Big Jolly Politics

politics in Harris County and Texas

The Election Choice—Can Romney make it simple? Can Romney be Romney?

by

Ed Hubbard

Watching all of the pundits say that Romney has to make himself likable is beginning to drive me crazy.  Of course no one wants to embrace a dour person (though Richard Nixon was on 4 of 5 winning national tickets, just proving that there are exceptions to every rule), but Romney is not dour, and the times require a serious, steady, positive message.  I am going to say something I never thought I would say a few months ago—let’s let Romney be Romney.

What would that mean?  It would mean that we should allow Romney to make the case to the American people about the choices we face, and how he is the best man at this time to help us make those choices because he has lived those choices all his life.

Romney knows the correct answer to the fundamental question of this election:  Who builds this economy and this country, the federal government or private businesses and the individuals they employee?

And the answer is:  private business and the individuals they employ.  If you don’t understand that fundamental answer, you do not deserve the public’s trust to hold an office in our government.  Period.

It is private business that generates the jobs that provide for families and that build neighborhoods.  We spend more time every day with our co-workers than with our families, and the positive bonds formed through this activity ripple out in every direction.  Employing people affects the lives of both the employer and the employee, from which both grow.  The products or services generated by a business affect customers, and spur innovation by others through competition.  But, most importantly, every paycheck signed sets aside a retirement fund, pays for health care, provides for the sustenance of a family, pays for a mortgage and a college education, pays for the charity from a church or non-profit organization, and creates the tax base for the infrastructure and protection of a community.

Government is nothing more than a service that we pay for with the taxes from our paychecks and profits.  It is a service through which we have chosen to hire some of our neighbors to provide education to our children, create and maintain a physical infrastructure, provide for our defense and protection our communities and nation, and preserve a safety net for those unable through no fault of their own to help themselves (or find private charitable help), while we work and build the foundation of wealth and happiness for our families, our communities, and our country.  In essence, government works for us, at our direction, and to the extent we feel we need it—we do not work for government.  To increase government’s role in our society beyond providing these services effectively and efficiently, is to threaten the delicate balance among free people that this system has long maintained—and that makes our experiment in self-government so unique and exceptional.

President Obama and the modern Democratic Party do not believe in this delicate balance.  Instead, they want to transform it so that Government indeed becomes the source of all wealth and happiness in our society—and as they do so, they are putting our delicate balance in mortal jeopardy. The Democrats have long wanted to change the fundamental relationships in our private sector, and between the private sector and government, by inserting government more and more into the private relationships that a private-sector paycheck has always supported.  This process has reached a tipping point now.

Because no one knows which way our system will tip—how much further the federal government will interfere in the private market and private relationships, and how much taxes will be seized to pay for the massive public spending and debt incurred to fund that interference—a cloud of uncertainty now hangs over our country (and, by extension, over the world economy).  And that uncertainty keeps business from hiring people, and that cuts the paychecks that support families and communities. That uncertainty, if allowed to continue, will tip the balance toward a new pervasive government and the nation the Democrats have long tried to create.

We must bring an end to this transformation that disguises itself as “hope and change,” and “moving forward.” This transformation does not promise progress, but, instead, a benign peonage for future generations.  Is that what prior generations fought for?

Through his work in the private sector, in his church, and through the charities he has supported, Romney understands, and indeed embodies the best of the balanced system I have just described.  He understands the challenge and threat the Democrats’ vision has created for the delicate balance of our unique society.  He just needs to be honest with us; and then challenge us to help him stop this transformation, to make the necessary reforms to remove the uncertainty, and to restore the historic balance between the private sector and government, so that private business will write those paychecks again.

It’s that simple.  Great speeches by Ann Romney, Chris Christie, Condi Rice, Susana Martinez, and Paul Ryan have all paved the way for him.  Now, let’s hope Romney will be Romney.

 

Texas near bottom in per capita debt

by

The headline at Texas Watchdog was ominous:  Texas third in total state debt, low by per-capita measure; across all the states, underfunded liability shoots to $3.5 trillion

Yikes! I thought, dang, the naysayers are right! Texas is buried in debt! Oh no!

But then I read the headline again – buried in the middle was this: low by per-capita measure. And buried in the story was this:

When population is factored in, the picture in Texas improves.

