republicans

Much Ado about Nothing: Budget Cut Edition

by Ryan Young on April 13, 2011

in Economy

Democrats want the federal budget to be about $3,730,000,000,000. Republicans want it to be about $3,630,000,000,000. As with many other issues, the difference between the two parties is less than three percent. Even so, it nearly led to a federal government shutdown.

The deal that the two parties recently struck to avoid a government shutdown meets somewhere in the between. It is advertised as cutting $38.5 billion of spending. But on closer inspection, it would actually cut $14.7 billion. That would cut total federal spending by 0.39 percent.

I have a hunch that even those small cuts may not actually happen. This blog post I wrote in 2005 explains why.

The rules of the game in Washington are severely stacked in favor of spending increases. Presidents Bush and Obama grew the federal government by about 100 percent in only a decade with little political pain. And it apparently takes the specter of a government shutdown to reduce spending by 0.39 percent.

If anyone is looking for a reason for fundamental institutional reform, that would be a big one.

EPA at 40 — Doing an End-Run Around the Legislative Process

by Fran Smith on December 1, 2010 · 1 comment

in Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Regulation

The Environmental Protection Agency is 40 years old.  It came into being under a Republican president, Richard M. Nixon, and opened its offices on December 2, 1970.  In January of that year, Nixon had signed the National Environmental Protection Act, and on the last day of December 1970, he signed the Clean Air Act of 1970.

Fast forward to the year 2010, with an EPA now with almost limitless powers in the environmental arena — regulating greenhouse gas emissions, policing carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and expanding the purview of the Clean Air Act, without congressional approval.  As CEI’s Marlo Lewis wrote,

. . . EPA has positioned itself to determine the stringency of fuel economy standards for the auto industry, set climate policy for the nation, and even amend provisions of the Clean Air act–powers Congress never delegated to the agency. The Endangerment Rule is both trigger and precedent for sweeping policy changes Congress never approved. America could end up with a pile of greenhouse gas regulations more costly than any climate bill or treaty the Senate has declined to pass or ratify, yet without the people’s representatives ever voting on it.

Here’s more from a coalition letter trying to roll back these expanded powers:

Is climate policy to be made by the people’s representatives or by politically unaccountable bureaucrats, trial lawyers, and activist judges?

Only one answer to that question passes constitutional muster. EPA has no authority to do an end-run around the democratic process. Climate policy is too important to be made by an administrative agency without new and specific statutory guidance from Congress.

Republicans are now in control of the House, and with six additional seats in the Senate, they, working with moderate Democrats, should be able to pass legislation suspending or overturning EPA greenhouse gas regulations. We, the People, can “take back our government” only if our representatives stop administrative agencies from legislating.

An Optimistic Take on the Election

by Ryan Young on November 3, 2010

in Politics as Usual

CEI President Fred Smith and I have an article in The Daily Caller expressing cautious optimism about yesterday’s election results. Our main points:

-We are (cautiously) optimistic because voters turned out in droves to make a statement against big government, not to endorse GOP policies. But no reforms will happen unless people keep fighting for them.

-Activists have a lesson to learn from the Bush-era anti-war movement. Anti-Iraq War protestors vanished into thin air almost the moment President Obama was elected. They gave up. That’s one reason there are still 50,000 troops in Iraq and America’s presence in Afghanistan has doubled. The next few years will be the true test of the tea party movement. Will it grow complacent in victory?

-GOP politicians have a lesson to learn from their 1994 victory and subsequent fall from grace. The 1994 Republicans gave up as reformers after about six months. Voters kept them around because they did a tolerable job of checking Clintonian excesses. But six years of one-party rule under Bush were more than enough to show that Republicans were far more concerned with staying in power than with shrinking government. Federal spending roughly doubled under Bush, and that was enough to give them the boot.

It will be interesting to see what happens. The 2010 election might be nothing more than a blip on the radar. Or it could be the start of a genuine reform movement that will take on the coming entitlement crisis. We’re hoping for the latter.

Republicans Should Favor Privatization of Liquor Sales

by Michelle Minton on August 19, 2010 · 1 comment

in Odds & Ends

Republicans should support increased privatization and oppose the continuation of government-run entities. It should go without saying, but some Republicans in Virginia (and beyond) seem to have forgotten what it means to be a Republican.

Since his election last November, Governor Bob McDonnell has expressed an interest in privatizing  the commonwealth’s alcohol beverage control system. Now as his plans take shape and edge closer to abolishing the state’s hold on alcohol retail sales some Republicans are showing nervousness about McDonnell’s ideas.

Del. Tom Gear (R-Hampton) said he was concerned by suggestions that Costco and Wal-Mart would be able to sell liquor in a new system. He said he’s worried the big companies could make it tough for small retail businesses to successfully compete in the market. “My idea was to create jobs from small operations, mom-and-pop stores,” he said. “Costco can put in liquor and never have to hire a single person.” Gear also said he was concerned about replacing the $248 million ABC now deposits in the general fund annual in liquor profits, excise and sales taxes.

