So what is a special Interest exactly?

We hear all about ending special interests. Every presidential candidate is promising to end special interests. If everyone wants them gone why aren't they? I contend the simple answer is the term special interest has no meaning.

When you hear a candidate promising to end the reach of special interests that sounds good right? The problem as I see it is conservatives see special interests much differently than liberals or progressives do. Additionally I believe special interests can be good, and they can be bad. We have been lead to believe that lobbyists are bad. After all the Jack Abramhoff scandal was all about lobbyists correct? The New York Times tried to paint John McCain as at minimum a tool of the special interest, and at worst having an affair with a member of a special interest. Lobbyists in Washington do a lot of good. They educate the legislators about their 'special interest'. They bring information that the legislators need. There are some and probably a lot that go too far. Who is to blame when they sell corruption to the lobbyist or the politician? Well both of them. If money corrupts politicians why aren't they all corrupt? Some would say they are, but I don't agree. Additionally if our congressmen and women are all beholden to special interests, why don't we vote them out?

If a lobbyist from the trial lawyer lobby brings valuable info and contributions to a Democratic congressman, is he corrupting him or her? I say doubtful. Most Democrats agree with the trial lawyer lobby and quid pro quo is unlikely to happen, he is getting money and information from a group he agrees with. The same is true of groups that agree with Republicans.

So now what is a special interest exactly? Barak Obama like to paint all corporate lobbyists as special interest. How about union lobbyists? How about specifically teacher unions? How about environmental groups? Are these groups special interests? I think so but I'll bet Senator Clinton and Senator Obama don't agree. I say they are every bit as much a special interest as a lobbyist from the oil industry. Should we eliminate all of their access? Of course not. They educate and more importantly represent the views of ordinary citizens that don't always have a voice. If your job depends on Exxon staying viable do you view an oil lobbyist as a crook or an important asset. How about the if you are a teacher, are your representatives corrupt or working on your behalf? I'll bet I know the answer.

What we need in our campaigns are issues that are honest and matter to the future of the country. Reigning in and providing transparency of interest group representatives is important. Ending special interest doesn't pass the sniff test. It can't be defined objectively. This points out the problem with left leaning politicians and some on the right, they can't speak objectively and get elected, their interest groups traffic strictly in emotions they don't want the light of day put on their arguments, so they spew phrases that mean nothing. End the special interest is one of those phrases.

Re-writing the laws of economics

I wrote some time back about the religion of change. We are finding out more and more about what the candidates are proposing for change. Barak Obama being the leader on the left is interesting. He is so far to the left and most of his supporters won't admit it or don't know it.

Lets take a few of the things he has proposed in his advertisements I have seen in Ohio this week.

1. He will reduce the cost of health care premiums by $2400 per year. A classic mistatement. He as a politician can have no effect on cost. He can affect price. This is what he is referring to. By subsidizing certain people he can reduce the price of their health care insurance. We should not buy into the statement that this is their health care. No one can be denied health care. Only insurance is the issue in this campaign. The Dems can show where they would pay for the initial system they are proposing. A demand curve tells us that as the price of a good or service goes down the quantity demanded will go up. Unless Senator Obama has a way to change the fundamentals of economics, this will of course happen. There will initially be no restrictions so the quantity demanded will go through the roof. This will of course expand the needs of the system. To cover this demand one of two things will happen(probably both).
A Taxes will be substantially raised.
B Restrictions on services will be put in place. This is where it gets scary. The same type of government officials who fail miserably at veterans hospitals, FEMA, the post office etc will now be in charge of deciding who gets their services cut. Just as with Social Security the taxes and or the rationing will make our heads spin.

2. Education. Senator Obama is promising $4,000 per child per year. I just looked up this benefit and he will require these people to do community service. Nice idea. I have two general problems with this

A More government money with none or very little restriction on the receiving institutution leaves it up to the institution what to do with tuition rates. This windfall of cash will cause increases in tuition of course as it always has. Remember when a large influx of money comes into a market with very limited competition prices go up every time.

B All of these people will need to have their community service will need to be tracked to be sure they perform community service, to make sure they don't get the stipend more than once and many other things. I smell a government agency. Government agencies don't go away and the costs go up astonomically after established.

3. Removing the tax breaks for businesses that export jobs. There is indeed a tax break for mutinationals that open plants overseas. This of course was caused by the Congress trying to fix a problem. In the eighties the cry was that the playing field was not level for American companies to sell to Europe and Asia. Many of these nations had laws that to sell in their nation a certain percentage has to be created in their country. The congress tried to compensate for this with tax break. Nice idea. This of course encouraged to businesses to open plants overseas. This became known as exporting jobs. This break can be removed. It will be a tax increase to the related companies. Since we have among the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world this would further raise the incentive for companies not to keep jobs here, but to move corporate citizenship offshore. That doesn't sound like a great idea. Here is a thought that both parties could get in on. Remove the break, but reduce the corporate tax rate substantially. The increntive to open plants off shore will be gone and the lower corporate rate will encourage multinationals to move here. That of course would not play with the nut-roots in the Democratic party.

My challenge is this. What idea of Barak Obama is different that Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden and other far left wingers have not been pushing for forty years. The specifics are different, but the truth is he has a government solution for anything that ailes anyone. This plus the surrender plan is the same as George McGovern. So much for change.

What about those RINO's

to a political junkie a RINO is a republican in name only. I have used the term myself. I no longer do. Here is why.

