thanks-but-no-thanks’ to government expansion.

This is what I want out of my party. I don’t want expansion of any government program. I don’t want any new government benefits. In fact, given our current budget deficit, we need to give serious consideration to shrinking or ending the benefits we have. Like parents to spoiled children, “no” is the appropriate response when your government is stepping out of line.

This is what Eric Cantor said shortly after the House Republicans stood up and did not deliver a single vote for Obama’s spending bill:

The second-ranking House Republican, Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), put it more bluntly. “What transpired . . . and will give us a shot in the arm going forward is that we are standing up on principle and just saying no,” he said.

Strong Republican opposition will be the only thing that can stop a nation drunk on excess from finally going over the edge in a radical and transformitory self-destruction.

Locally, here in my home state of Idaho, the House Republicans are fighting one of the first of these battles.

Governor Butch Otter, elected largely for his popular libertarian leaning public perception, has gone from friend of the taxpayer to a plan for the future realist. Arguing that Idaho needs to adequately fund road projects now to avoid increased costs in the future, Otter has effectively alienated himself from the political base of his own party by arguing relentlessly for increased taxes on gasoline. So far, the Idaho House has refused to capitulate to his demands, voting down not once, not twice but voting down gasoline tax increases seven times.

In return, Otter has vetoed 33 bills in an attempt to display his executive power. The Idaho House has given no sign of caving in to Governor Otter who has threatened to prolong the Legislative process until they give in. Indeed, many may be tempted in the face of overwhelming pressure to end this Legislative session and promote more bad public policy of increased taxation and government growth.

The newest proposals from Otter’s office would raise gasoline taxes far in the future and only reflect more of the “buy now, pay later” mentality of debt that got us into this mess in the first place.

This battle is the first of many that Republicans are going to have to face to restore a national identity. We will be tested more now than at any other time in our party’s history. Our ideals are seen as outdated and counter-productive to effective political discussion. However, I will argue that it is because we abandoned our traditional message- lower taxes, less government and personal freedom- to give out political favors to those who would vote for us that we have become ineffective.

The way back is simple- we need to cut government and cut it drastically. It is no longer enough for Republicans to be against new taxes and new growth, we must seek to turn back what we already have. Like the family that is overspent or is facing a sudden and drastic downsize in their income, all things must be on the table to reach that zero-sum game. Remember, just because a government program is doing good doesn’t mean that it is right for government to be doing it at all.

Yes the battles will be tough, but this vision also offers the most hope for the future. We must be able to clearly contrast the government controlled ideals of socialism with that of Freedom and Liberty.

To do that, Republicans must not be afraid to be the ‘Party Of NO’.

The Republican Party, reeling from two devastating election cycle losses, has put together The National Council For A New America to help, “reshape the party’s image”.

Taken from House Whip Eric Cantor released this statement on the newly from NCNA:

Today, we are launching the National Council for a New America (NCNA), a caucus of Congressional leaders gathering the expertise of national leaders and doers. We hope that will form the foundation of a concerted, policy-based forum to listen to, partner with, and empower the American people with ideas and solutions that speak directly to the needs of our great nation. This forum will engage in a conversation with America that seeks to remove ideological filters, addresses the realities we are confronting, and speaks to the challenges our citizens are facing.

The NCNA will bring together citizens from across the country to begin a dialogue with the American people through a series of forums, town halls, and an online effort that will engage people in a discussion to meet our common challenges and build a stronger country through common-sense ideas. The NCNA will be a dynamic, forward-looking organization that will amplify the common-sense and wisdom of our fellow citizens through a grassroots dialogue with Republican leaders.

However, this is not a Republican-only forum. While we will be guided by our principles of freedom and security, we will seek to include more than just our ideas. This forum will include a wide open policy debate that every American can feel free to participate in. We do this not just to offer an alternative point of view or to be disagreeable. Instead, we want to ask the American people what their hopes and dreams are. Since January, the President and the Democratic Majority in Congress have – rightfully so – put forward their plan for the future, now we must listen, learn and lead through an honest, open conversation with the American people that will result in building policy proposals that will yield the best results for our nation’s long-term success.

I hope I am not reading to much into this. But how “grassroots” can these meetings be when you have already determined the agenda of the party for the future: economy, healthcare, education, energy, and national security? How “grassroots” can these meetings really be when the biggest RINO in the party, John McCain, is the one calling the shots? How “grassroots” can this event really be when you are specifically calling for non-republicans to participate?

I guarantee you that there are more people signed up with the Campaign for Liberty and with TaxDayTeaParty.com than this supposed “grassroots” NCNA organization will ever even engage.

Maybe the Republican leadership doesn’t realize that the base of the party no longer needs them to organize things. We can communicate via Twitter, Facebook and MySpace to the the real ideals that conservatives, constitutionalists and libertarians are thinking. We no longer need their permission to advocate Liberty and Freedom.

Here is another guarantee: should the Republican party ever decide to engage the party base, they will find RINO’s like John McCain completely and wholly disliked by the people who actually donate their time, labor and money into the party coffers.

If the grassroots had any say in the formation of this NCNA John McCain would have no place within it. In fact, if the grassroots of the Republican base truly had a say in recent affairs then John McCain would have been asked to leave the party along with Arlen Specter. Let us never forget that McCain suspended his campaign to vote in favor of the bailouts.

Look, Republicans shouldn’t have to go back to the party, the party should have to go back to them. Cut taxes. Cut government. Let people sink or swim based on their own actions, let them be accountable. Let failing businesses fail. Preserve the free market to give opportunity to new ones. Government is so big, so onerous now that even a mild yearly government growth of 3-4% is worthy of political revolution.

You want to know why the Tax Day Tea Parties were even necessary? Because the Republican party was not doing it’s job. Had the Republicans stood up to the TARP legislation and the expansion of social “benefits” under President Bush, hell really the last eight years of deficit spending, we wouldn’t be in this mess today.

I don’t want answers to come from Washington. I want answers to today’s problems to come from the free market, utilizing the government only when the Constitution specifically authorizes the power to do so. In fact, I will take it a step further, I want my political party to specifically advocate positions that would make it harder for government to intervene in the free market.

But, as it seems, the real patriots are the ones that once again will have to work twice as hard to save the country. Once again fighting with their own party to try and get them to listen to their real agenda: stopping the bailouts and shrinking government, all the while working more hours to support the moochers who are feeding off the social programs that the “big tent” philosophy supports.

Smaller taxes. Less Government. Personal Freedoms and Responsibility.

Can we please get a real call for conservative reform before Obama manages to completely destroy this country? Is that too much to ask?