Replace Liberalism

Today Newt Gingrich wrote that American conservatives need to begin a push for “replacement,” after having focused on a rejection of the Obama-Marxist agenda. As Newt writes, there are over 513,000 elected positions in America, from president to dogcatcher and everything in between. When Americans vote they get a choice for each of these positions and each should be held by a conservative who wants to reduce the size of government and reduce the influence of government in Americans’ daily lives.

A long-term strategy of replacing the left in these positions of power is simply not enough. As Newt says, liberals inhabit the halls of academia, the stages and production booths of Hollywood, union leadership, and the government bureaucracies in all the states and in Washington D.C.

Newt proposes that conservatives fight against the liberal agenda of job-killing policies. He says “If you think your children ought to have food stamps, you have a party you should vote for. If you think your children ought to have a paycheck or own their own business, you have a party you ought to vote for.”

As part of Newt’s five-part plan, he outlines that Americans must end the bubble of government. The federal government has simply gotten too big. There are too many people working at the federal level. Another point Newt stresses is telling the truth about the threat of radical Islam. Americans are being kept in the dark by the Obama administration regarding the dangers that radical sects of Islamists pose to America. That needs to end, and that end should be reflected in the policies applied to al Qaeda POWs.

In an unrelated piece, but one that ties in well with Newt’s, Alexander Benard writes at National Review that the Wall Street Journal needs an economic mouthpiece with the clout of Paul Krugman. This is true. Conservatives are being drowned out in the mainstream media channels by a constant parade liberal “economists” like Krugman who justify the governments’ theft from its citizens.

This role is probably most closely filled by Art Laffer today, but as Benard writes, Laffer doesn’t write with the frequency that Krugman does. Krugman hits the airwaves at the New York Times with a flood of articles and blog posts each week, pushing his liberal agendas.

In another push to reorganize America as the founders created it, James Thunder at The American Spectator writes that the U.S. should implement a rule to vet each new bill created by Congress for its constitutionality. Congressman John Shadegg from Arizona has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act to do just that. The act would force Congress to provide constitutional justification for any bill it attempts to pass.

Thunder goes on to list a number of ways to strengthen the rights of the individual states. These include encouraging states to pass laws in conjunction with one another to create uniform rules across the country when achievable. Another proposal by Thunder is creating a committee of states to review federal legislation.

Giving more power to the states would be a terrific idea as they are more often correct than Washington D.C. As most states are constitutionally required to balance their budgets, they have been forced to make the hard decisions. Politicians in Washington D.C. should pass a balanced budget amendment for the country. This would force them to balance the budget each year, rather than allowing them to not even pass one like Nancy Pelosi did this year.

Americans want their governments to cut spending. Amy Meller et. al. write in the Wall Street Journal today that

In Indiana, Mississippi and New Jersey, Republican governors appear to be maintaining their popularity while cutting spending. New Jersey’s Chris Christie has cut pensions for future state and local employees, vetoed a tax increase on income over $1 million and cut $1.26 billion in aid to schools and municipalities, which local officials said would drive up property taxes. Among New Jersey residents, 51% approved of the job Mr. Christie was doing, versus 37% who disapproved, a Fairleigh Dickinson University poll found in October.

A superb study of the pitfalls of big government can be seen in the differences between California and Texas as written by Joel Kotkin in Forbes. In his article “California Suggests Suicide; Texas Asks: Can I Lend You a Knife?”, Kotkin deftly outlines the differences in approach taken by California, versus the nearly equally sized Texas. The two have many of the same geographic and resource advantages, but Texas has managed its economy much better than the liberal leadership in Sacramento has done for California.

There are lessons for the federal government in the different results in these two states’ forms of governing. Texas’ low taxes and low government regulation are a model for the federal government’s future success. I would propose a repeal of the corporate income tax and the tax on dividends. The two account for only 10% of government revenues, but their elimination would create major advantages for corporations wishing to invest in the U.S. Also the burden of prepping for tax time would be lifted off many of America’s small businesses, relinquishing business owners to do what they do best, business. The benefits for retirees are not to be ignored either. Many of America’s retirees will pay taxes over and over again on dividends created by the same pool of wealth. An elimination of the dividend tax could release them from that burden.