Sen. Emmett Hanger (R-Augusta) is concerned about the potential loss of tax revenue and increased consumption: “The money is already flowing into the general fund and being spent, every last penny. There is not a bonanza to have there.” “The experts I’ve talked to think privatization would be the absolutely wrong direction to go.”

Del. Bob Marshall (R-Prince William) is also concerned about increased consumption and revenue. “We have to make a decision not just about what’s going for today, but 10 years from now,” he said.

Republican politicians should NOT support policy simply to fall in line with the party or support a proposal simply because its author is a Republican — especially if the proposal only pays lip service to individual liberty, private property, or personal responsibility. However, many of the concerns expressed by McDonnell’s conservative opponents show an utter lack of concern for the principles their party is supposedly based on.

More than that — their concerns are entirely unfounded:

No new money

It’s understandable that lawmakers are concerned about losing a practically guaranteed annual revenue stream of $248 million, all of which is already allocated to pay for goods and services around the state. But according to an article published in the Washington Examiner this week those fears are unfounded when considering how much VA spends on the business of controlling liquor sales:

The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control has a budget of $514 million. Through the third quarter of 2010, the Agency had spent more than $237 million on “supplies and materials.” Of that, $232 million was spent on alcoholic beverages…. meaning the commonwealth, in the interest of restocking the shelves at its ABC stores, was cutting checks to distilleries, wineries and importers across the country.

Higher rates of crime and abuse

Again it’s understandable that lawmakers and other interested parties are concerned that  “loosening” the state’s grip on alcohol sales will result in minor abuse, increased alcoholism, crime, and traffic accidents due to increased availability and affordability. If we look at other localities that have switched from control to private systems, we can see that these fears seem to be unfounded.

For example, Iowa privatized state stores in the 1980s without such an increase in social ills. The number of liquor stores nearly doubled, tax revenue from sales increased by $125 million, (according to the state’s division of alcoholic beverage control) yet, underage drinking and alcohol-related fatalities “remained steady.”

…even though Iowa’s number of liquor stores roughly doubled, its incidence of underage drinking and alcohol-related fatalities remained steady. “Privatization didn’t really have any effect” on such problems, said Keith Bailey of the Iowa chapter of MADD.

Similarly in Alberta, Canada, which privatized alcohol sales in 1993 has seen cheaper prices, increased numbers of retail operations, and higher amounts of government revenue.

Of the four western provinces along with Ontario and Quebec, Alberta is tied for the highest in terms of dollars raised from alcohol per capita, ahead of those with retail and distribution monopolies.

In addition to the fiscal benefits, privatization in Alberta did not result in a spike in crime, death, and abuse. In fact, despite increased availability in Alberta, consumption declined following privatization along with traffic accidents related to alcohol.

In the decade following privatization, Alberta’s impaired driving rate declined by a higher percentage than any other province — 73%. That compares to a 47% decline for Saskatchewan and an average 50% for Canada. In addition, citizens of Saskatchewan report higher rates of alcohol-related harm than nearly all other provinces, including Alberta.

All lawmakers, not simply Republicans, should seriously consider the merits of privatizing liquor sales. In particular, Republicans should temper their fear of change with a commitment to their espoused ideals. Infinite numbers of studies could be conducted, statistics could be collected from now until kingdom come: we will never know without a doubt what the results will be of privatizing liquor sales in Virginia. But by supporting the policies that best preserve free enterprise and personal liberty, Republicans can at least be certain that they are protecting their ideals and the rights of their citizens.

Bill to Regulate Political Speech Fails

by Ryan Young on July 27, 2010

in Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Regulation

The Hill:”Senate fails to advance campaign finance bill”

The First Amendment: “Congress shall pass no law… abridging the freedom of speech.”

Good news for anyone who wants to engage in political speech. But how sad that this happened because of politics, not principle.

It was mostly Democrats who favored the DISCLOSE Act. And according to today’s Senate vote, it was only Democrats who favored the bill. But Republicans are no heroes on this issue. Don’t believe their posturing. If the political winds were currently favoring Democrats, Republicans would be working their tails off to pass similar legislation.

The primary effect of campaign finance regulation is to stack the rules of the game in favor of incumbents. Both parties know this. And both parties will seek to use campaign finance regulation to their advantage however they can.

A Telling Headline

by Ryan Young on May 21, 2010

in Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Zeitgeist

From The Hill: Vulnerable Democrats defend support for campaign finance legislation

Campaign finance regulations are an incumbent’s best friend. The incumbent already has name recognition, and a deep network of fundraising contacts. Heck, Congress’ franking privilege allows incumbents to send out de facto campaign messages for free. Challengers have none of those advantages.

It takes a lot of money to buy enough ads to get a challenger’s name recognition anywhere near the incumbent’s. Campaign finance regulations make it harder to raise that money, and harder to put up a fight against established officeholders. No wonder so many incumbents from both parties favor strict campaign finance regulations! It’s good for their job security.

