The Real Loser in Last Night's Debate in Ames

. . . was Obama, no matter any other spin I have read. The energy in among the Republican contenders and their supporters was palpable. I sense that the President is way behind in the count and that a poor showing by him could prove disastrous for his party in November 2012. I would welcome that result if I thought the Republicans would focus on repealing Obamacare, rolling back regulation and trimming spending. We'll see. They have betrayed these principles before. Hence the need for a non-partisan movement to hold them accountable.

The Insanity of Ethanol

Makes more sense than paying to convert it to ethanol.

I am waiting for a Republican candidate to renounce ethanol tax breaks and subsidies. In the meantime, I reiterate the shear insanity of the policy of burning food as a motor vehicle fuel. I have made many of these arguments before. The insanity of our current policy of providing tax incentives to turn corn into ethanol are many:

1. Ethanol yields 30% less energy per gallon than gasoline, so it harms fuel efficiency.
2. It is not clear whether or not the production of ethanol actually produces more energy than it consumes. Regardless, it produces less energy than drilling for oil.
   
3. It is heavily subsidized. That means the free market has determined that ethanol is not an efficient way to produce fuel for vehicles. Subsidies are almost always a waste of taxpayer dollars, ethanol is no exception.
   
4. Ethanol subsidies increase the price of corn, which in turn increases the price of meats. Essentially, we are burning food and driving up its price. World food prices are rising, increasing starvation. Ethanol has been fingered. This is a moral issue as well.
5. Ethanol isn't good for the car engine of the most fuel efficient car in my family. So any purported benefit is mitigated by the damage it does to fuel efficient vehicles.
6. Corn is not the most efficient way to produce ethanol. Switchgrass is more efficient.
7. Drilling for domestic oil reserves would reduce dependency on foreign oil far more effectively than ethanol subsidies. The foreign oil dependency argument is the favorite one advanced by conservatives.
8. And lest we not forget, conversion of farmland to subsidized corn production crowds out barley production, raising the price of beer.
   

More expensive, thanks to Iowans.

The only reasonable explanation for the continuation of the policy is that it favors Iowa, which holds the first test of Presidential electoral strength due to its first in the nation caucuses held in January of each election cycle. Who will be the candidate of principle to announce his or her disdain for ethanol in Des Moines?

More Obama Fail - Immigration Reform

President Obama discussing immigration reform in June 2009, Official White House Photo by Pete Souza.

In a clear signal that Obama will demagogue any issue to help his re-election chances, we read this from the U-T.

President Barack Obama told about 70 national leaders in a private meeting Tuesday that immigration reform is still one of his priorities despite the failure of the DREAM ACT and the absence of movement on other immigration reform.

The meeting focused on how to engage Americans in a discussion around immigration reform and Obama asked the leaders to use their influence to shape the public conversation.

That would be code for, "accuse the Republicans of being racists so this issue can kept alive as a wedge for the next election cycle." The article goes on to quote Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice Education fund, as saying the President is willing to spend his political capital on this cause. Bunk. First, as if he has any. Second, if that was true, the President would have already spent the capital to pass the poorly named DREAM act in the first place. Third, if the President were serious, he would enforce the border.

So what can we do to fill the vacuum left by Obama's leadership on the issue. I think comprehensive immigration reform is too important to let the Democrats take control of the issue. But the American people want the rule of law enforced, so the down payment has to be a real commitment to enforce the border. But the GOP should make this promise, once the border is secured, we will work to establish a guest-worker program of sufficient magnitude to meet the real labor demand in this country. We will provide a path, not to citizenship, but normalcy for those here illegally who are willing to return to their country of origin and enter the country legally. Further, we will be open up the H-1B to millions more workers as part of an effort at reform.

Such an effort would be good for the country and good for the Republican party. Many of these legal guest workers will be Hispanics and Asians, giving the lie to the slander that Republicans are racist. Further, the country needs younger workers to help solve the structural deficit, as I have outlined before.

Note the U.S. baby boomer bulge moving into retirement causing strain on the economy. India, by contrast has a large, young population, facing no such challenge.

Skilled immigrants, like those that come to this country under the H-1B, can help the country compete globally, as discussed here. By advancing a comprehensive agenda that will include respect for the rule of law, but at the same time help solve some of our countries most pressing issues, the GOP will help the country and itself.

Self Congratulations? Among California Republicans?

This is an "inside politics" post that most regular readers may want to ignore, cross posted from sdrostra.