Ya don’t say. In fact, as the article eventually points out, Texas ranks 45th in per-capita debt.  As in, near the bottom. For those of you in Pasadena, that means we are doggone great! But that didn’t stop idiots from Tweeting stuff like this:

BayAreaHouston12:02pm via Twitter for iPhone

“@texaswatchdog: Texas third in total state debt ow.ly/dibVJ #texas #txlege” after 10 years of tea party rule.

Which I corrected to read:

dpjennings1:40pm via HootSuite

MT @BayAreaHouston: @texaswatchdog: Texas low per capita debt state ow.ly/dibVJ#txsen #txlege after 10 years of tea party rule.

Gotta love Twitter – correcting the idiots in real time.

Although the vulgar dude that has the @BayAreaHouston account doesn’t understand simple math, thankfully, Governor Perry, Lt. Gov. Dewhurst, and Speaker Straus do. We must remain a low debt state to keep our economy growing. Hopefully, after the next session, we can take 50th away from Tennessee. There is no glory in being in debt.

Ted Cruz – David Dewhurst wrap up

by

Okay, I’ve been meaning to write about the Ted Cruz – David Dewhurst race for a bit but got sidetracked by the birth of my first grandchild! Pictures here – hey, I’m a grandpa now, I can do that stuff.

It was a shellacking. No doubt about that. But in answer to all of the snarky emails and stalking blogposts about my choice of candidates, no, I wouldn’t change a thing except to maybe work harder to convince folks to vote for Lt. Gov. Dewhurst. Sure, I lost a few “Facebook type friends” but I gained just as many real friends in the process. I came to genuinely like the Lt. Gov. as a person – he was 180 degrees different than the caricature he has been painted as. I wish him much luck in the future and if there is one piece of advice that I’d give him it would be, be yourself – you’re a fun guy to be around! And listen to Trisha, she has your best interests at heart.

Now, on to the Cruz victory. Ted Cruz won the old fashioned way – he earned it. No one, and I mean no one, worked harder than Ted did. Not only was he campaigning full time, he was working full time. I recall at one of our meetings, he had just come in from arguing a case before the Supreme Court, had a breakfast, then a luncheon with a business group, met with me for a couple of hours in a hotel lobby, then met with a Republican Women’s group, then met with a Tea Party group, then went to the office to review the day’s workload, and only then did he make it home for a few hours of sleep. And he kept this type of schedule for 19 months. His work ethic cannot be impugned and it is what ultimately drove him over the top in this race.

In reviewing the various pundits giving credit to the “Tea Party” for his win, it reminds me how lazy most journalists are. They sit around at various “journolist” type meetings and end up copying each other’s work with very little real insight. They assign the term “tea party” to a wide, diverse coalition of groups that Ted and his team built over a year. Certainly, some formal “tea party” groups participated in this victory. But there were also “liberty” groups, which are quite distinct from “tea party” groups but are often lumped in by lazy journalists. And then there was the evangelical right – Kelly Shackelford’s  chairing the Cruz statewide leadership team opened the door wide for Cathie Adams, David Barton and the like to give Cruz that 50-42 advantage among Texas evangelicals.

And none of those groups poured money into the campaign quite like Heidi Cruz’s network of banking interests around the country. Go back and look at those early campaign finance reports – we aren’t talking Club for Growth, the Conservative Fund, or Freedom Works – most of Ted’s money came from out of state individual donors at high dollar fundraisers. He wouldn’t have gotten into 2012 without them.

But I think that the one group, if you have to single out one group, that put Ted into the spotlight and made him a legitimate candidate was the Texas Federation of Republican Women. You don’t get more establishment than the Texas RW groups – they have clout and put money behind their efforts.  And Ted won them over in droves. He started winning them before Lt. Gov. Dewhurst was eligible to run. Recall his win in May 2011 at the Greater Houston Council of Republican Women – that was a VERY big deal at the time.  My friend Karen Townsend, over at her blog Pondering Penguin, wrote about that one:

The popularity of Cruz with other Republican women is not a surprise to me. I’ve been to lots of Republican events sponsored by Republican women – particularly in the last three years – and, as a rule, Ted Cruz comes and doesn’t just stop by for a few minutes to be introduced as a guest. He stays and shakes hands and answers questions with anyone who comes up to speak with him. He works a room. His wife is a Republican woman and she and Ted are fond of saying they are raising the next generation of Republican women now with their two little daughters.

