Where do we go from here?

Senators Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and the United States Constitution
While the GOP determines its core values the essence of its options moving forward couldn’t be more wonderfully distilled than in the voting records of two high-profile Republicans, Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) and Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

As The American Spectator’s Jim Antle pointed out Rubio and Paul have followed similar paths to prominence. Both were discouraged from running for the Senate by party leaders. Both rode Tea Party support to unexpected primary victories. In Washington, both have defined themselves as stringent government-cutters but closer inspection of their records reveals two different views of government.  One is a Conservative in the tradition of Jefferson and Locke and tends to vote in a manner which conserves the ideals of our founders.  The other is more of a Conservative in the tradition of Hamilton and Hobbes and tends to conserve the status quo. 

To help us understand their conflicting ideas of the role of government I offer the following.

1. Authority for Military Action
In response to President Obama undertaking U.S. military action in Libya without congressional authorization Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) moved to insert an amendment into S.493 that "the President does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Rand Paul voted Yes (against)                              Marco Rubio voted No

2. Patriot Act
During consideration of the Patriot Act extension bill (S.990), Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) offered an amendment that would have banned the use of Patrtiot Act searches for American citizen' firearms records without the Fourth Amendment's protections of probable cause.

Rand Paul voted No                                               Marco Rubio abstained

3. Trade Promotion Authority
During consideration of the trade preferences bill, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) introduced an amendment to reinstate trade promotion authority through 2013 for the purpose of expiditing approval of trade bills.  The bill would limit the ability of Congress to deliberate and legislate. Moreover, treaties should need a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate for approval.

Rand Paul voted No                                               Marco Rubio voted Yes

4. Indefinite Detention
Detainee related language in the Defense authorization bill (S. 1867) was written in such a sweeping way that even the United States can be considered part of the battlfield in the global war against terror - and even American citizens accused of being terrorists can be appprehended by the U.S. military, detained indefinitely without habeas corpus and without even being tried and found guilty in a court of law.

Rand Paul voted No                                              Marco Rubio voted Yes

5. Keystone XL Pipeline
During consideration of S. 1813, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) offered an amendment to open up part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and natural gas development, expand lease sales for offshore drilling, and approve the Keystone oil pipeline.  At question here was should the federal goverment allow entrepreneurs to develop energy resource, rather than deny access to the resources?

Rand Paul voted Yes                                            Marco Rubio voted No

6. FDA Regulation of Food & Dietary Supplements
During consideration of the FDA user-fee authorization bil (S. 3187), Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) offered an amendment to prohibit FDA from regulating food and dietary supplements as drugs and censoring product claims as a violation of the right to free speech protected by the First Amendment, and because the federal government is using armed agents to enforce unconstitutional regulations - e.g. against the selling of raw milk.

Rand Paul voted Yes (for the amendment)           Marco Rubio voted No

7.  Cybersecurity
The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 (S. 3414) would create a National Cybersecurity Council under the chairmanship of Homeland Security.  The council would provide "voluntary" standards - with incentives for compliance - for owners of critical computer networks.  If passed, private owners of critical infrastructure who are already heavily regulated would be further burdened with additional supposedly voluntary regulations in the name of cybersecurity.

Rand Paul voted No                                             Marco Rubio abstained

9. Internet Freedom
PIPA (Prevent Online Privacy Act) was a proposed law, Co-Sponsored by Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) with the stated goal of giving the US government and copyright holders additional tools to curb access to "rogue websites dedicated to the sale of infringing or counterfeit goods".  The bill was opposed by Google, Yahoo, Facebook and Wikipedia. A letter of opposition was signed by 130 technology entrepreneurs and executives and sent to Congress to express their concern that the law in its present form would "hurt economic growth and chill innovation in legitimate services that help people create, communicate, and make money online".

