ConservativeHome's Platform

Rep. Tom Graves: Government is the number 1 job destroyer today

Rep. Tom Graves is a freshman Republican from Georgia.

Thursday was a bad day for government in the United States. You see, hundreds of job creators from across the country gathered in Dalton, Ga., for a summit about creating manufacturing jobs in America. By the time the summit ended, attendees had heard five hours of damning accounts of how government rules and regulations have kept jobs on the sidelines or shipped them away altogether.

Keep reading at the Washington Times...

Sen. John Barrasso and Rep. Kevin McCarthy: Congress Should Free Public Land for Locals

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) is the Senate Republican Conference vice chairman and Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is the House Majority Whip.

Over the past three decades, our ability to enjoy our national resources has been constrained by Congress’ failure to take action on recommendations to open up millions of acres of public land for increased use and recreation.
 
Most public lands across the country are managed for “multiple use,” which means that ranching, grazing, recreation, tourism and energy exploration can occur there. These decisions are almost always made at the local level because those who live, work and recreate in and around public lands know best how to manage them.
 
There are some areas across the United States that have characteristics deserving of special preservation. In order to protect these specific areas, Congress has designated them “wilderness areas,” and most activities are restricted or eliminated. However, there are tens of millions of acres across the United States that do not have these special characteristics but are essentially being treated as if they did. Let us explain.
 
In 1976, Congress promised to make a choice about which public lands should have special preservation, directing the Bureau of Land Management to conduct a study to determine which lands were suitable for wilderness designations and which were not. The BLM recommended 6.7 million acres as not suitable. However, because Congress has not acted on these recommendations, they continue to be treated essentially as if they were wilderness areas. Separately, in 1979 the U.S. Forest Service inventoried their Inventoried Roadless Areas and determined that 36 million acres were not suitable for wilderness; however, public access and use remain severely restricted.
 
Congress’ lax approach to these recommendations means that millions of acres of public land across our country remain in limbo; off-limits to multiple use and set apart from the local planning process.
That’s why we introduced the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act. Our legislation would end the cycle of indefinite wilderness review and bring nearly 43 million acres of public lands out of purgatory. Specifically, the BLM and Forest Service lands specified above would be released from de facto wilderness management and opened up for multiple use.
 
Our legislation does not direct what type of activities must occur on these lands. Rather, it would return management of these lands to the local Americans who live on and around them and provide them the flexibility to manage them for a multitude of activities.
 
In Wyoming, land that remains locked up by Washington is being ravaged by mountain pine beetles. The infestation has devastated the area, weakening the recreational and environmental value of the land. Since this land remains on Washington’s “do not touch” list, local land managers aren’t able to take steps necessary to address the problem.
 
In California, more than 3 million acres, including tens of thousands in the 22nd district, remain under lock and key unnecessarily. This means many rural and outlying communities that depend on tourism and recreation cannot maximize the potential of the public lands in their area. It also makes it harder for our firefighters to battle wildfires, which can devastate tens of thousands of acres of forest land and release thousands of tons of pollution into the air.
 
Our bill will face strong opposition from environmental extremists and their friends in the administration. But the bottom line is that this legislation is just common sense. It simply acts on the recommendations of the agencies that manage these lands and allows the American people to take advantage of their own land.
 
It’s long past time for Congress to act. Land that isn’t Congressionally recognized as “wilderness,” as well as deemed unsuitable for a wilderness designation by the very agencies that manage them, should be opened up for public use and enjoyment. Washington promised to make this choice more than 30 years ago. The Code of the West says, “When you make a promise, keep it.”
 
Washington might not have read the Code of the West, but we have, and we’re going to hold Washington to its promises. This land is the people’s land. It does not belong to the bureaucrats in Washington.

Randy Brandt: Deficit reduction and wealth creation go hand-in-hand with helping poor families

Randy Brandt is the Director of the program to promote and protect America's freedom at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC, and former deputy staff director and counsel for the Senate Republican Conference.

Recently, some Catholic academics have criticized Speaker John Boehner for his support of the 2012 budget as immoral and inconsistent with the tenets of his faith. Not for  infidelities on life or marriage issues, but for his commitment to deficit reduction and their view that it fails to “preference the needs of the poor.”  I am not Catholic, but all Christians, and most Conservatives for that matter, can resonate with the importance of helping the poor.  

Yet, we can also resonate with the wisdom of the Catholic and a similar Protestant principle of subsidiarity that recognizes that solutions to problems should be implemented at the closest possible level to the problem and sector being addressed.  To quote the prominent contemporary Catholic scholar and thinker, George Weigel, “Catholic social thought is about the empowerment of the poor.  It is not about failed policies of social assistance that treat poor people as problems to be solved rather than as people with potential to be unleashed.  It is not about using public policy to create generation after generation of serfs on the state welfare plantation.”