Conservatives have long been fond of saying I am a conservative not necessarily a Republican. The truth is we live in a two party system. There are Democrats and there are Republicans. Other parties sinply bleed off support from the party that comes closest to their views. Greens hurt Democrats. Libertarians hurt republicans more than Democrats, but also bleed some Democrats. In the near term Democrats are not going to embrace any conservative values so until that changes yes Virginia we are Republicans no matter how mad they make us.

There are about 25-35% of the electorate that call themselves liberals or progressives and likewise conservatives. This varies from time to time but over time seems to be in that area. That leaves about 50-65% of the electorate that are independents. They may be slightly right leaning and they may be slightly left leaning or they may not lean either way. I truly believe there are no true moderates. There are people who lean left on one issue but right on another issue to the point that they don't fit into either left of right. When we excoriate RINO's we run the risk of pushing away 50% of the electorate because they are not conservative enough for our vaunted perceptions. I heard someone today saying we are going in the right direction because Senate and Congressional Republicans are more conservative and a lot of RINO's have been pushed to retire. I'm not sure why that is a good thing. While I wish we could be a majority party with all conservatives, I can't think of a time that this has ever happened for either party. In case we haven't noticed that party purity has lead to a minority status with very little hope of that changing in November.

Poltical parties are coalitions of dispirate views. Telling groups that you can't come play in our sandbox doesn't win elections. I also don't believe this view sells out my very conservative views. I can guarentee that the Democrats, the liberal party will happily accept conservative union workers and other middle of the road groups if it means a liberal Speaker of the House and a liberal Senate Majority leader. The Republicans understood that in the nineties. We seem to have forgotten it today.

I can't say it loud enough. Liberals in charge of the House and Senate and if they win the White House in charge of the cabinet positions and selecting activist judges will not further conservative values. My advice, hold your nose and vote Republican, but once and for all, demand that our conservative leaders, lead and not play along to get along. Demand that they teach people about what it means to be a conservative. When a liberal TV host spouts the usual litany of insults about conservatives, take them on don't stick to your talking points. Again I say LEAD, or get out of the way!!

Anger and politics

Lots of political movements are based in anger. Much of the left is based in anger. Sometimes it sells. Sometimes it doesn't. I think the times that anger has been effective in politics has been very rare.

The civil rights movement from my reading of history was much more effective in the period of the positive messages of Martin Luther King than in the angry messages of Malcolm X. The feminists did better when they talked of equal rights than now that their message is almost entirely based on abortion and, well hatred of men. I should here explain I don't regard the average woman looking for equal pay for equal work and other equalities as the same group as the angry feminists such as Gloria Steinem ,Kate Michaelman, and Betty Freidan.

Now I have been wondering why the conservative movement is not gaining ground. I think it is because the most vocal part of it, have become very angry. This is the time where you think that I am going to launch into an attack on talk radio. No not this time, although some of these hosts deserve part of the blame.

The right has not done a good job of explaining the real benefits of conservative. Some of the rhetoric that has gone along with the immigration debate has often been angry and sounding like good old fashioned racism. Here I don't want to be misunderstood. The immigration battle is important and must be won. Law and order must prevail. Assimilation has to happen. The rhetoric has to follow that aim.

Conservatism is an ideology that has to persuade, not threaten. Many of the things we believe are couter intuitive. Unless you look under the surface it may be difficult to understand that tax cuts actually create higher revenues. Welfare reform actually helps people save their own lives. Massive college subsidies do not in fact create more educated people. These thinks have to be explained patiently and repetitively. Not shouted at people. It plays into the game plan of the left which is that conservatives are based in hate not love. This is why the term compassionate conservatie was destructive. It was a surrender to the left.

We need effective leaders. Other people than just talk radio. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and others have been huge influences on my knowledge. My first 'teachers' though were Jack Kemp, Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich. I think we lack elected leaders that can evangelize the conservative message. Until we get some more of them we can't move the conservative movement back on track.

I am not sure why we don't have them today. We do have good conservatives in Congress and the Senate. Why they aren't making an impact on society, I'm just not sure why. There is a young left wing person named Barak Obama, maybe you have heard of him. I think if you ask the average Obama voter what his policies are and I'm not sure they could tell you. I'm sure they wouldn't tell you that they love that his voting record is the most liberal in the Senate even more so than Ted Kennedy.

Likewise Ronald Reagan didn't sell policy, he sold a vision of what America was to him. The policies were there, but he sold us on a vision. Of course he had great ideas that translated into great policies. He was a leader first. Why is Mike Huckabee still in the race? He is selling ideas. He has no money and sometimes his policies don't go along with his visions, but he is successful because he is attempting to sell ideas. John McCain is the presumptive nominee because he is selling an idea. A return to a Ronald Reagan America. To win in November he has to sell people that he is the man to bring that to this century with his plans and policies, but he is selling a vision first.

I remember the last few elections we had people running that I think had better policies. Steve Forbes a terrific economics man. He couldn't personalize it to the average voter, not the politics junkie, but to the average voter. Rudi Guilliani I thought was the best equipped to handle all of the roles of President, but just couldn't get the people along the way convinced. Some of it has to do with his social issues, but just didn't get it done. Mitt Romney is a great policy wonk. We never knew what he believed down deep. Unfortunately the most passion I saw him show was in his exit speech.

Great ideas and policies are vital, but the ability to convey a vision cannot be underestimated. Visions are never communicated as anger. Just as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They won't agree but they also aren't running for office anymore. That isn't because they don't want to, no one wants them to.