Yesterday, on sdrostra.com, Jim Sills congratulated Tony Krvaric on his election to the Vice Chairmanship of the California Republican party. I do not dispute that San Diego will have more influence in the state party as a result, but I take exception to the self-congratulatory description of the 2010 election results in San Diego. Many of the touted successes were officially non-partisan. More importantly, the GOP made absolutely no progress in taking seats in the State Senate or Assembly, including in San Diego districts. This should be seen as a bitter disappointment when compared to GOP results nationwide. As a Republican, if only for three years, I believe we should set our sights higher, much higher. 2010's election returns in California should be seen as a abject failure, which should result in soul searching and prompting a sense of crisis for our party. I hope Mr. Krvaric will bring such a sense of urgency to his new office.

New Strategy in Wisconsin

I have previously opined that the Republican state senators in Wisconsin should hive off the collective bargaining portion of the bill and pass it without the Democrats present. This would take the air out of the issue and let the Democrats return. James Lindgren who frequently contributes to Volokh, has the same idea in an editorial on NRO. So far, the state Senate majority leader, Scott Fitzgerald (pictured) has declined to take this approach. The reasoning may be that some of his colleagues may be loathe to vote for a measure that strips the collective bargaining privilege unless it is wrapped in a larger budget vote. In my opinion, this is correct, although another reason is that they may not want to go on record as either in favor or against the measure, fearing a Tea Party challenge in the primary if they vote no, but an electoral defeat in the fall if they vote yes.

Regardless, the State Senate could pass the hived off bill without the Democrats present for legal reasons discussed in the article. There are principled reasons for doing so as well.

Making democracy work can be a difficult task, especially if some actors refuse to perform the duties with which they were entrusted by the people. Yet aggressive approaches that try to punish senators or protesters may backfire. The governor and the legislators who remain should do everything they can to get the business of the legislature done, with or without the Democrats. Responsible legislators should worry less about protesters and wayward senators and do their own jobs, passing the parts of the statute that don’t need Democratic support. This is not just a matter of strategy; it is a matter of principle. Instead of obsessing about who is not there and why one can’t do what one wants to do, those who remain should focus on the task at hand. If the Republicans believe that changes are needed to repair Wisconsin’s budget, they should enact most of those changes now.

Here, here. And it would remove the public relations disaster that the protests have become.

Referendum on Obama

No Mr. President, it's we who should be angry with you. We are all Americans, we are not each others enemies.

Let me be clear, this election is a referendum on the Presidency of Barack Obama. From the Hill, Looming anti-Obama mid-term vote may not carry through to 2012:

Seventy percent of respondents in The Hill’s latest survey of 10 battleground districts said their feelings about President Obama will play an important role in how they vote on Nov. 2.

From The Economist, Obama and the Mid-Terms, How did it come to this?

At his swearing-in in 2009, the Democrats enjoyed comfortable majorities in the House and the Senate and Mr Obama himself basked in a worldwide sunshower of goodwill. Pundits started to wonder whether the defeated Republicans had been smashed for a generation. How is it possible, just 21 months later, that the Democrats are expecting a thrashing next week and the Republicans look poised to take control of the House of Representatives, and maybe even the Senate?

Both linked articles say that the public blames him for moving too far to the left on health care, especially, and ignoring the economy. He's reputedly a smart guy, so why did he ignore the economy and focus on health care? Because he is ultimately ideologically driven in a way that is incompatible with a free market. This has led him to make policy errors that the public understands. I believe that the internet has allowed understanding of free market economics to spread in the public. The same anger that gave rise to the nascent Tea Party even before George Bush had left office is now channeled at Obama's policies. It has nothing to do with racism, and everything to do with policies that are antithetical to American traditions of free markets and Obama's ignorance of basic economic principles. (The link is to a nice history of the origins of the Tea Party movement in today's WSJ. I would love to hear what Dawn, Leslie or Sarah think.)

People knew instinctively that politics as usual had failed them when they elected Barack Obama in 2008. The Republicans had cast away all principle and the Democrats were already starting to ratchet up the spending through their control of the Congress. Obama promised tax cuts and a change to the culture of corruption of Washington DC. Instead he delivered more deficit spending, which the public understands will mean tax hikes down the road. He also delivered a health care bill characterized by give-aways to special interests, corrupt back room deals and soaring insurance costs for the average American. He demonstrated that he cared not one whit about their concerns which center around getting the economy, so that people can go back to work and small businesses can make a profit. For these reasons, I propose voting Republican, for the most part (not you Abel Maldonado), to send a stinging rebuke to a President who failed to deliver on his promises and a Congress that also violated its promises concerning ethics and deficits.