In an era where we are waking up as a nation to the seriousness of the deep financial hole in which we have put ourselves, we need to think creatively and direct limited resources strategically if we are to help poor families.  We also need to embrace the reality that in most cases solutions work best when they are closer to those in need. 

Our goal should be to promote growth and opportunity through encouraging private sector initiatives and through strategic public private partnerships first at the local, then regional, then statewide, and federal levels.  Moreover, advocates for the poor and the social safety net for the vulnerable need to recognize across the political spectrum that all of these initiatives are at risk if we do not get our fiscal house in order.

Our policies can promote opportunity through building community and promoting assets with long-term value for those struggling or we can simply spend resources the way that we have been.  If we desire to assist with impactful efforts to break the cycle of poverty, there are several obvious places to start. 

• First, encourage economic growth that will encourage job creation and employment opportunities for the unemployed and poor. 
• Second, promote stable families and continue to unabashedly look for ways to support families with a mom and a dad to keep kids out of poverty, while supporting the vast numbers of single parents.   
• Third, promote meaningful educational opportunity for those who do not have it. Ironically, Speaker Boehner, single handedly, did just that for some kids in failing and struggling schools in Washington, D.C. by restoring the educational scholarship program over the objections of many Congressional Democrats and President Obama. 
• Fourth, promote wealth creation and savings opportunity for those who lack the access to capital which also enables people to break the cycle of poverty.  Let’s focus on wealth creation.

What are some policy ideas which build assets and represent a better long-term investment than many of our poverty fighting programs which are rarely assessed for outcomes?  Homeownership, education, and entrepreneurship are asset building priorities which warrant private sector and public sector seed money more than most government initiatives.

Homeownership has been a key to moving families out of poverty in America. We need to be careful to avoid an outcome where it becomes too difficult for families to begin that process in the backlash over the excesses of the financial scandals and mortgage foreclosure crisis.  For lower income families a tax credit to assist with a down payment is probably a better “investment” by the government than the home mortgage interest deduction in terms of poverty alleviation.  The deduction provides a financial incentive to not pay down one’s mortgage as quickly and thus produces a greater reliance on market fluctuations in order to build equity and thus financial stability.

Teaching low-income people basic financial literacy through partnerships with the community such as through churches can also be an important starting point.  When you combine relevant financial education with additional incentives to save you can produce a rare scenario which actually changes human behavior.  Parents and their children begin to see first hand the benefits of saving and adapt their spending and saving habits accordingly.  Responsible use of credit and creating a nest egg for tougher times becomes a better buffer than the myriad of government attempts to do the same. 

In an era of limited resources, many programs which have been not been evaluated for their impact on actually reducing poverty should be considered for new resources to enable matching programs for savings for low-income citizens. This can be done in conjunction with private sector philanthropy through existing and proposed models such as individual development accounts or kids savings accounts which are geared for asset building purposes. Perhaps limiting the use of the funds is too restrictive for our libertarian friends, but it will produce dramatically better long term returns on public or private sector “investments” than many government programs which do not effectively promote change and opportunity.  I also believe that tax policy should not punish savings by double and triple taxing it and the more Americans who appreciate this view the better for our long term economic growth. 

Finally, Social Security reforms should include the option of personal accounts for at least a percentage of payroll taxes. Though only half of Americans pay federal income taxes, most Americans pay payroll taxes.  Allowing folks to choose to direct some of these “contributions” toward a real savings and investment account in their own name would enable them to make the choice whether or not to take more risk and thus historically to increase their return on their hard work. It would also enable minorities such as African American males with shorter life spans on average to get a better “return” on their payroll tax “investments.” Providing all Americans the option to pass along any unspent Social Security personal account savings to the next generation would help break the cycle of poverty and assist children, grandchildren or charities.  Allowing some of these resources to be used for low-cost annuities and life insurance could also have a powerful impact on generational poverty and family well-being. 

It requires more resolve, creativity, and a clearer sense of priorities when we must spend less as a nation.  Yet, the reality of our massive collective debt should focus our minds on ways to redirect more limited resources toward investments that are actually shown to reduce poverty and are likely to promote economic growth and opportunity for all Americans, including the poor among us.  Let’s get to work.

Rep. Steve Pearce: Time for a realistic Middle East policy

Congressman Steve Pearce represents New Mexico's 2nd District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

On Tuesday, I participated in a joint meeting of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate to receive Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  This should have been a positive meeting with America’s strongest ally in the Middle East.  Instead, the tension in the room was palpable, because everyone there was conscious of President Obama’s speech on Israel last week.