Karen was one of the “Cruz bloggers” that joined the campaign’s blogger outreach program designed by Vincent Harris. She also wrote about other RW straw poll victories by Ted: REPUBLICAN WOMEN OF KERR COUNTY STRAW POLL RESULTS and Ted Cruz Wins Greater Houston Council November Straw Poll. Karen is not only a blogger but she is the immediate past President of the Memorial West Republican Women’s Club.

Lest you still don’t believe me about the role of the RW clubs in the Cruz campaign, just visit his website and search for Republican Women.  Note that in October 2011, he touted the endorsements of 115 RW officers. By January 2012, he had increased that number to over 200. I recall talking to a Dewhurst campaign staffer about  the dozen or so ex-leaders of the RW clubs that had endorsed him and the staffer was lamenting the fact that they weren’t getting support. Which goes right back to Ted’s own hard work in going to any and every meeting that he was invited to, no matter how large or small.

The other group that supported Ted was the very establishment itself. Do you really get more establishment than having Ed Meese as your Chair of your National Leadership team? Or George Strake, former RPT chair endorsing your campaign?

I’m not saying any of this to disparage the “tea party” or any other group, except perhaps journalists. Ted Cruz is an establishment politician that found a way to form an old fashioned populist coalition of disparate voting groups. Remember the commercial that featured different activists from around the state? You had pro-gay marriage, pro-drug legalization, anti-gay marriage, anti-drugs, pro-choice, anti-abortion folks all in the same ad! Remarkable.

Of course you can’t leave out the “professional tea party” groups, like Freedom Works, Club for Growth, and Conservative Fund. I don’t know why anyone would label the first two as “tea party” but they do, so I will go along with it. Early in the campaign, Ted guaranteed me that he would win if he could raise five million dollars. If he raised that much, the Super PAC’s would provide enough money to put him over the top. Well, he raised the money, the Super PAC’s came through, and the rest is history.

You cannot forget campaign strategy and the difference between the two campaigns in regards to social media. I tweeted in January 2011 that the Cruz campaign had scored a coup by hiring Vincent Harris. As the campaign wore on, his hiring became ever more important as Ted dominated the social media playing field. It wasn’t even close. Obviously, you have to give some credit to Jason Johnson and John Drogin for their strategy and day to day discipline, but without Vincent’s work, Ted doesn’t win. Which is one reason his firm is growing like weeds in the rainy season on the Texas Gulf Coast! From his strategy of reaching out to bloggers to his Facebook and Twitter marketing skills to his belief in email fundraising, he made a huge difference in the campaign. And most of those people using his tools to promote Ted don’t even know his name. But insiders do, I assure you of that.

To show you the contrast between the two campaigns, consider their blogger outreach. The Cruz campaign believed in bloggers so much that they reached out, signed them up, then had periodic conference calls with Ted. He even announced his candidacy on a blogger conference call. The Dewhurst campaign had no outreach to bloggers – I had to use a dozen different contacts over a six to eight week period to get an interview with the Lt. Gov. and even then I was viewed suspiciously. It was a stark contrast and a win for the Cruz team.

Okay, I have to wrap this up, so I’ll go back to the beginning. Ted Cruz won this race by crafting a message that appealed to a broad coalition of disparate groups, hiring the right staff,  and working his tail off in a disciplined effort. If lazy journalists want to say that the “tea party” won this for him, I can’t stop them but they aren’t even close to the truth.

Doug Weiskopf: A modest proposal

by

Doug Weiskopf

As Congress argues over extending the Bush tax cuts across the board, once again Republicans–especially the Republican leadership in Congress– are proving themselves to be poor politicians, stupidly allowing themselves to be backed into a corner and characterized as “protecting the rich.”   In fact, the Bush tax cuts benefited those in the lower incomes much more than the wealthiest.  But Obama and Congressional Democrats are using this issue to hurt Republican chances in November, and distract the electorate from their abysmal record.  The important issue here is defeating Obama, increasing our majority in the House and gaining control of the Senate.  Then we will be able to radically simplify the tax code and reduce rates for all taxpayers, allowing a free economy to grow, and free workers to earn a good reward for their skills!

To that end, I would like to offer a few suggestions:

Extend the “Bush Tax Cuts,” including the 15{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} rate for dividend and long-term capital gain income, the standard deduction for married couples and the $1,000 child tax credit, for everyone earning less than $379,151, permanently.  This keeps rates low for all but the top bracket, taking that issue off the table for Obama, and encourages Congress to come back next year and begin true tax relief and simplification.