Rand Paul voted No                                            Marco Rubio flipped under pressure

9.  Sugar Subsidies
Americans currently pay more than 36 cents for a pound of sugar, more than 50 percent above the world price. The sugar program not only redistributes tax dollars to sugar corporations but also hurts U.S. small businesses and industries that use sugar in their final products, such as bakeries, family restaurants, cereal companies, and confectioners.  H.R. 1739 sponsored by Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) would have ended sugar subsidies and open the sugar market to competition.

Rand Paul voted Yes-remove subsidies             Marco Rubio voted No

10. Eligible to be President

U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 5
"No person execpt a natural born citizen . . . shall be eligible to the office of President." 
Senator Rubio's parents were not born in the United States.

Rand Paul - Eligible                                             Marco Rubio - Not eligible.

Principles matter.  Economics tells us that the best intentions of reformers will fail no matter how well intentioned or how well they are carried out if they violate natural law.

Eric Andersen is a newly elected San Diego Republican Central Committee member, Co-founder of im2moro.com and Co-founder of the San Diego Republican Liberty Caucus.

Source: The New American: Voting Index

Memorial Day . . . Counting the Cost

I am concerned about the way we glorify this day and I'm wondering what our Framers would say. Don't get me wrong, I believe a strong military is not only constitutional, but a necessary deterrent to foreign aggression.  I support military action when congressionally declared and when our lives and liberties are in immediate danger.

But the question I am asking this morning is . . .  Which of our liberties is at risk in the hundreds of places we are currently deploying our children and our dollars?  Are we counting the cost?

I know many in our military are good, moral and faithful, but I have to ask . . . which of our liberties, for which our founders fought, is at risk?  What freedom are they fighting for?

What do we have to show for our sons returning with PTSD in the thousands and the high suicide rates?  

Can we can afford to travel around the world looking for monsters to destroy? 

How much of our paychecks are we willing to pay to support these types of military actions?

What is directly threatening us that is worth the life of even one our sons or daughters?

And I know these questions are tough but I think they deserve our consideration . . .

*Will Christ turn a blind eye to the thousands of civilians we have killed in Iraq?

*Can I refer to myself as "Pro-Life" while supporting our military intervention overseas?

*Why do we sacrifice our sons overseas while ignoring the greater threat to our liberties here at home in the form of the Patriot Act, Indefinite Detention, CISPA, Agenda 21, food laws, Internet and Free Speech, Health Care . . . ?

*Where are the greatest threats to our Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness coming? 

Washington or Kabul?  Congress or Mosul? Until my unalienable rights are directly under attack - I can't afford more money for foreign intervention nor am I willing to put my sons lives at risk.   

I am counting the cost.

I am equipping my sons to fight against a much more dangerous enemy . . .  nice articulate people in Washington, many of whom are believers,  who have progressive and destructive ideas about our Constitution and our economy.  Don’t get me wrong.  I want a powerful military like you do, but not one that goes overseas looking for monsters to destroy.

 " . . . she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. 
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. 
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. 
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice,
and the benignant sympathy of her example."

- John Quincy Adams

I care about our sons and daughters who are sacrificing in the military.  That is why I want to bring them home.

Santorum vs. Paul: Will the True Conservative Please Stand Up?

What does a true Conservative conserve?   Does he conserve a large central government in the spirit of Alexander Hamilton or is he a one who conserves the ideals of our Framers and a limited government in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson? Good questions.

Before I begin let me confess my bias.  I believe a nation's prosperity and freedom are directly correlated to its adherence to what our Framers referred to as "laws of nature and Nature's God."  It does not depend on the faith of our lawmakers or their sincerity.  It does not depend upon how successful they were in the private sector or how articulate they are in debate.  Their ability to lead our nation to prosperity/freedom is directly related to their commitment to uphold their oath to "preserve, protect and defend" and conserve the ideals expressed by our founders in our founding documents.

The best indicator of future performance is a voting record.  Here the heart and soul of a politician is laid bare.  Rhetoric takes a back seat. Subject matter "experts" and the media become unnecessary.

In this arena voting records talk and you know what  . . . walks.  We know Woodrow Wilson ran for re-election on "He kept us out of war".  FDR ran on a platform a Libertarian could support.  George H.W. Bush promised "No new taxes".  George W. Bush promised not to use our troops for nation building and Barack Obama promised transparency.