I was shocked to hear the President make the unprecedented suggestion that Israel should revert to its 1967 borders.  Israel is not only our best friend in this volatile region, but the freest nation.  In fact, Freedom House, an independent organization which rates countries based on their protection of political and civil rights, rated Israel as the only “free” country in the Middle East last year.

That the President outlined such a troubling policy with regard to our friends in Israel defies imagination.  It goes against our belief in freedom to ask this tiny beacon of human liberty, alone in an area known for violence and chaos, to retreat.  It goes against our responsibility to the world to ask our strongest ally in the region, a nation that has fought for its right to exist from its very creation, to withdraw to indefensible borders.  As Mr. Netanyahu said in his speech, “Imagine that right now we all had less than 60 seconds to find shelter from an incoming rocket.  Would you live that way?  Would anyone live that way?  Well, we aren’t going to live that way either.”

Under the 1967 borders, the Israelis would be shut out of East Jerusalem, which contains some of the holiest sites for Christians, Jews and Muslims—including the Temple Mount, Western Wall, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.  This is unacceptable.  The Prime Minister pointed out that only in Israel have Jews, Christians and Muslims been free to worship as they please. Jerusalem must never again be divided!

The 1967 borders are significant because that year saw hundreds of thousands of Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian, and Iraqi troops massed along those borders, intent on invading and destroying Israel.  It is disturbing that the President would even speak of forcing our ally back into such a position.

The President refers to a non-militarized Palestinian state, but only mildly condemns the Palestinians for accepting Hamas, a recognized terrorist group that openly supports the destruction of Israel, as a governing partner.  The 1967 borders would place Hamas within an 11-mile march of Tel Aviv, one of Israel’s major economic and cultural hubs.

The President expects Israel to reduce its security while Iran is building a nuclear weapon and has made clear that Israel is its preferred target.  Iran ships missiles and weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon, supporting a heavily armed hostile force on Israel’s northern border.  Iran supports Hamas in the Gaza strip, from which rockets and missiles are launched into Israel daily.

Israeli children wait in bomb shelters for the school bus.  Rocket and missile attacks are a constant and reliable terror.  Recently, as Mr. Netanyahu told the President, one such rocket hit a school bus and killed a 16-year old boy.  We would not tolerate such a thing in our country, and it is unthinkable for us to ask our ally to do so.  Now is not the time for political fantasy, it is the time for policies that will bring about peace and stability.

The President spoke of the advancement of democracy in Egypt, but failed to recognize concerns that the Muslim Brotherhood could seize power.  This group poses a serious threat to global security and especially to the safety of our ally Israel.  The President continues to talk about our intervention in Libya, but the fact is that President Obama risked American lives there needlessly and without congressional authorization.  Gaddhafi remains alive, and the situation has become a stalemate.  The President’s own Secretary of Defense admits that we had no pressing political or security interests in Libya.

The President stated that his outline on Israel’s border is a starting point for negotiations.  But I would prefer that negotiations start not with massive and dangerous concessions, but with each side recognizing the other’s right to exist in peace.  Israel has done this.  But Hamas, Hezbollah, and others have not.  As Mr. Netanyahu pointed out, when Arab states expelled their Jewish populations in 1948-49, Israel gladly took them in.  Meanwhile, over six decades later, many Arab countries still leave their Palestinian populations in refugee camps.  It is completely unacceptable that the President expects massive sacrifices from the only nation who has acted responsibly in the matter.

During his meeting with President Obama last week at the White House, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that “a peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle Eastern reality.”  He’s right.  It is time for the White House to shape a policy based in reality.  Americans and our allies deserve a policy that will protect us from the very real dangers and threats in the Middle East. 

Herb London: The UN vote on (a non-democratic) Palestinian state poses a historic threat to Israel and the West

Herbert London is president of the Hudson Institute and author of the book Decline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction Publishers).
 
In September the United Nations will attempt to create a Palestinian state through political mandate. It should be obvious to anyone who has observed UN action in recent years that this is not merely an attempt to justify the political aspirations of Palestinians, but rather to punish Israel. This initiative should be seen against a backdrop of Muslim imperial ambitions.
 
In fact, Israel is directly on the fault line of Islam’s territorial aims. This tiny nation of six million is the bulwark in the war with jihadists. Facing close to 300 million enemies in nations nearby Israel stands between survival and defeat of the West. Those Israeli eighteen year olds who are sent into battle allow parents in the United States to sleep restfully as their eighteen year olds go off to college. But make no mistake, Israel is the defender of our interests, the first line of defense in “the long war.”
 
