Democrats are popularly credited with being the party of caring, compassionate people who look out for the little guy and help those in need. I say “popularly” as this is the commonly held belief that is reinforced at every turn by the mainstream media. Surprisingly (or not), actual statistics do not support this stereotype. Studies show that it is the conservative portion of the American people (most of whom tend toward the Republican Party) who give more, whether it is donating blood or contributing money to charitable causes.

In May of 2008,
Gallup conducted a poll that measured the level of giving by political ideology. Gallup found that the more conservative a person is, the more she or he contributes to charity and that the more liberal a person is, the less she or he contributes to charity. The chart below shows just how marked the disparity is.

Also on the chart, you will notice the level of charitable giving reported by Misters
Obama and Biden for the four years prior to Obama’s appearance on the federal payroll. You will notice that their donations are very consistent with Gallup’s findings. Not shown on the chart, as the numbers are less readily available, are the charitable contributions of Bush and Cheney. I was able to find specific information for a couple of years, where it was reported that their donations ranged from 9% to 26% to 35% to 77% of their adjusted gross income.

While Gallup did not investigate why the differences exist, it is easily explainable by principles of the political ideologies surveyed. Conservatives believe in small government, confined narrowly to the functions authorized by the founding fathers in the Constitution and other documents. Conservatives recognize that government is generally incompetent, corrupt, and inefficient. With this in mind, it makes more sense for caring people to donate their hard-earned funds to organizations that are best equipped to provide the help and relief intended. Almost always, these are private organizations.

Additionally, conservative principles call for a solid work ethic and self-reliance. Yet nearly everyone has required help at one time or another to bridge a gap. By donating to private charities, conservatives are more confident that the recipients who actually need the help will indeed receive temporary gap-bridging assistance and not a permanent subsidy.

Liberals, on the other hand, tend to view the government as the source of solutions and remedies – the government has the responsibility, insight, ability, and resources to fix society’s problems. Additionally, the government has the ability to force or coerce people into giving. By delving a bit deeper into liberal thinking, we find that liberals are also motivated by controlling help and assistance to achieve their political aims. If a liberally inclined government can set up a social program to meet real or imagined needs, the liberals are able to better control the social agenda and reap the political benefits of creating a dependent class of people. This all leads liberals to prefer imposing taxation on everyone, forcing all to support their agenda, rather than willingly giving of their own personal funds.

Hundreds (if not thousands) of Tea Partys were held this week around the country to demonstrate popular objection to Obama’s massive spending and the anticipated equally massive tax increases to pay for it. In advance of this grassroots activity, the mainstream press announced that it would not report on the protests because it was a “non-event.” Conservative pundits were hardly surprised given the mainstream press’ reluctance to report on anything that runs counter to their cheerleading for Obama.

Once again, though, Obama and the press are out of step with the American people, while conservative sentiments continue to align with the citizenry. Recently, a
Rasmussen survey found that 75% of America (a super majority) is distrustful of government, while only 7% support the “political class.” Specifically, the study found that most of the country:

• Trusts the judgment of the American people more than they do the judgment of America’s political leaders.
• Believes that the federal government has itself become a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interest(s).
• Believes government and big business work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.

Underscoring these sentiments is another Rasmussen survey that found only 14% of Americans believe that the federal government will do a better job running the big three automakers than private industry. A full 67% believe the automakers will be worse off with the federal government in charge.

It should be noted that in each of these studies, a majority of Republicans AND a majority of Democrats side with the majority of Americans – these sentiments cut across party lines. This supports my assertion that most Americans do not understand conservatism and that most Americans hold views consistent with conservative principles.

In apparent contrast to this opinion, yet another Rasmussen survey found that barely half of all Americans believe that capitalism is better than socialism.

Looking deeper at capitalism/socialism preferences, the study found that people with investments, Republicans, and Americans with more life experience (older than 30 years) are decidedly in favor of capitalism. Even a small majority of democrats and people without investments prefer capitalism. The one demographic group that overwhelmingly prefers socialism is adults under 30 years.

Given that only 53% of Americans recognize the benefits of capitalism, how is it that 75% are distrustful of the government’s management of the economy? One possible explanation is that many/most people do not understand what the two terms mean or how they differ. The survey simply asked which system people preferred, capitalism or socialism; it did not attempt to define the two terms. Perhaps simple ignorance explains the apparent disparity between this survey and the others cited.

On this disparity, Rasmussen opines: “The fact that a ‘free-market economy’ attracts substantially more support than ‘capitalism’ may suggest some skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets.” They support this position with added evidence that only 15% of Americans prefer a government-managed economy (a popular definition of socialism).