What do the voting records of Santorum and Paul tell us? 

Limited Government

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)

Our founders enumerated the jurisdiction of a federal lawmaker in Article 1, Section 8.  Anything outside those 18 clauses was reserved for the states and the people (10th Amendment).  This is the oath both Santorum and Paul took to "preserve protect and defend".                                                
Santorum - Opposes . . . In his book "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good" he advocates greater government involvement in our lives including: national service, publicly funded trust funds for children, community-investment incentives and economic-literacy programs in "every school in America." Supported Bush's 'No Child Left Behind' which doubled the federal government's role in education.
Paul - Supports . . . The authority of a federal lawmaker is restrained to the 18 clauses in Article 1, section 8.  Everything else is left to the states and to the people (10th Amendment).


Abortion
Both are ardently anti-abortion, however Santorum takes a federal approach while Paul takes a State's Rights approach.

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

Santorum - Opposes . . . Although an outspoken opponent, he voted to subsidize abortion and Planned Parenthood by voting for unconstitutional legislation. He vigorously supported pro-abortion Senator Arlen Specter against Pro-Life candidate Pat Toomey. Specter then provided the crucial swing vote in the Senate to pass Obamacare. Santorum's approach involves using the Federal Government to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Santorum's Pro-life position does not extend to those living in harm's way of American military objectives overseas.
Paul - Opposes . . . and has never voted to subsidize abortion or Planned Parenthood. Believes we have been waiting 40 years to overturn Roe v. Wade and have nothing to show for our efforts but billions of tax payer dollars and millions of murdered babies. Believes the simpler solution is to take abortion out of federal jurisdiction all together and put it back in the hands of the states where the laws against abortion are still on the books. Paul extends his Pro-Life stand to foreign citizens overseas believing "all men are created equal"  and have an unalienable right to self-determine until they become an immediate threat to Americans here at home.  Paul did not violate his Pro-Life stance when he got to Washington like many Republicans.  He authored The Sanctity of Life Act, H.R. 776, defining life at conception, gained only five co-sponsors.  The Catholic California Daily cites Ron Paul as "abortion's 'unshakeable foe'" with the Act as evidence.


Contraception
Can the Government violate the First Amendment and force Catholics and other Americans to pay for contraception?
Santorum - Supports.  Santorum has a record for repeatedly voting to force Catholics and others to pay for contraception through the instrument of taxation.
Paul - Opposes.  Paul took and oath to "preserver, protect and defend" the U.S. Constitution which restrains the federal government from taking the private property from its citizens for any purpose not enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.  Our First Amendment rights are unalienable and restrain the government from violating the "free exercise" of our faith.


Bridge to Nowhere 
Santorum - Supported . . . Voted for the 2005 highway bill that included thousands of wasteful earmarks including a Bridge to Nowhere in Ketchikan Alaska at a cost of $321 billion to U.S. taxpayers.
Paul - Opposed . . . This authority is not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. 


Patriot Act
Repeal of the 4th Amendment
Santorum - Supported . Voted in favor of the Patriot Act and its reauthorization, the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
Paul - Opposed.  4th Amendment is an unalienable right. Paul does not believe we need to surrender our basic rights and restructure our legal system for temporary security.


Right to Work

Prohibiting Unions from requiring membership

Santorum - Opposed.  In the 104th Congress, Santorum joined all the Democrats and a minority of Republicans in voting to filibuster the bill S. 1788, the National Right to Work Act of 1995.  During the same session he also voted to retain the 1930s-era Davis Bacon Act that forces taxpayers to pay union wages in government-funded construction and gives Big Labor an unfair advantage over non-union companies and workers.

Paul - Supports.  The is a rule of law issue.  No group should be able to use law to force association.