This, of course, is a thin reed on which to rest a civilization, but it is a steel reed that time and again has demonstrated its mettle. Many in Europe and a growing population in the United States contend Israel should be abandoned in order to address Muslim grievances. But should this position gain traction, it would not bring solace to the West. It would merely mean our principles have been compromised. A world without Israel would not be a safer place; it would usher in a tide of aggression as Islamists see the West bend to their will. If Israel goes, the fragility of the West will become apparent.
 
As a consequence, it is time for a wake up call. Liberty is in the cross-hairs and the defender of that liberty, of our liberty, are the children of Israel. They are our chosen people sacrificing their blood so we may remain immune to the incursions of Islamic imperialism.
 
It is instructive that Islam is more than a religion; it is a religion qua political movement. Through sharia there are rules for society and for the behavior of every individual. Make no mistake, as presently constituted, Islam is not compatible with democracy. The pillars of democratic capitalism – individual rights, the rule of law, the preservation of private property, equality of women – are simply not part of Islamic tradition.
 
Like many other religions, Islam conceives of the world through the bifurcated lens of good and evil. Islamic theology has two spheres in perpetual conflict: the House of Islam and the House of War. The House of Islam (dar al-Islam) embraces territory where sharia is the law of the land, while the House of War (dar al-harb) comprises the rest of the world. According to the Koran, the House of Islam is enjoined by Allah to make war upon the House of War until the latter is permanently assimilated into the former. While this war is sometimes hot and sometimes cold, it is permanent until sharia reigns over the globe.
 
This is what Samuel Huntington understood to mean the conflict of civilizations. Most religions, of course, distinguish between believers and non believers, but Islam goes further drawing a capital distinction between political – legal regimes: those in submission to Islam and those in rebellion. Since the West is largely in rebellion, it is the challenge to be overcome.
 
That UN vote in September should be understood against this setting. Here is a systematic effort to vanquish western civilization, using the Palestinian question as a tactical instrument. Fifty seven Muslim nations have raised the stakes in this ongoing struggle and if there were ever a time for the western nations to mobilze their influence and assert the Judeo-Christian tradition that is the foundation stone of our way of life, this is it. Israel may be on the front-line in this struggle, but what is in question involves every person in the West.

Rep. Steve Pearce: As gas prices rise, White House clings to empty rhetoric

Congressman Steve Pearce represents New Mexico's 2nd District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The average price for a gallon of gas was up to $3.97 last week, more than double the $1.84 national average when President Obama took office.  In New Mexico, gas prices continue to rise, people struggle to make ends meet, and unemployment continues.  But in Washington, the White House seems unaware of these challenges, saying one thing and doing another.  We hear the President talk about domestic energy and American jobs, but we see his policies putting Americans out of work and sending prices still higher.  He has proposed tax after tax on our domestic energy industry.  He has advocated drilling in other countries while imposing a moratorium on our drilling jobs at home.

In fact, his policies stray so far from his rhetoric that one must wonder what’s really going on.

After all, we can’t forget that the President’s own words contradict his supposed agenda.  When running for president, he advocated higher oil prices as a means to different energy sources.

Months later, we saw this policy confirmed when President Obama selected Steven Chu for Secretary of Energy.  Secretary Chu summed up the Administration’s energy agenda when he stated in an interview, “somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

Soon after taking office, President Obama advocated cap-and-trade, a policy that would have had devastating consequences for domestic energy.  The Wall Street Journal called the program “a tax on the working class,” and cited a bipartisan Congressional Budget Office study to suggest that cap-and-trade would cost the poorest 20% of Americans about $680 per year.  Again, this Administration doesn’t seem to be putting its money where its mouth is in terms of energy policy.

Then there’s the gulf oil moratorium, which has continued for almost a year now.  The moratorium has reduced domestic oil production by 240,000 barrels a day, and has put 12,000 Americans out of work.  Those aren’t just numbers—that’s more than the population of Artesia, suddenly wondering where their next meal will come from.  And if things don’t changes soon, five times that number—another 60,000—will be left without a job.  Some estimate that the moratorium will leave 100,000 people out of work.

Soon after it was introduced, a court overturned the ban.  Then, in February, another court held the U.S. in contempt for continuing the moratorium.  Over the last few weeks, the House of Representatives passed several bills to end the moratorium.  Recently, the White House indicated that it will take action to return some of these jobs to the gulf and promote domestic drilling, but if the President is really interested in restoring our energy jobs, he could have done so all along.  It should not take an act of Congress to get him to do so.