Which brings me back to my assertion that most Americans don’t understand conservatism and that most Americans hold views consistent with conservative principles. This is a lesson we conservatives can take to heart. When speaking with non-conservatives it is best to assume a certain level of political naiveté and find common ground, which usually exists since most people hold conservative values in their heart of hearts, and then build agreement on the underlying conservative principle(s).

Then, most important of all, resist the urge to accuse them of being a closet conservative!

In December our family welcomed an unplanned addition – two baby red eared sliders (aquatic turtles). Nature has programmed these timid creatures to paddle furiously in any direction at the first hint of danger or surprise. It doesn’t seem to matter which direction they are headed, even if it means trying to swim through an obstacle at full speed. The objective is simply to paddle as fast as possible. Reflecting on this, it occurred to me that Congress is filled with a bunch of red eared sliders, who paddle as fast as they can without regard to where they are going. They have evidenced this numerous times in the last year, but none more thoroughly as in the case of AIG.

Consider…

September 2008. American International Group (AIG), a huge insurer, was on the verge of bankruptcy and had been shopping for government assistance. The federal government had just allowed financial powerhouse Lehman Brothers to collapse in bankruptcy. Claiming AIG was “too big to fail,” the feds drove a hard bargain, lending AIG $85 billion in exchange for an 80% equity stake in the company.

October 2008. AIG fails to respond to the federal rescue as had been hoped and the government decided to dispense another $48 billion. In a telling statement, a government representative indicated that the feds felt this additional infusion was relatively low risk. Then again it is always easy to see any bet as low risk when you are not betting with your own money.

November 2008. The federal government’s second attempt to rescue ailing AIG also failed to stabilize the company. Convinced they were “too smart to fail,” members of Congress and the
Executive Branch increased the rescue package to $150 billion and eased the terms of the bailout.

March 2009. Realizing that the feds still had not committed enough money to their rescue, AIG successfully petitioned the current administration to raise the country’s stake to $173 billion.

As the government reset their investment in AIG four times over four months, a series of mini-scandals hit the press as AIG executives enjoyed a 5-star get away on the taxpayer dime and sent their bailout money to foreign banks and other companies. By the fourth time around, staffers for the House of Representatives figured they ought to do a little more to protect the federal investment. One of those protections included a limitation on executive and key employee bonuses.

Funny thing happened on the way to the forum, though. It seems key government officials thought it wasn’t such a good idea after all and had the language removed from the fourth bailout bill. Never finding it too important to read, understand, or debate trivial things like bills that expend billions of dollars, the House passed the fourth bill without exercising any due diligence.

And surprise, surprise, AIG paid out $165 million in executive and key employee bonuses. No big deal, at least until the press starting raising a stink and we the people got in a huff about a failing company paying out mega-bonuses that were funded with tax-payer dollars.

Feigning disgust and abhorrence, the House raised up in righteous indignation, slapping AIG bonus recipients with a punitive and retroactive 90% tax on those bonuses. Fake indignation, however, was not enough to wash these stains off of Congressional hands. To fully cleanse themselves, Congress and administration officials had to ensure that allowing the bonuses in the first place was someone else’s fault.

First it was the Senate’s fault; they must have taken out the ban on bonuses. Then more particularly, it was Senator Dodd’s (chairman of the Senate banking committee) doing. At first, Dodd denied any involvement, but then admitted some culpability by claiming that the White House had demanded the bonus ban be removed and he was compelled to join them. Then, apparently, it was Geithner who had pressured the White House to make the change. For observers, this became a blame game fiasco with initial denials, partial confessions, and circular finger pointing.

Even in its indignation, the House of Representatives never fails to disappoint its detractors. With a growing reputation for not caring overmuch about the truth, accurate analysis, deliberation, or unintended consequences, the House’s punitive 90% tax on AIG bonus recipients appears to fail even the most basic of standards: constitutionality.

The bill passed by the House of Representatives would likely face constitutional challenges in four areas: 1) a bill of attainder (legislation directed at punishing particular individuals) is forbidden by the constitution; 2) ex-post facto laws (laws which make an activity illegal after-the-fact) are not allowed; 3) substantive due process (protection against the state preventing the fulfillment of lawful contracts) is protected by the courts; and 4) the takings clause argues against the taking of private property without appropriate compensation.