Spending
Santorum - Supports.  During 2003-2004 session of Congress, Santorum sponsored or co-sponsored 51 bills to increase spending, and failed to sponsor even one spending cut proposal.  In his last Congress, 2005-2006, he had one of the biggest spending agendas of any Republican - sponsoring more spending increases than Republicans Lisa Murkowski, Lincoln Chafee and Thad Cochran or Democrats Herb Kohl, Evan Bayh and Ron Wyden.
Paul - Opposes. Paul believes the U.S. Constitution limits federal spending to the 18 clauses enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. He even returns part of his house budget each year to the Treasury.


2008 Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney
Santorum - Supported.
Paul - Opposed.

Increase the Debt Ceiling

Santorum - Supports.  Voted five times to raise the debt ceiling adding trillions to the federal deficit.

Paul - Opposes.  Has never voted to increase the debt ceiling.


Department of Education

Santorum - Supports.  Supported legislation that doubled and greatly expanded the Federal Goverments role in education.  In 2001 he supported "No Child Left Behind"..

Paul - Opposes.  This authority is not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution and is responsible for the indoctrination of our children.  Families and churches have the primary responsibility for education not the government.

Drugs

Federal War on Drugs

Santorum - Supports.  Voted 'Yes' on increasing drug penalties and on spending international development funds on drug control.

Paul - Opposes.  Although he is against drugs he believes the $500B spent by the federal government in the drug war has repeated the errors of Prohibition. Believes it is a character issue to be addressed by families and churches. The Communist Manifesto has killed more people than drugs but we don't want a government that bans the book.


Federal Reserve / Counterfeiting
Santorum - Supports. "There  should be a QE1".  Supports a Federal Reserve to keep our money "sound" - see interview with Glenn Beck.
Paul - Opposed.  Counterfeiting is recognized as an illegal act in the U.S. Constitution.  Washington made the death penalty the law for counterfeiting while in office.  Paul has introduced legislation to abolish the Fed.  


Foreign Aid

Redistribution of private property to foreign citizens

Santorum - Supports. "Those who want to 'zero out' foreign aid don't understand the importance of the practice" 

Paul - Opposes.  The legitimate role of government is to protect the property of it's citizens, not redistribute it.  See 5th Amendment.

Free Trade
Santorum - Opposed.  Has backed higher tariffs on everything from steel to honey.   He is inconsistent here. He supports an industrial policy with the government titling the playing field toward manufacturing industries and picking winners and losers. Since 2001 has been a supporter of ethanol subsidies.
Paul - Supports.  The U.S. Constitution does not authorize a lawmaker to pick which businesses win and which lose.  The Commerce clause was written by our founders to promote free trade not control it.


Homosexuality
Santorum - On record explaining what happens in an individuals bedroom is the business of the entire community and that private consensual sex should be a matter of government regulation.
Paul - Doesn't see the U.S. Constitution enumerating any power for a federal lawmaker in this area. Believes issues of character are best addressed locally by families and churches.


Iraq
Santorum - Supported the invasion.  Nobel Prize winner Joseph E. Stiglitz estimates the cost at $3,000,000,000,000.
Paul - Opposed the invasion.  FBI, CIA and then Bush's Chief Weapons Inspector, David Kay reported no evidence of WMD.  911 Commission found no connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.


Israel 
Foreign aid to Israel
Santorum - Supports
Paul - Opposes.  The U.S. Constitution charges the government with the protection of private property.  It does not allow for it to be redistributed to any nation, Israel or otherwise.  Israel has plenty of weapons to defend itself.  If the U.S. cut off all foreign aid, Israel would be better off as our nation presently gives more to the Middle East than to Israel.  Israel should be a sovereign nation and should not have to check with our State Department for approval of its foreign policy. "There is neither Jew nor Greek." - Apostle Paul, Gal 3:28. Paul's foreign policy is theologically, constitutionally and economically sound.


Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit
Santorum - Supported President Bush's 2003 Act - the largest hike in welfare entitlement history prior to Obamacare. $60 billion a year and $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
Paul - Opposed.  U.S. Constitution protects private property and does not allow for taxation for any purpose other than the 18 clauses enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.