Now, as gas prices continue to spike, the White House has no plans for how to lower them.  In fact, President Obama has advocated raising taxes.  Our federal government is facing a debt crisis, our people are unemployed, and our president is leading a relentless attack on an industry that provides $90 million a day in revenue and supports paychecks for 9.2 million Americans.

If the President wanted you to pay less money at the pump, he could let our thousands of oil workers in the gulf go back to work.  He could abandon plans to tax our energy jobs out of existence.  He could protect American workers against environmentalists and special interests groups.

But the President wants you to pay more at the pump.  He said so.

Call the White House and hold the President accountable to keep his promises and protect America’s energy jobs.  Call your Representatives and Senators and tell them that you do not support any plan designed to raise your costs at the pump.  Write your newspapers and tell them that higher gas prices and fewer American jobs is not a policy that’s good for any American.

You have the power to lower gas prices, protect American jobs, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  But to be heard, you have to speak out.

Ryan Messmore: Civil Society: Key to Fighting Poverty, Expanding Opportunity

Another installment in the Clapham Group-ConservativeHome series on conservatism, poverty, and opportunity in America.

Ryan Messmore, D.Phil., is the William E. Simon fellow in religion and a free society at The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org) and lead writer for “Seek Social Justice,” a DVD-based study for small groups.

Many conservatives fault government welfare programs for being too expensive or for running afoul of the proper constitutional boundaries. But there’s another point to consider: Civil society offers better hope and opportunity for escaping poverty than any government program can.
 
Advocating limited government goes hand in hand with trusting in the capacity of institutions of civil society such as families, churches and local businesses to meet human need.
 
Step 13, a ministry in Denver, is the sort of effort that can help forge that conviction.
 
Located a few blocks from Coors Field, Step 13 is a non-profit transitional living program for homeless drug addicts. Its founder and president, Bob Coté, has devoted his life to helping broken men recover their dignity and get back on their feet.
 
But Coté’s love often takes a tough form. He expects the men to treat each other and the facilities with respect. He sets a high bar for behavior, and holds the men accountable.
 
Once, upon finding graffiti in a restroom, Coté locked it shut for six weeks. Having to use the restroom at the nearby bus station persuaded the men to think twice about defacing Step 13 property again.
 
Coté also conducts random tests for drug use, knowing that these men must overcome their addictions if they are to escape poverty.
Why put up with Step 13’s strict rules instead of taking advantage of local government shelters?
 
“I tried those shelters over and over again, but they didn’t force me to give up my drugs,” one participant says. “I knew I needed the kick in the pants that Step 13 gives—I needed the random urine tests.” 
 
Step 13’s approach demonstrates several basic reasons why civil society often serves the poor more effectively than government programs do.
 
First, these local institutions can understand and target the root of the problem. Simply giving taxpayers’ money to poor people doesn’t overcome poverty. In America, material poverty usually is a symptom of deeper problems, including depression and fatherlessness or other broken relationships.
 
Groups such as Step 13, often equipped with a biblical worldview, are able to diagnose the root problems of poverty and social breakdown. They have a leg up on addressing the problems effectively.
 
Second, those who are part of institutions of civil society have the advantage of personally knowing the folks they help. People have different needs at different times. Effective solutions tailor assistance to the need at hand. The one-size-fits-all approaches of government programs lack this personal knowledge.
 
Distant bureaucracies aren’t able to see what Bob Coté sees: One man’s drug addiction is rooted in childhood abandonment, but the next man’s addiction can be traced back to a learning disability. Personally knowing these men enables Step 13 to provide necessary help.  
 
Third, local families and congregations often are equipped to address a wider range of needs than government can. To thrive, individuals need not only physical things such as clothes, shelter and food but also intangibles such as encouragement, hope, training, correction and good role models.
 
Sometimes they just need someone to provide helpful feedback or to advocate for them. And they need a sense of purpose, meaning and belonging.
 
Government anti-poverty programs often focus on a reduced set of needs, a perspective that hinders their ability to change lives. Families and faith-based ministries, in contrast, are equipped to meet a much broader range of needs, including spiritual, familial, emotional and interpersonal. So organizations of civil society offer a more realistic path to human flourishing.  
 
Fourth, personalized approaches can connect assistance with accountability and discipline. Many forms of government welfare require little or nothing in return from recipients of cash assistance and other aid—no thank-you note, no promise to repay the money, no increased standard of good behavior, no effort to improve their own situation.
 
This approach dehumanizes the needy by treating them as passive recipients, with nothing to contribute to the common good. It also cultivates an entitlement mentality, as well as dependence on government handouts.
 