So let’s recap the government’s failings:

• In a mad rush, Congress and the President threw together a rescue package to save a company they deemed was too big to fail. Too big to fail, but not so big they had to do it right.
• The lack of analysis and deliberation forced the government to throw more money at the AIG problem three more times, each with minimal or no deliberation.
• Given an evolving track record of AIG misusing rescue funds, House staffers crafted language to prevent the misuse.  Senatorial and administration colleagues gutted the language.
• The House did not read the final language of the bill, but rushed the legislation through, not realizing that their objectives had not been met.
• When the press and the public cried foul about the AIG bonuses, the House looked incompetent or corrupt, and went into damage control mode. They pretended indignation, beat their chest, and got tough, hoping that they would be absolved of all charges before the next election.
• The House passed a law to punish AIG for giving bonuses they were contractually obligated to award – a law that many consider completely unconstitutional.

After all the bravado and decisive action from the House, the Senate and the White House quickly distanced themselves from the punitive bill. By the time the Sunday talk shows exposed the House’s lunacy, the House itself quickly backed down from their position and let the bill die a very quiet death.

At times like these, we should pause to reflect (in gratitude) on the wisdom of the founding fathers. They foresaw that the House of Representatives would be populist in nature, blowing in the wind of public opinion (paddling as fast as they can whenever they are startled) and established the Senate to be a more deliberative body that would resist reactionary populism in favor of reason and deliberation. Doesn’t always work but it certainly did this time.

Since nature did not equip the red eared sliders with reason, just a flight instinct, and since Congress seems to be similarly equipped, it is left to us to shape their environment so they react to us (the people) in a way that benefits the nation. Since they won’t/can’t do the right thing, we must. And we do this by getting involved in the public debate. When we do, our congressional red eared sliders will begin paddling when we want them to and will paddle in the direction that we want. We need to guide them with our collective voices.

Epilogue:
With all of the hullabaloo the AIG bonuses, I’ll bet you haven’t heard a single word that failed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (also newly nationalized entities) have been approved to dispense more than $200 million in bonuses. Not a peep from Congress or the press. Makes one wonder about the depths of hypocrisy?

Senator Judd Withdraws as U.S. Commerce Secretary Nominee
Despite the gloom of a recessionary economy, despite the agony of the non-stop skid on Wall Street, despite Congressional refusal to allow a debate or even allow the public to see the Economic Destruction Plan prior to the vote, and despite the President spouting gloom and doom to achieve his socialist agenda, there is one ray of sunlight that pierced the American storm clouds.

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire has withdrawn his name for consideration as U.S. Commerce Secretary. No dyed-in-the-wool conservative, Judd is roughly as conservative as John McCain–who according to the American Conservative Union, was President Obama’s Republican nomination to his otherwise socialist-leaning cabinet.

In his press release, Senator Judd said, “However, it has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the census there are irresolvable conflicts for me.  Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns.  We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy.”

Kudos to the Senator. Would that more of our elected officials had the courage and conviction to take a firm stand for the welfare of the country.

Let’s take a look at the character issues of some of Obama’s other nominees.

Obama’s Nominees of Questionable Integrity
Obama-the-candidate said, “…when it comes to hiring people in my administration, the litmus test we’ll apply will not be based on party or ideology, but qualification and experience.” Additionally, Obama pledged to have the most ethical administration in history, and specifically promised that no lobbyists would be employed. Since this is supposed to be change we can count on, let’s do a quick assessment, checking for competence and integrity.

From USA Today: “A USA Today review of Obama hires shows that 21 have registered as federal lobbyists…” (This was reported exactly one week after the inauguration, making for a short-lived promise).

Maybe we should check in on Obama’s promise of “the most ethical administration in history.” Here are the highlights:

Tom Daschle: Withdrew from consideration as head of Health and Human Services when he couldn’t stand the heat for being a tax cheat.

Nancy Killefer: Withdrew from consideration as the country’s Chief Performance Officer when word leaked out she was a tax cheat.

Bill Richardson: Withdrew from consideration as Commerce Secretary when it became apparent his confirmation would be hampered by a grand jury investigation over how state contracts were issued to political donors while he was the governor of New Mexico.

Timothy Geithner: Approved as Secretary of the Treasury despite proof that was presented to the Senate (which he corroborated with his own testimony) that he was a tax cheat.

Hillary Clinton: Approved as Secretary of State despite very significant conflicts of interest stemming from donations to her husband’s foundation by foreign entities and questionable donations from foreigners to her campaigns. Additionally, she has been plagued with scandal after scandal throughout her political life.

Eric Holder: Approved as Attorney General although he: is anti-gun and inclined to restrict the second ammendment, he pressed Clinton for the pardon of the Mark Rich (a fugitive financier), and he worked to force the deportation of a juvenile refugee (Elian Gonzalez) back to Cuba.