Milk Subsidies 
Santorum - Supports. In 2005 he sponsored a bill to extend milk subsidies which he claimed he did to "save countless Pennsylvania diary farmers." 
Paul - Opposes government intervention in the free market or the redistribution of private property.  Men form governments to protect life and property, not to redistribute it.


Guns (2nd Amendment)

Santorum -Opposes. "The evidence is clear . . . (Rick Santorum) has a long record for supporting anti-gun legislation and politicians." - Dudley Brown, Executive Director, National Association  for Gun Rights

Paul - Supports.  An unalienable right necessary to defend life, liberty and property.

Hamilton vs. Jefferson

Santorum/Hamilton/Hobbes vs Paul/Jefferson/Locke
If Conservatism means to conserve the status quo and to conserve the size of big government, then Santorum is the "true conservative" in the tradition of Hamilton and Hobbes.  If Conservatism means to conserve the ideals of our founders and a limited government then Paul is the "true conservative" in the tradition of Jefferson and Locke.

Sources:

Santorum's Big-Government Conservatism. Michael D. Tanner, CATO Institute

Santorum Voted to Subsidize Abortion, Planned Parenthood. Alex Newman, The New American.
Santorum's Contradictions: A Record For Forcing Catholics . . . The New American

Voted for the Bridge to Nowhere. PolitiFact - Texas.

Club for Growth's Presidential White Papers

This Won't Play Well in South Carolina, Erick Erickson, Red State

Rick Santorum's anti-gun history, National Association For Gun Rights

Rick Santorum Slams Opposition to Foreign Aid, Real Clear Politics

Rick Santorum - Homeland Security, The Political Guide

Drugs, On the Issues: Every Political Leader on Every Issue

WWII and The Great Depression

Perhaps no economic fallacy has been repeated more than the one shared Saturday at a California Republican Assembly event by U.S. Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-52). The myth that WWII was responsible for pulling our nation out of the Great Depression. Its time to put this farcical tale behind us and begin to learn our economic lessons.


While I agree with the Congressman on 80% of his votes (the Constitutional ones) as a Conservative I need to comment. If the message 'War Improves Economy' is true then we justify a philosophy inconsistent with the laws of nature and our principles (i.e. sound money, free markets, limited government).  We become part of the problem rather than the solution.  We become responsible for increased militarism and debt, not to mention the moral implications and consequences that stem from foreign intervention.


Consider . . . 
During WWII we exchanged debt for lower unemployment and higher GDP numbers.  Our national debt rose from $41B in 1941 to $260B in 1945.  Debt was used to draft/employ 12M of the 17M who were unemployed in 1939.  If we seek a true picture of GDP and unemployment figures I suggest we deduct government spending from GDP and subtract government workers from the employment rolls.


The GDP and unemployment figures recorded during the war give us a false perception of reality as they were the product of  $200B of new government debt.  One may ask, "Why not sin that grace may increase?"  Why not double the debt and improve the figures further?


Consider . . . 
Many of FDR's New Deal programs (CCC, WPA and many others) were killed by Congress during the war to free up scarce resources.  Thus the ending of many of FDR's programs and entitlements during the war led to a stronger recovery after the war.  In other words, many of the government programs that drove our nation into depression were absent in 1946.


Consider . . . 
Lower taxes.  After the war Congress repealed the excess-profits tax, cut the corporate tax, cut the top income tax rate, and sliced the top marginal rate.  In other words, after the war, our government reversed course and moved away from the very policy decisions that created the depression.


Of course, Congressman Hunter is by no means the lone Conservative perpetuating this fallacy, there are many others  doing so as well.  War improves economy?  It just ain't so.


Ideas have consequences.


If we wish to play a part in a more prosperous America we need the right ideas and learn our economic lessons.


When the people lead . . . the leaders will follow.




Sources:
Great Myths of the Great Depression, Lawrence W. Reed
What Ended the Great Depression? Burton Folsom
Depression, War and Recovery, Sheldon Richman