Organizations such as Step 13 operate differently. They realize that tying assistance to accountability and discipline is a more dignified and loving approach. It recognizes that poor people have gifts to share and helps them escape cycles of dependence.
 
There’s a lesson here for government welfare programs. In 1996, when a new federal program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) began to tie benefits to work, millions escaped the welfare rolls and child poverty decreased significantly.
Recognizing that discipline is a form of care, conservatives should promote similar work requirements in other welfare programs.
 
Fifth and finally, our institutions of civil society can devise innovative ways to promote work and service. The most effective tool for escaping poverty in America is earning a paycheck. Non-government organizations not only can provide employment directly, but also can help unemployed men and women train for, find and keep jobs.
 
In Denver, Coté equips the men in Step 13 with computer-based education and training programs as well as by teaching basic life skills. He vouches for their character and work ethic when asking local business owners and executives to give these men a chance.
 
Businesses agree because of Coté’s presence as a mentor who holds the men accountable. Such human dynamics are simply lacking in most government welfare or “job creation” programs.
 
What government program run by Washington bureaucrats can show itself so well-equipped to help lift individual Americans out of poverty, expand their opportunities and prepare them to flourish?

The time has come to get beyond Obama's energy ideology and start opening up more domestic production

Rep. Raúl R. Labrador represents Idaho's 1st congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives.
 
As the warm weather approaches and Idahoans begin thinking of getting in their cars for summer vacations, the sight of skyrocketing gasoline prices will be troubling.    These record high gas prices directly impact every sector in our economy.  From small businesses to the basic needs of a family – we simply just cannot afford to see the prices at the pump become exponentially more expensive.
 
When President Obama took office took office in January 2009 the average price Americans paid for a gallon of gas was $1.84.  But today Idahoans are paying $3.80 per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline and some Americans pay well over $4 per gallon.  This is a direct result of President Obama’s chosen energy and economic policies. 
 
The President has openly supported policies that would cause energy costs to, in his words “necessarily skyrocket”.  He also selected Dr. Steven Chu to lead the Department of Energy who stated in September 2008, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”  At the time of this statement, the price of gasoline in Europe was an average of $8 per gallon.  The President’s most senior energy advisor talked about policies to ramp up gas prices in order to encourage consumers to switch to electric vehicles and renewable energy.  While I am supportive of moving our nation away from its dependence on foreign sources of oil, I do not believe this should be done to the detriment of our economy and our standards of living.  Americans rely on their cars to get to work, take their kids to school and almost everything in between.
 
The President claims that we have record high production levels but this simply isn't true today.  Thanks to the policies of President George W. Bush production increased in 2009 and 2010. After the April 20, 2010 Macondo oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the President issued a moratorium on new permits which led to a dramatic decline in production.  In October 2010, President Obama lifted this moratorium but his administration has been slow in issuing new permits to drill.  As a result, actual production in the gulf has been decreasing since June and is projected to continue to decrease.  
 
This is displayed in the chart below:

 
While I recognize that increasing drilling of oil and natural gas will not instantaneously decrease prices at the pump, we must do everything we possibly can in the United States to begin to wean ourselves off foreign oil and produce more of what we consume.
 
I have also supported measures to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge which can be done to mitigate the surface impact and doesn’t disrupt the wildlife habitat.  We are looking at legislative proposals that improve the burdensome regulatory process while maintaining strict environmental safeguards.
 
As a member of the Natural Resources Committee, I supported measures that passed in the House that would allow more drilling to occur in the Outer Continental Shelf.  (The 3 bills the House has passed: H.R. 1229, Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act; H.R. 1230, Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act; & H.R. 1231, Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act).  Not only do these bills increase domestic production but they also hold the oil and gas companies accountable to improved safety standards and protocols.  Increased drilling can occur in an environmentally safe manner.  When we are able to produce energy from our public lands, royalty payments are made to the treasury which works to reduce the deficit.
 
In a time of rising gas prices, the American people can no longer afford the negative impact of the Obama Administration’s failed energy policies.  As the summer progresses and the pain at the pump increases, I will continue to press for increased domestic production of oil and natural gas in an environmentally safe manner while waiting for President Obama to repudiate his longstanding allegiance to higher energy prices.

Herb London: Amidst Tea Party calls for limited government, we would do well to remember what limited government under our Constitution means

Herbert London is president of the Hudson Institute and author of the book Decline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction Publishers).

In speech after speech I have heard my colleagues in the Tea Party movement speak passionately about the need for limited government. With public enterprises expanding exponentially in the Obama era, this concern is understandable. The Founding Fathers recognized intrusive government as the forerunner of tyranny.
 