Reduce the threshold for deductible medical expenses to 3{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of adjusted gross income.  This provides real help in meeting real medical expenses for the middle class, giving the people more power over their own health care, while helping protect the average family from rising expenses.

Restore the 2{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} cut in the Payroll Tax, which is robbing from Social Security, and replace it with an additional permanent Income Tax reduction of 2{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} across the board, and 4{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} for the self-employed.  Allowing Obama to cut payroll taxes was one of the stupidest things we could have done because it robbed even more from the already over-burdened Social Security Trust Fund.  This corrects that mistake, but protects working Americans–including many small business owners– from another tax hike!

Permanently increase the Social Security Payroll Tax Rate for all employees who are not United State citizens by a total of 5{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986},  and Medicare (FICA) Tax rate by 2{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} .  This is a “win/win” idea borrowed from Norm Adams.  It immediately provides increased revenue to Social Security and Medicare, and provides a strong incentive for hiring U. S. citizens.

Begin phasing out the Earned Income Tax Credit by reducing it by 2{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} each year until it is eliminated.  This is another poorly thought out, and misleading “entitlement” that suppresses ambition and underwrites low wages.  It promotes unhealthy dependence on “the government” and should be replaced by better job opportunities.

Doug Weiskopf is the Republican Candidate for Texas House District 143.

 

A Response to Dick Weekley/Fraud Against Texas Taxpayers Resolution

by

Dear GOP Leaders,

You may have recently received correspondence from Mr. Richard Weekley, Chairman of Texans For Lawsuit Reform, regarding the “Fraud Against Texas Taxpayers Resolution.” I would appreciate a few moments of your time to address some of the accusations and misrepresentations Mr. Weekley makes.

First, I have had the opportunity to work alongside many of you for our shared conservative cause during my tenure on the State Republican Executive Committee. For those of you who I do not know, please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Mark McCaig and I have spent much of my life working in the Republican Party and on behalf of various conservative causes and candidates. I first became involved in the Republican Party as a high school student. While an 18 year old Senior in High School, I ran for my local school board because I felt the district was wasteful and inefficient. As a student at Texas A&M University, I became active in the Young Conservatives of Texas and College Republicans, holding statewide leadership positions in both of those organizations. After graduating from Texas A&M, I joined the staff of Congressman Tom DeLay, where I worked until his departure from office. In 2008, at the age of 25 and while still in law school, I was elected to the State Republican Executive Committee from SD 18. I held that position for two years and I continue to serve as a Republican precinct chairman in Fort Bend County. I am a proud conservative that believes strongly in the principles articulated in the Constitution and in the Republican Platform. I have never made a contribution to a Democrat, nor have I ever contributed to a Political Action Committee that makes contributions to Democrats.

I encourage each of you to take a very close look at the activities of Texans for Lawsuit Reform. While they attempt to portray themselves as conservatives, such claims are demonstrably false. They are nothing more than a self-interested special interest group that has actively worked against conservatives on many occasions. I have detailed much of this information on a new website, www.stoptlr.com. I encourage each of you to visit this website, watch our short video, and read the information presented. I hear frustrations on a regular basis (that I share) that wealthy special interest groups wield far too much power and influence at the Capitol and are responsible for the obstruction of conservative public policy. At www.stoptlr.com, I put a name and faces on these pernicious “special interests” that we hear and complain so much about.

Over the past several years, Texans For Lawsuit Reform has contributed nearly $3 million to Texas Democrats, including Democrats running against viable Republican candidates in the General election. The candidates that TLR has supported financially include some of the most prominent voices against legislation supported by the RPT including the sonogram bill, the sanctuary cities bill, and photo voter identification. TLR’s President, Dick Trabulsi, is the uncle of liberal Austin legislator Mark Strama (who has been funded by TLR against Republican challengers) and is a longtime supporter of Democratic candidates.

Mr. Weekley has himself made significant personal financial contributions to Democrats including Steve Wolens, Jessica Farrar, Juan Hinojosa, Garnet Coleman, Rodney Ellis, Judith Zaffirini, Mario Gallegos, Mike Villarreal, Eddie Lucio, David Farabee, Tara Rios Ybarra, Carol Alvarado, Patrick Rose, Ellen Cohen, Sylvester Turner, Ron Reynolds, Senfronia Thompson, John Whitmire, Rick Noriega, Leticia Van De Putte, Kino Flores, Frank Madla, Solomon Ortiz, Jr., Kevin Bailey, and Norma Chavez. Unless he has recently made a very large contribution that has yet to appear in public filings, Mr. Weekley has personally contributed more money to Democrats than he has to the Republican Party of Texas!