Getting outflanked?

Dean here again helping out B-Daddy who is busy with some course work.

For an illustration of just how dire our public education system is in parts of our country, consider this: Democratic mayors from traditional machine-politics cities of the Midwest, Rust Belt and the Northeast are standing up to the teachers' unions in an attempt to implement pragmatic results-oriented solutions to their towns' school districts.

During the last weeks of the term, third graders at School 58-World of Inquiry School created an oil spill in a bowl. Under the guidance of teacher Alyson Ricci, they tried to clean it up. Cotton swabs worked.

The school last year won the national Excellence in Urban Education Award, with all students meeting state proficiency rates in science and social studies. It's an exception, though, in a Rochester system where fewer than half of the 32,000 public-school students graduate on time.

Rochester Mayor Robert Duffy wants to set up more schools that produce results like World of Inquiry's. But he says the superintendent's efforts to close failing schools and open new ones have been hobbled by a school board mired in minutia. He is pushing to dissolve the elected board in favor of one appointed by the mayor and city council for a five-year test period. New York's state legislature is considering the bid.



As cities come under increasing pressure to fix failing schools, more are, like Rochester, trying to take matters into their own hands—or at least those of their mayors.

"People are desperately seeking a model that can be duplicated and used in different communities," said Jim Ardis, the mayor of Peoria, Ill., who is considering such a move. He argues that a Peoria model—yet to be developed—is more likely to fit smaller cities across the Midwest than existing systems in larger urban areas.

The school district of Boston, where mayoral control was first pioneered back in '92 has been joined by New York City, Washington D.C., Chicago, Cleveland, New Haven, Conn., and Providence, Rhode Island which are now all under mayoral control.

Of course, giving the mayor more autonomy at the expense of school boards is not going unchallenged by the school boards themselves and their allies, lawmakers at the state and municipal levels and, of course, the teachers' unions (it has been declared unconstitutional by the courts here in California, natch).

Unions say mayoral control often ushers in policies counter to teachers' interests. Cities with mayoral control often seek to award pay or decide layoffs based on performance rather than seniority. Mayors have also pushed for the opening of charter schools, which are more difficult for unions to organize than public schools.

Once again, no where do we ever see the union concede that they may not have all the answers and how they might possibly be open to trying something different that just might be in the better interests of the children. Somehow the battle cry of "it's for the children!" is strangely absent in matters that actually effect the children.

Please read the article where they go to extents to explain that there is no cut and dry nor any black and white plan to reforming the district hierarchy but only a willingness to mix it up and try something different apart a culture and mindset that is failing the children of lower and working-class families.

Side note: We have taken the Republican Party to task at every opportunity for not doing enough to get out in front of education reform, particularly in way of vouchers, school choice and charter schools. Here is a situation, though, not of their making whereby the Democrats have a simple structural advantage in that the most significant education reform battles are being waged within the ranks of the Democratic Party itself and thus, the biggest proponents of education reform will be Democrats.

No matter... all the more reason for the Republicans to get off their sorry asses and engage the opposition in the education reform debate. It's doing right by the children, it's electorally-favorable with minorities and it cheezes-off the unions. Tell us again what we're missing here?

Freedom Coalition Agenda for the Republican Party - Update 1

Updates will be published at the bottom of the article.

One of the reasons I started this blog was to advance an agenda that would further the cause of freedom. In my experience, being right on the issues isn't enough, one's coalition must pick issues that are winners and can capture the public imagination. Ron Paul provides the negative example. He was right about the current bubble collapsing, but framed his brief in anti-Federal Reserve, "bring back the gold standard" rhetoric associated with the lunatic fringe.

The Republican party has some great opportunities to advance a popular agenda. So here is my proposed Freedom Coalition agenda and a little about why I think these issues are winners. As with any agenda, it should change with circumstances and I will update it periodically.

• Champion Freedom of Speech. We oppose campaign finance reform that protects incumbents and vested interests. Ultimately, these laws abridge free speech. There are so many examples of small groups harassed by monied opponents when they seek to organize to protect their rights. In Colorado, some neighbors who didn't want to be annexed by another city held some bakes sales to raise money for signs and ended being fined thousands of dollars. See Sampson v. Coffman. We also oppose campus speech codes that are intended to silence any point of view except the prevailing leftist orthodoxy. See FIRE article. This issue is a winner because Americans have long rejected the claim that others can tell us how to think and what we can say, especially when it comes to politics. Although they aren't happy about money in politics, it is easy to demonstrate that opposition to free speech isn't the answer. More on the right answer below.
  