And yet, with some hesitancy, it must be pointed out that limited government – whatever its virtues – must be expandable enough to meet unanticipated necessities that may arise. Government should not be small if it is incapable of doing what must be done. Its size and influence should be calibrated to the conditions that maintain self government.
 
Limited government is a term of art related to scope, but not power or energy. A government should actively work to preserve liberty. But if, for example, a government taxes excessively in order to promote its programs, it can undermine the liberty it was fashioned to secure.
 
The Constitution, as the guardian of the liberty, is not an entirely fixed document; it is open to interpretation and amendment by the people. And as a consequence, can be used in latitudinarian circles to expand government authority. Hence each generation has a responsibility to guard against the usurpation of government influence, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan.
 
However, a government at war is different from a government at peace. Perhaps that explains why the Constitution has “a necessary and proper” clause. One would hope, as the authors of the Federalist Papers did, that what is necessary has precedence in the Constitution and everything that is necessary is also proper. Alas, that may be a reach.
 
But the presumption is that the Constitution by its very nature, limits government. For one thing, since the Constitution is above ordinary government, it is a check on the potential excesses of legislators. And second, since the Constitution is made by the people, it trumps ordinary law made by the legislature. Moreover, that Constitution can only be altered by recourse to the people.
 
Governments fashioned in this way are limited because the Constitution itself is the embodiment of human foibles. Federalist 51 notes, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” Averice counteracts averice; greed counteracts greed. As a consequence, the Constitution presupposes, with its reliance on the full panoply of human conditions, that human beings are capable of governing themselves rather than being the helpless victims of historical forces.
 
To limit is to create boundaries. Our government is limited by a Constitution that restricts certain behavior based on precedent and an understanding of human nature. But when the term limited government is employed, it is contingent on necessities of the moment, on those factors that can produce security and tranquility. Emergencies require stringent action, action that the Constitution will in most instances countenance.
 
The genius of our system is the flexibility inherent in the framing and the parameters that offer direction for action. Constitutional provisions are a balance wheel of restrained can dos and adaptable limitations. Therefore limited government has several meanings that should be offered as part of the public debate on the future of government activity. The glib assertion that we should recall the American application of limits is valid for a generation that often believes government should do everything from paying your mortgage to providing free health care. Our Constitution recognized government as a necessary institution which is neither powerless nor omniscient. That may not be the stuff of bumper sticker logic, but it is closest to what actually exists in Washington DC.

A safety net or a padded cell? A British take on universal healthcare and freedom

Henry Hill is a British Conservative and Unionist activist, and author of the blog Dilettante. 

Watching the battles between the Obama administration and the Republicans over Obamacare is a slightly surreal experience for a Brit. After all, over here the National Health Service is a national shibboleth, an apparently fundamental part of our British identity, and those who challenge it – such as Daniel Hannan – earn themselves something akin to pariah status amongst political polite society.

So warped is the discourse on health in Britain that our incoming Conservative government was compelled to ring fence NHS spending completely from the austerity drive, necessitating vital cuts in other sectors whilst dis-incentivizing healthcare efficiency. One can decry wasteful spending on a bloated bureaucratic class, but actually cutting it is politically impossible. Every increased NHS cost has to be referred to as an ‘investment’. Really, it isn’t the terms of the American debate about healthcare that puzzles the British: it’s the phenomenon of having a debate on the subject at all.

Yet the dialogue is so one-sided in Britain that the evidence filtering across the Atlantic is unlikely to be balanced. When it comes to healthcare the testimonies of most British politicians are akin to Soviet tractor statistics – it would be electoral suicide to other than burnish the halo of this last surviving relic of our post-war flirtation with a command economy. To try to redress the balance, below I examine some of the fundamental differences between British and American cultures regarding that paramount American virtue, freedom, and the cultural impact of the UK’s largely socialized medical system.

Since the trajectory of Obama’s healthcare policies has been in a “British direction,” if you will, American policymakers would do well to consider the cultural effects of those policies.

This won’t be an article about health outcomes per se. Certain individuals continue to courageously challenge British assumptions about healthcare, with Hannan’s column and James Bartholomew’s excellent The Welfare State We’re In being but two examples, and these men make the arguments about the NHS’s inefficiency, failings and returns entirely incommensurate to its astronomical costs far better than I can in a short article such as this. Instead, I want to examine the impact the NHS has on individual freedom, and what the state and other agencies feel mandated or entitled to do with it. This article was sparked by this piece on Smitten by Britain, a “Britophile” American blog, which reports that the Royal College of Physicians is lobbying British lawmakers to ban smoking in cars. This one example is enough to demonstrate several of the deplorable side-effects of the impact of an NHS-style universal health system on political and civic life.