Steven Cu: Approved as Secretary of Energy though he advocates very high gasoline prices, is opposed to off-shore drilling, clean coal, and nuclear energy. As a blind follower of debunked global warming theories, he believes his main mission in this office is to vigorously pursue unproven and non-viable energy alternatives.

Arne Duncan: Approved as Secretary of Education despite the very dismal failure of Chicago public schools while he presided over them. He is a strong advocate of significantly increased federal spending (naturally with strings attached) on education and greater federal influence on curriculum.

Janet Napolitano: Approved as head of Homeland Security though she nearly bankrupted Arizona while governor, failed miserably to protect her state from the dangers of illegal immigration, and helped derail the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination with her advice to Anita Hill.

Cecilia Muñoz: Hired as a  White House aide though she was formerly employed as a lobbyist by La Raza (Spanish for “The Race”), a radical Mexican nationalist organization that aggressively seeks to undermine American sovereignty and regularly attempts to thwart national security. La Raza has been called the Mexican version of the Black Panthers.

Hilda Solis: Nominated as Secretary of Labor in spite of (or per perhaps because of) her many connections to organized labor – she is the daughter of a union organizer and a former union demonstrator.  She is also a member of the House Progressive Caucus, a group of the most liberal members of the House of Representatives.

Lisa Jackson: Nominated as Administrator of the EPA despite that both liberals and conservatives find her lacking any compelling qualifications.

Obama-the-candidate suggested the performance scale on which his administration should be measured, which included several factors: diverse ideology, strong qualifications, demonstrated experience, and solid ethics. Assuming all of his other nominees were wonderful, we do see some concerning trends. That Obama would nominate the individuals mentioned above (Judd excepted) and that Congress would approve them makes one wonder if Obama-the-candidate did not really mean “Change you can count on”, but rather is satisfied with “Corruption you can bank on.”

Shame on you, Mister President. Is it really that hard to find people we can respect and have confidence in? For someone who promised integrity, competence, openness, and so much goodness, this is not a promising start.

Representative Chuck Rangel (D-NY), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee — arguably one of the most powerful men in congress — appears to have an on-going proclivity to land in the national spot-light. More often than not though, The Honorable Mr. Rangel finds the word “scandal” in the headlines that bear his name.

You may remember these: tax evasion, misuse of congressional funds, use of an unlicensed vehicle, refusal to pay parking fines for years, taking junkets and trips paid for by parties seeking congressional favors, hiding undeclared income from congress, acceptance of financial favors (including an interest free mortgage) from donors, and violation of New York’s rent-stabilization laws.

Last month, Rangel painted himself an even darker shade of shame by reintroducing a bill to reinstate the military draft of  all Americans aged 18-26. He claims the draft is the only way to ensure that the socio-economic profile of our fighting forces would more closely resemble the demography of our nation (translation: our poor and minorities are getting killed in battle while the rich white folks shirk their patriotic duty).

Never mind that Rangel ran this idea up the flagpole in 2006 (but with an age limit of 42) and suffered a 404-2 defeat in the House. And never mind the truth about the demographic makeup of our military. Riding their great white steed, The Heritage Foundation has run the numbers and published the not-so-startling results:

The Poor are Under-Represented in the Military

The Poor in the Military

Some Minorities are Under-Represented in the Military

The racial mix among military recruits compares relatively closely with the racial mix in the broader US population. Blacks and whites are slightly over represented and Native Americans are significantly over-represented. Americans of Asian and mixed-race descent are notably under-represented.

Minorities in the Military

High School Dropouts are Under-Represented in the Military

When considering basic education among recruits (ignoring college and other higher learning), very few under-educated Americans appear to join the military. Statistically speaking, the number of high school dropouts in the military is significantly below the rate within the broader population. (Note: Exclusion of college statistics results in a total of less than 100% in the table below.)

High School Education in the Military

Given this, does that mean Chuck Rangel has an issue with Asians, mixed-race Americans, and the poor? Or, is he simply fanning the flames of the racial conflict and class warfare (pitting the economic classes against each other)? Either way, if he prevails, more minorities and more of the poor will die in battle. Oh well, at least Rangel sounds like a hero to those who don’t filter the propaganda.

Headline

Score on the International Stage: Putin-1, Obama-0
You won’t read it in the dominant media, but the U.S. military just got the boot from its base in Kyrgyzstan. Seems our former allies preferred the $2 billion Putin offered them to being on the same team with the Great Unifier.