• Oppose Eminent Domain abuse. Originally, the concept of eminent domain was meant to prevent individual property owners from holding the government hostage when building a road or other public good. Over time, this right of government morphed into the power to seize your land at the behest of the powerful for any reason, however flimsy. This view was challenged in Kelo vs. New London, but our side lost on a 5-4 decision, one of the most unjust outcomes since Dred Scott vs. Sandford. Fortunately, the appalling sight of the powerful and well connected preying on small business owners and individuals is fueling a backlash. But eminent domain abuse continues and this remains a powerful issue for our side. Here is an example of a hard fought victory n Long Branch, NJ, where officials want to replace middle class households with upper class ones. Frequently, the victims of this abuse are poor minorities. In this case a victorious homeowner was also presented an award from the NAACP. This is real outreach on issues that affect minorities that would benefit the GOP.
  
• Support School Choice. We could continue this outreach by taking on the school choice issue at full tilt. I previously blogged where the Arizona school teachers union wants to take away the ability of special needs kids to get much needed educational help through a voucher program. I think the Democrats are VERY vulnerable on this issue. School choice is the real civil rights issue of our day. Bad schools are wrecking the chances of poor and predominately minority students of being successful in college. Even the liberal University of California agrees with me that minorities are educationally disadvantaged. Interestingly, even though the academic literature on the benefits of choice are somewhat mixed, it seems to be that the greatest beneficiaries of school choice seem to be the urban poor. Further, as we experiment with choice we will find the combination of programs and incentives that really work.
  
• Oppose Partial-Birth Abortions. Because the practice is as odious and repugnant as the name suggests. Americans can viscerally understand this issue. How can it be legal to kill a baby 8 months into a pregnancy when that same child if delivered, would be afforded full protection of the law? It is illogical, and even though I am a Christian and hold all human life sacred, I don't have to rest my case on theological arguments. One need only talk to an abortion survivor to understand the horror of this procedure. I blogged about the politics of this issue here.
• Advance Economic Freedom. The recent move to bail out everyone, everywhere who is having economic difficulties is just not going to work and will wreck our country. We need to insist that the loans made to banks and industry be paid back as soon as possible and that we take measures to prevent such loans from being made with such poor oversight in the future. Americans are very uncomfortable with mortgaging their children's future as polls still indicate. The next big battle will be around health care. The Democrats will seek a government system that will slowly drive out private alternatives. There will be fines for big business at first, later for small businesses and finally for individuals. But this approach will wreck progress in health care. We need to do a good job of explaining why such an approach inevitably leads to rationing and bureaucratic stupidity on deciding how much health care you can receive. Dean launched an excellent overview of the issue in light of Ted Kennedy's cancer treatment.
  
• Support Freedom Abroad. Newly liberated peoples the world over have shown a propensity to embrace freedom and markets when the yoke of tyranny has been lifted. The policy of America should be to actively work against dictatorship in allits forms (Islamic, Socialist, Fascist and Communist). We should seek to advance the cause of freedom, not through force of arms, but through steady pressure. Every piece of foreign policy should be weighed against this end. Further, we are also ready to use force of arms in this cause when defense of our national interest requires it. Americans resonate with the concepts of helping to liberate peoples from tyranny, this is a winner.
• Small Government and Reform. These issues go hand in glove. The public loathes the sight of big business getting handout in the form of bailouts, subsidies and tax code preferences. They see the Congress get gobs of campaign contributions and rightly conclude that the money is buying access that tilts the playing field, at best; or buying Congressman at worst. Smaller government means less goodies to hand out. A reform agenda to end earmarks, end subsidies (even for ethanol) and simplify the tax code removes the incentives for business to try to buy the votes of the Congress. I can't find the original quote, but I remember Steve Forbes saying, "If you have a vermin problem in your kitchen, you can set traps and board up holes, but sooner or later your going to have to remove the cake from under the sink."

So that's my proposal. Short, but I hope substantive. I welcome your comments, disagreements, additions and satire. And I'm looking for a better acronym.

B-Daddy

UPDATE 1
Health Care Reform. We have shamelessly taken John Mackey's program and adopted it as our own:

1. "Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts."
2. "Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits."
3. Allow competition across state lines.
   
4. "Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover."
5. "Enact tort reform."
6. "Make costs transparent."
   
7. "Enact medicare reform."
8. Revise tax law to make it easier to donate to those without insurance.