The most obvious impact becomes apparent when you consider what your car actually is. It is a personal space that is (usually) your private property, and access to it is at your discretion. Your home also fits this description. Your car is not a public space, and if the government can legislate to prescribe how you behave in your car (for reasons other than ensuring you drive safely) then it can prescribe your actions at home without any leap in logic. This is a prime example of how the area of your life that the government feels entitled to meddle with is constantly expanding, even in a society as over-scrutinized and over-managed as the UK.

Where does this sense of entitlement spring from? This expansion of governmental influence stems from the second consequence of universal health care on the British model: nearly every action anybody undertakes or choice they make comes with a bill for the taxpayer. Where once an individual could make a choice and bear responsibility for the consequences of that choice – for example, by eating a poor diet and paying higher insurance premiums – the state is now mandated to foot the bill for the consequences of poor decisions “free at the point of delivery”. When something is ‘free’, and especially if you think that it is ‘free’ because the money is being squeezed out of someone else through taxation, you are less likely to appreciate the healthcare you are receiving – the negative health impacts of your lifestyle choices or the actual price you’re paying in higher general taxation – and thus you’re much more likely to indulge in irresponsible behaviour. Moreover, because the government can cast irresponsible behaviour with what were once only personal consequences as a cost to taxpayers, the general population are more likely to be inclined to support prescriptive legislation if they think it will save them money.

Once the government has, in its munificence, removed the natural consequences that encourage responsible behaviour, it has to pay for the consequences of irresponsible behaviour (higher taxes for you), try to legislate new disincentives to replace the ones it has disposed of (punitive duty on alcohol and cigarettes, heavy restrictions on the marketing and sale of these products) and outright ban behaviour that costs the state money (smoking ban and, if one continues the logic, prohibition). In Britain, the worst part is that there is no escaping this. Even if you choose to pay substantially extra for private healthcare from the likes of Bupa, the state is still fundamentally liable for your wellbeing, you still pay all the taxes levied to pay for the NHS and your choices are still restricted or penalized.* The Conservative Party once campaigned on an ‘opt-out’ scheme for people with private healthcare, but dropped it after the 2005 election.

Nor is this behaviour confined to the government. The smoking in cars example above also demonstrates how once a prescriptive culture develops, it can extend beyond government and into third parties such as the Royal College of Physicians, effectively turning professional medical organisations into authoritarian lobbyists. Rather than simply getting you better, doctors can come to think it would be much simpler if they simply banned all the things that make you ill – which is true, if you can momentarily forget the frightening consequences of such logic. But where does it end? If too many idle hours in front of the computer or television increase our chances of falling ill, why not legislate limits on these activities or mandatory exercise? It sounds absurd, but it is entirely consistent with the logic being demonstrated by the RCP.

This paternalistic attitude can be seen even beyond organisations that have any formal link to the healthcare profession. Alongside the rise of no-win, no-fee legal practices, the idea that it is acceptable to prescribe behavior to avoid even the smallest of risks lies behind the mutation of health and safety – at its heart an entirely laudable doctrine designed to stop machine operators losing fingers or miners choking on gas pockets – into the grotesque edifice it is today. It might look like private companies are treating adults as children, but the government did it first.

The common thread running through all these examples is that once the government removes responsibility from people (or rather, agrees to foot the bill for their irresponsibility), people will have less reason to act responsibly. As the costs climb, and the bill comes to be presented as a collective burden on all of us, both the government and the people lose any incentive to let people manage their own lives and, over time, perhaps lose the belief that they ever could. The general public is saddled with more laws, more taxes and less freedom in exchange for a healthcare system that is a long, long way from being, in the words of innumerable British politicians, “the best in the world”.

 In Europe, we have always struck the balance between freedom and security differently to America. However, in the UK the political consensus surrounding the fundamental goodness of the NHS is so absolute, and the debate so muted and warped, that the general public can scarce imagine a market-based system being anything other than a cruel, social-Darwinist nightmare. Those voices that do oppose the NHS tend to argue on the basis of measurable results and medical outcomes, and often do so very well. Arguing against universal healthcare on the basis of individual freedom is extremely unlikely to work in Britain, but it is a warning worth making to Americans who cherish and tangibly enjoy their liberty-oriented culture.

Having tens of millions of American citizens without healthcare provision is wrong, but US lawmakers should be careful that they design a safety net to catch people when they fall, rather than a padded cell wherein they are confined and prevented from climbing at all.

*Incidentally, the fact that private healthcare only makes sense as a high-end product in the UK surely explains how ordinary British people came to think that private or semi-private health provision could never cater to them.