The Republican Party of Texas stands up for our platform proudly and without apology. This is able to happen because the RPT is run by, and accountable to, the grassroots conservative base that makes us so strong. We are not afraid to tackle issues such as protecting innocent human life, reducing the size and scope of government, opposing government bailouts and other taxpayer funded handouts, and the absolute necessity of securing our border. Unfortunately, taking strong and unequivocal stands on these and other issues carries a price.

As detailed at www.stoptlr.com and elsewhere, TLR’s largest contributors fought the efforts of RPT and other grassroots conservatives on the sanctuary cities bill and other important legislation regarding illegal immigration. Many of these donors have also benefitted from Solyndra-style handouts that have been opposed by RPT and others. It is precisely because the RPT and its leadership at all levels take principled conservative stands on issues important to the average Republican voter that Mr. Weekley and his associates at Texans for Lawsuit Reform choose to control the vast majority of their political contributions and activities through TLR and its Political Action Committee. TLR routinely receives and spends more money than the Republican Party of Texas because the RPT is held accountable by the grassroots while at TLR they are accountable only to themselves.

Texans For Lawsuit Reform fancies itself as a “shadow party” of sorts, engaging in candidate recruitment and other efforts that are traditionally handled by political parties and grassroots activists. A strong and vibrant Republican Party of Texas organization is in many ways a threat to special interest groups like TLR because when the Republican Party is impotent and/or ineffectual, groups like TLR can fill the void and increase their already substantial power and influence.

The Republican Party of Texas cannot and must not allow special interest groups like TLR to bully it or otherwise prevent it from continuing to remain an unapologetic advocate for conservative principles and voice for those in the grassroots. Mr. Weekley and his mega-donor associates already own and control TLR. We must not allow them to own or control the Republican Party of Texas and silence the already faint voice the average Texas conservative has in the public policymaking process.

The “Fraud Against Texas Taxpayers” Resolution is a solidly conservative, pro-taxpayer resolution and I stand behind it 100{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986}. This resolution calls for a state law similar to the Federal False Claims act, which allows a whistleblower with knowledge of fraud committed against the government to bring suit against the alleged perpetrator of the fraud. The legislation amending the Federal False Claims Act to authorize these whistleblower lawsuits, known as “qui tam” lawsuits, as sponsored by Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa and signed in to law by President Reagan in 1986. According to figures from the Department of Justice, over $21 billion has been recovered as a result “qui tam” whistleblower lawsuits filed under the Federal False Claims Act. Untold billions more have been saved as a result of the deterrent effect the Federal False Claims Act has on preventing fraud.

In 1997, the Texas Legislature passed SB 30, which allowed for whistleblower “qui tam” lawsuits, such as those authorized by the Federal False Claims Act, in cases involving Medicaid fraud. This bill passed the House and Senate unanimously and was signed in to law by then-Governor George W. Bush. Since its passage, Texas taxpayers have recovered approximately $1 billion under the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention act through the hard work of Attorney General Greg Abbott and others. This legislation has been wildly successful in preventing and punishing Medicaid fraud and there is absolutely no evidence that it has been used as a vehicle for frivolous lawsuits. Just recently, Attorney General Abbott settled a “qui tam” lawsuit brought by a whistleblower under the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act against a pharmaceutical manufacturer for $158 million. Prominent pro-life activist Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood employee, has also filed a “qui tam” whistleblower lawsuit under the Federal False Claims Act and the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act against Planned Parenthood alleging Medicaid fraud.

In 2007, Republican state legislators offered SB 1309, a broad “qui tam” similar to the Federal False Claims Act, but applying to Texas state government, as called for in the “Fraud Against Texas Taxpayers Resolution.” The bill passed the Senate unanimously and was subsequently sent to the House Civil Practices Committee, where it also passed unanimously. Unfortunately, the bill died in the Calendars committee and did not receive a vote in the full House.

TLR’s claims that a “qui tam” law would open up the door to a flood of frivolous lawsuits are unfounded. Just this past legislative session, a “loser pays” bill supported by both TLR and the Texas Trial Lawyers Association was signed in to law making it even easier for frivolous lawsuits to be quickly dismissed in addition to strict sanctions that can be imposed on lawyers and litigants that file frivolous lawsuits. If the Texas legislature were to consider the kind of legislation endorsed by the “Fraud Against Texas Taxpayers Resolution” the end result should and almost certainly would include safeguards against its abuse.

