The Conservative Journal » Conservative

What a Conservative at the Helm Looks Like

Bill Francis — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:33:30 +0000

With the election of Scott Brown, the “Tea Party” movement has finally gotten the attention of the main-stream media. No longer are we considered to be “Right Wing Extremists”. Likewise, we are not simply in the Republican camp either. Instead, we are looking for, will support, and hold accountable Conservative candidates for office at the local, state, and federal government levels.

Now that we have the attention of the main-stream media and have shaken the foundations of the socialist/status-quo agendas of the politically entrenched, many voting citizens are taking note and wondering – what exactly does a “Conservative Leader” look like. For those of us who are old enough to have witnessed the leadership of President Ronald Reagan, we have the benefit of our witness. However, many voters only know of President Reagan from news reports or perhaps text books. More likely, they learned about him from a source with a liberal bias that paints a rather unflattering portrait. Reagan was president over 20 years ago. Since then, our youth have experienced the extreme-left (Pres. Obama) and the middle-left (Pres. Clinton), and the middle-right (Pres. George W Bush); all of which to some extent had domestic policies that increased the size of government and helped raise a generation of people that look to the government for their provision

Fortunately for those who are now asking the question, “What does a Conservative Leader look like?” we have a living example. On February 11^th, recently elected New Jersey Governor Chris Christie called an emergency joint session of the New Jersey legislature to address the states $2.2B deficit – in a state where the constitution requires a balanced budget no less. If you are wondering what a true “conservative” leads-like, have a listen to his speech.

Keep in mind that the relatively small state of New Jersey has a $2.2B deficit. They got that deficit by playing “shell games” with the state budget – like forecasting state revenue increases when everyone knew that revenues would decrease. The same kind of shell games our leaders in the U.S. Senate and House of Representative play when they send legislation off to the Congress Budget Office for scoring with a set of “assumptions” with which the CBO is required to constrain their analysis. ”Assumptions” everyone knows have a near zero probability of coming to fruition.

To further develop your understanding of how a “conservative” leads, I’m providing you with an example of how socialists and defenders of the status quoe lead for contrast. Have a look at the response of democrats in New Jersey legislature as they try to defend spending money the citizens of New Jersey – one of the most heavily taxed states in the union – don’t have:

It’s time that our government officials, at all levels of government, come to terms with the same thing that every head-of-household knows – You need to live within your means. And living within your means does not mean printing more money, borrowing more money, and spending your children’s money. If you believe in these principles, if you believe in the power of the individual – not the provision of the government – then you are a Conservative. Now, vote like one.

Why Gov’t Is Not the Answer

Bill Francis — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 01:17:53 +0000

Conservatives proclaim that the government is not the solution to our economic woes… it’s the problem. You might ask, “What evidence do you have that can prove that?” Well, how about a “Cash for Clunkers” program that cost the American Tax Payer $24,000 per a car to encourage individuals, who otherwise would not have been in the market, to buy a car – the average price of the car around $26,900 [1]. This is the same government that is now dictating to the GM and Chrysler how to do business. Can you imagine your business – ANY business – spending 80% of the cost of an item to entice a buyer to make a purchase? In this case, they used our money to do just that.

Okay, so that’s one example – right? Well, how about the other government backed stimulus program – the one targeted at saving the real estate industry. In this program, the government is giving home buyers an $8,000 tax credit. This program was originally estimated to cost us – the taxpayer – a mere $7 billion. It is now on track to cost us double that – or $15 billion. So, what are we getting for our money? Well, according to the National Association of Realtors, the program has created 350,000 new sales [2]. A simply analysis shows that this little program cost the taxpayer only $43,000 per a sale. Oh, and Sen. Reid wants to expand this program, set to expire soon, to the end of 2010. The projected cost – an additional $30 billion dollars. The projected impact– an additional 500,000 in home sales. This means that extending this program will cost the taxpayer $60,000 for each additional house sold. Great idea Harry.

CAN WE JUST STOP THIS NONSENSE PLEASE! Is it any wonder our Nation’s financial house is an absolute mess. Look, I know first-hand people who have good paying jobs, who could well afford to buy a car without any incentive by the government, who were in fact in the market to buy a car. And here comes the government, dropping eight grand in their lap for doing something they were going to do anyway. And one by one, the politicians step up to the microphone and proclaim what a great job they are doing for our benefit.

I thought we had Czars with vast experience in business giving the President advice on how to best stimulate the economy. I guess we have a new adage: “Those who can’t succeed in business try politics. And those who can’t succeed in politics become Czars.”