Regulation of the Day 123: Donating Blood

by Ryan Young on March 4, 2010 · 1 comment

in Health and Illness, Healthcare, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Regulation of the Day

If you’re gay, you can’t donate blood. It’s illegal. The ban was put in place in 1983, during the early days of the HIV/AIDS scare. It may have made some sense in those days, when HIV testing was less than trustworthy. But it sure doesn’t now, with modern screening technology.

Obviously, keeping HIV-positive blood out of circulation is a wise policy goal. But most gay people don’t have HIV/AIDS.  Rather than screening donors for sexual preference, they should be screened for blood-borne diseases. Straight people already are. And it works quite well. Current policies are keeping healthy, willing donors out of the system.

The outdated ban could soon be coming to an end. Sen. John Kerry and 15 of his colleagues, usually more prone to passing regulations than repealing them, are urging the FDA to repeal this one. You can read their letter here.

The one disconcerting thing about the letter is that every single one of the signees is Democratic. Not one Republican joined in. That could be because Sen. Kerry and the others deliberately excluded them for political reasons. But the GOP is famously behind the curve on gay rights issues. So maybe Republicans were asked, and said no. I don’t know.

Republicans should send their own letter supporting Sen. Kerry’s position. Enlarging the pool of eligible blood donors is an unabashed good. It’s a classic gay rights issue. It’s also a health issue. Blood would be more readily available for patients who need it. Economists would add that increasing the supply of blood will lower its price – a good thing in this age of rapidly rising health care costs.

Student Loan Socialism

by Richard Morrison on September 29, 2009

in Video, Zeitgeist

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJReAunlOw0 285 234]

“Sanity is not statistical”

by Ivan Osorio on March 2, 2009 · 1 comment

in Culture, Economy, Politics as Usual, Stimulus to Nowhere

There are few things more fascinating to watch than liberals hyperventilate to the point that they lose the basic ability to construct even a rudimentary argument. It’s not pretty, but like a car wreck, it’s hard to turn oneself away. Consider this letter in the current issue of The Economist:

SIR – Sadly, the Republicans have rediscovered the joys of opposition. Nothing as slight as a national crisis is going to make them shift from ground that seems so politically advantageous. Yet despite its considerable flaws, the stimulus bill does have substantial broad support—among voters. Perhaps, in time, the Republican rump will come around, but I would not count on it any time soon, especially when newspapers such as yours are prepared to treat their claims of high-mindedness with such undeserved respect. [Emphasis added]

The writer is essentially arguing that Congress should pass the stimulus, even though, admittedly, it has “considerable flaws”– because it’s popular. (Notice the lack of any discussion of its effects.)

And that’s not all. In the same letter, the writer accuses Republicans of engaging in “politically advantageous” pandering by opposing that same allegedly popular program.

With President Obama’s approval ratings still at healthy levels, we may yet see more similar defenses of policies he supports to be based on popularity — couched in more diginfied terms, such as “mandate,” of course.

It’s always good to keep in mind Winston Smith‘s greatest discovery: “Sanity is not statistical.”

Land Grab Bill: Senators Check Principles at the Door

by Myron Ebell on January 17, 2009 · 1 comment

in Energy, Environment, Politics as Usual

I have heard several Republican congressional leaders say that the party has learned its lesson from their disastrous losses in the past two elections. From now on, it’s back to being the party of limited government, fiscal discipline, lower taxes, and against pork barrel spending.

Sounds good, but Senate Republicans have blown their first opportunity to demonstrate that they mean what they say. The first bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) brought to a vote in the 111th Congress is the omnibus land grab bill that was blocked in the waning days of the last Congress by Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). It was re-introduced by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as S. 22. It contains around 160 titles. Lots of new National Parks, Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Trails, and National Heritage Areas. Plus making official a whole new designation of public land lockups for the Bureau of Land Management called Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. And withdrawing 1.2 million acres from the Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming from future oil and gas production–an area with high gas potential.

The Senate voted on Thursday 73 to 21 to pass this monstrosity. Twenty-one Republicans voted against it, but nineteen Republicans (and all 54 Democrats who voted) voted for it. This first vote suggests that it’s going to be business as usual for many Republican Senators in the 111th Congress. Talk about shrinking government and reducing federal spending. Talk about increasing domestic energy production. Talk about stopping pork barrel spending. And then vote the other way.

The twenty-one Senators who voted against S. 22 were:
Brownback (Ks.), Burr (NC), Chambliss (Ga.), Coburn (Okla.), Cornyn (Tex.), DeMint (SC), Ensign (Nev.), Graham (NC), Grassley (Ia.), Hutchison (Tex.), Inhofe (Okla.), Isakson (Ga.), Johanns (Neb.), Kyl (Az.), McCain (Az.), McConnell (Ky.), Roberts (Ks.), Sessions (Ala.), Shelby (Ala.), Thune (SD), and Vitter (La.). They should be congratulated.

If you hear any of the nineteen Republicans who voted for the land grab bill talk about getting back to the basic conservative principles of less government, lower spending, and protecting property rights, have a good laugh.

S. 22 now moves to the House of Representatives.

← Previous Entries