The “Fraud Against Texas Taxpayers Resolution” does not reference any specific bill or legislative language- that’s the role of the legislature. It simply supports the concept that Texas taxpayers should have the same tools available to them to recover funds lost due to fraud at all levels of state government as they currently do at the Federal level under the Federal False Claims Act and at the state level in cases involving Medicaid fraud. Especially in the midst of a budget crisis, it is crucial to the continued financial wellbeing of Texas to have every tool possible at our disposal to prevent fraud and deprive those responsible for defrauding Texas taxpayers of their ill-gotten gains.

The Republican Party of Texas has been a leading voice supportive of fiscal restraint and taxpayer protection in state government and this resolution is in furtherance of those values. Mr. Weekley, as well as many other major donors to Texans For Lawsuit Reform, have financial interests in the construction industry. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to figure out why they worked so hard against the Republican Party and the vast majority of Texas conservatives against the sanctuary cities bill and other legislation regarding illegal immigration. As I told a reporter when asked about this resolution and TLR’s subsequent response, why anybody, let alone an allegedly conservative organization like TLR would want to protect those who defraud Texas taxpayers is beyond my comprehension. The only people who should be afraid of this resolution are those who defraud or seek to defraud Texas taxpayers. I will not speculate as to TLR’s motives behind their vociferous opposition to this pro-taxpayer resolution and legislation that was supported by Ronald Reagan at the Federal level and passed unanimously by the Texas Senate in 2007.

Again, I encourage you to visit www.stoptlr.com to learn more about who the “Texans For Lawsuit Reform” really are, and to oppose this effort by a special interest group to wield inappropriate influence over the Republican Party of Texas. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about this letter, my resolution, or any other issue. Thank you all for your hard work and dedication to our Party and our principles.

Best Regards,

 

Mark McCaig

Subscribe to Big Jolly Politics by Email


 

The Fist of the Obama Administration Must Not be Re-Elected

by

Ed Hubbard

My father liked to tinker with writing simple poetry—the type of “greeting card” poetry that can be very touching or funny, or simply lame.  I recently have been reminded of the following part of a funny poem he wrote for me when I graduated from law school, which he entitled “Lawyer to Client”:

 

You say you hit the other guy,
Broke his nose and blackened his eye,
Split his lip and damaged his face.
I think you’ve got an excellent case.

The man is daft and obviously
Was in a place he never should be.
With devious means and grievous twist
He put his face in front of your fist. …

As I’ve followed the debate over the “Obama mandate” for insurance coverage that narrows the conscience exception that had protected religious institutions for many years, I feel as though we conservatives have once again put our face in front of the left’s fist on this issue.  Normally, I would advocate just licking our wounds and changing the subject back to the economic issues facing the country.  But, the problem is that what underlies the thinking of the left on this issue is what also is strangling the long-term neck of our economy.

Before we go further with that point, we first need to understand how our face found its way into the left’s fist. Back in January (it seems like years ago), during one of the many GOP debates over the last few months, George Stephanopoulos asked the candidates about their view of a half-century old Supreme Court ruling that constitutionally prohibited states from banning the sale or use of contraceptives.  Virtually everyone on the stage, and in the auditorium, was shocked by the question because it seemed to come out of left field.  The candidates all answered in one way or another that the issue was irrelevant and no one is advocating banning contraceptives, and Stephanopoulos looked really silly and petty as he continued to press for an answer from the candidates—but the key is that he continued to press for an answer.  Why?  It made no sense—at the time.

Then, not long after that debate, Secretary Sebelius announced that the Obama Administration would mandate that all employers would have to provide contraceptive coverage as part of their insurance plans, including religiously-affiliated hospitals, schools, and charities.  The “conscience exception” that had previously exempted such institutions from such mandates was to be narrowed to just the direct employees of the houses of worship of such religious institutions. 