Footnotes:

[1] Edmunds.com Press Release: Cash for Clunkers Results Finally In; Oct. 28, 2009

[2] The Washington Post: The home-buyer tax credit; throwing good money after bad; Oct. 27, 2009

These Are the Times

Bill Francis — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 15:59:38 +0000

This past summer millions of American’s many – if not most – of whom would never have described themselves as an activist showed up at town hall meetings, called their elected official’s office, marched, and stood up for their voices to be heard. Why? Because they saw The American Dream being attacked by the many who hold power in our political system. They were met with fierce commentary by those same elected officials, both past and present, who sought to marginalize and intimidate them into silence.

Today, Newt Gingrich spoke at the third annual Defending the American Dream conference sponsored by Americans for Prosperity. Newt reminded us that defending the principles that have helped to make America great has never been easy, but it has always been worth it. In his remarks, Newt spoke of General Washington’s great victory on a cold and stormy December night in 1776. Before crossing the Delaware River to attack the German mercenary soldiers camped in New Jersey, Washington had Thomas Paine’s pamphlet The Crisis read to his men. It begins with this:

THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. [1]

I encourage you to read all of Thomas Paine’s The Crisis. Having re-read it today myself, I am reminded that this pamphlet served multiple purposes:

It challenged the patriots, reminding them that “sunshine patriots… shrink from service…, but he that stand…” deserve thanks.
It reminded the citizen soldiers that the challenge they embarked on was one of sacrifice, but that freedom – ordained by God – was worth the price.
And it serves to remind us that any time we rise and standup for our principles, our values, and our freedom there will be setbacks, there will be missteps, there will be pain; but with perseverance, there will be victory.

I’m not suggesting that those of us who are expressing profound concern for the direction of this country or are involved in political battles are facing anywhere near the challenges Washington and his men faced on that December night in 1776. But nevertheless, we can and should be inspired by them.

The American Dream is worth the challenge and it is worth the sacrifice.

Footnotes:

[1] The Crisis, by Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

Two HC Reforms Conservatives Support

Bill Francis — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:33:35 +0000

“We the People”… Not “We the Governed”

Bill Francis — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 03:22:04 +0000

A little over 230 years ago, the “great experiment” of democracy began; a government of the People, by the People, and for the People. The Constitution and subsequent Bill or Rights established a nation that was unique from any other before it or since. Our country was established as a Republic where the fundamental relationship between the government and the governed was turned upside down. The governed was not there to serve the government. Instead, the government existed at the behest of the governed. Political power was not to be centralized in federal covernment, but the focus was shifted to State and local governments. We are the United States of America and the Tenth Ammendment is key to understanding the balance of power between the Federal and State governments.

Up until the birth of our nation, the history of the world was a history of tyranny, where the people’s very existence was subject to the will of the people in position of authority; chiefs, kings, lords, and barons. In any given nation, you will find examples of leadership that led well as well as examples of those that did not. The people where constantly at the mercy of “personalities” in positions of power.

Our Founding Fathers knew firsthand the misery of government tyranny and they took great pains, sacrificing both blood and treasure, to establish a “more perfect union” where centralized government would never be in a position to impose on the liberty of the people. Understanding this is essential to understanding the conservative point of view in the current healthcare debate.

The proposals being forwarded by the Democratic controlled House and Senate will forever change the most fundamental relationship between our government and the people. Any law that puts the government in a position whereby it can dictate to the people what medical procedures will be allowed and what will not is a shift away from liberty and towards tyranny. What we are talking about here is a massive shift in power. Giving the government this authority touches virtually every aspect of lives.

Once the government has both authority and responsibility to manage the finances of the healthcare system then the government is in a position to start dictating behaviors to the people all in the name of saving healthcare costs. For example, in the UK if you smoke you are not eligible for certain heart treatments. Understand, this is not just a denial of payment; it is a denial of service… even if the patient wants to pay for it themselves they cannot get it. I am in no way a proponent of smoking. But frankly, I don’t want my government to be in a position to tell me I can’t smoke if I decide that that is what I want to do.

Now, some say that nothing is stopping private health insurance companies from doing the same thing. That is not true. If I decide I want to smoke and my current health insurance provider puts limits on available treatments as a result, I have the option of 1) opting out of the company and finding another or 2) paying for the treatment myself. However, under a centralized system – whether it’s government run or co-op run with government dictates – there is no choice. What the government dictates is it.

There are ways to solve the problems our current healthcare system faces without shifting the fundamental relationship between “We the People” and our government.