The negative reaction was stunning and swift, but it was not about women’s health or access to contraceptives—which must have further surprised the likes of Stephanopoulos and Sebelius.  Instead, it was about the use of the governmental fist in violation of the First Amendment to force churches to act at variance with their beliefs, or get fined—the type of direct assault on religious liberty that the U.S. Supreme Court had just told the Obama Administration it could not do as the court struck down another attempted regulatory invasion into the operation of a religious school. Hoping to find a compromise, people of goodwill from all over the political spectrum called on the Obama Administration to reconsider and re-embrace the full conscience exception that both political parties previously had honored, and that had provided a federal safe-harbor from mandates at the state level, while exploring other constitutional ways to maximize women’s access to medical treatments and prescriptions.  Instead of such a compromise, Obama announced a unilateral “compromise” with himself, which—of course—was no compromise at all.  It, instead, was a new fiat that was even more extraordinary for its hubris—mandating that insurers pay for, but not charge for, providing contraceptives to employees of religiously-affiliated hospitals, schools and charities.  Incredible!

Why was the second fiat incredible?  Let’s look closer at Obama’s magnanimous act of self-compromise for a moment:

  • it ignores the fact that, in order to take advantage of the historical safe-harbor provided by the federal conscience exception, many religious institutions became self-insured, and those plans cover both the employees of the churches as well as the affiliated entities;
  • it ignores one of the most basic facts of economics—there is no free lunch.  Regardless as to whether we are talking about free-market or government-planned economies, goods and services (including contraceptives, and the doctor visit and prescription needed to obtain the contraceptives) cost money; and, in this instance, those costs will be paid either directly by the employer or self-insurer, by all the insureds of the insurance company (including the religious institutions and their employees) through higher premiums, or by taxpayers through higher taxes or more public debt;
  • it continues to ignore that these religiously-affiliated institutions only exist in order to fulfill the mission of the church in the community, so that they are an important part of the practice of religious faith  by the ministry of the church, regardless of whether the church employs or serves persons of other faiths (or of no faith) in the performance of such practices; and
  • in making all these mistakes, it shows that Obama refuses to acknowledge and abide by the limitations on governmental power, and the exercise of that power, that our Founder’s enshrined in our Constitution, including the preservation of a separate church and the importance of its separate institutional role in our society.

So, the Obama fist came in a second swing toward the face of those of us who still believe in those limitations on government power, and in religious liberty.  But this time, like on so many other occasions over the last two generations, it is our face that was now alleged to be the aggressor, rather than the victim.  Those on the left who initially had called for Obama to re-consider his decision miraculously found this new fiat to be a welcome compromise, and then fell back in line as the lemmings that they are.  And, of course, their fellow travelers in the media lauded the magnanimity and wisdom of Obama’s act of self-compromise, and fell in line, too.  Then, returning full circle to the Stephanopoulos question, they found further criticism of the second swing of Obama’s fist to be a new assault on women’s health by the face of conservatives—an assault so grave that it could not be tolerated.  Unfortunately, some of our candidates and pundits played into this narrative, by allowing themselves to be drawn into debates about specific religious views of contraception, rather than keeping their focus on the fundamental flaws with Obama’s aggressive mandate.  As a result, in the latest twist in this story, the U.S. Senate could not muster the votes to return federal policy to the full conscience exception, and the left walked away from the debate claiming their fist had been assaulted by our face.

I want to be clear about some things.  I am not a Catholic, though I have great respect for the Catholic Church. I am a father of three girls, and I’m a grandfather.  I care very much about the health of my wife and daughters, and their access to the care they believe they need.  Finally, I see no societal, economic or political benefit to, or wisdom in, re-visiting the legal issue of medical privacy related to the sale and use of contraceptives, which was decided a half-century ago.  Contraception should not be, and really never was the issue in this political debate—we must remember that point as we move forward from here.

Now, back to my the point I started to make.  The shear arrogance of a political leader of this nation who would so cavalierly ignore basic economic principles, ignore basic constitutional rights, and ignore the basic limitations of governmental power that allow us to practice our constitutional rights, in order to advance an agenda to regulate by fiat an industry that represents at least 17{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of our economy, and, in the process, create a new entitlement scheme, has not earned our trust and must not be re-elected.  We will never recover our economic vitality as a nation, let alone our full individual freedoms and responsibilities, if we re-elect this arrogance and give it four more years at the helm of our country.

To those of you who are involved in GOP campaigns this year, I remind you of the seriousness of the mission we have this fall, and ask you to keep your focus on that mission and what the real issues are.  Don’t get sidetracked into the left’s narrative—don’t stick your face into the left’s fist.  Simply fight back based on our narrative of liberty, personal responsibility, limited government and economic opportunity.  As Reagan once told us a generation ago, “there is no substitute for victory.”