Jeff Wartman

h/t Club For Growth

“It is a fundamental principle of our country that the people are sovereign. While they recognize the undeniable authority of the state, they have established as its instrument a Government of limited powers. They hold inviolate in their own hands the jurisdiction over their own freedom and the ownership of their own property. Neither of these can be impaired except by due process of law. The wealth of our country is not public wealth, but private wealth. It does not belong to the Government, it belongs to the people. The Government has no justification in taking private Property except for a public purpose. It is always necessary to keep these principles in mind in the laying of taxes and in the making of appropriations. No right exists to levy on a dollar, or to order the expenditure of a dollar, of the money of the people, except for a necessary public purpose duly authorized by the Constitution. The power over the purse is the power over liberty.”

Here is a quote from Teddy Roosevelt in 1910, outlining what he called his ‘Square Deal’.

Stand and take notice, fellow Republicans.  Teddy was right.

“Practical equality of opportunity for all citizens, when we achieve it, will have two great results. First, every man will have a fair chance to make of himself all that in him lies; to reach the highest point to which his capacities, unassisted by special privilege of his own and unhampered by the special privilege of others, can carry him, and to get for himself and his family substantially what he has earned. Second, equality of opportunity means that the commonwealth will get from every citizen the highest service of which he is capable. No man who carries the burden of the special privileges of another can give to the commonwealth that service to which it is fairly entitled…

..I stand for the square deal. But when I say that I am for the square deal, I mean not merely that I stand for fair play under the present rules of the game, but that I stand for having those rules changed so as to work for a more substantial equality of opportunity and of reward for equally good service… When I say I want a square deal for the poor man, I do not mean that I want a square deal for the man who remains poor because he has not got the energy to work for himself. If a man who has had a chance will not make good, then he has got to quit… Now, this means that our government, National and State, must be freed from the sinister influence or control of special interests. Exactly as the special interests of cotton and slavery threatened our political integrity before the Civil War, so now the great special business interests too often control and corrupt the men and methods of government for their own profit. We must drive the special interests out of politics… For every special interest is entitled to justice, but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation in any public office. The Constitution guarantees protection to property, and we must make that promise good. But it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation. The true friend of property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature of man’s making shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it. The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have themselves called into being.”

Don’t be fooled by the empty rhetoric of Arlen Specter.  Out of political self-preservation, he switched parties.  No ideological change occured — he himself said that none of his opinions have changed.  He won’t be voting differently.  He did this for one reason, and one reason alone:  he couldn’t win the Republican primary, so he jumped parties to give himself a shot at re-election. 

So don’t let his empty rhetoric fool you.  Moderation is alive and well in the Republican Party.  As a moderate, I can verify some details.  I go to 5-10 meetings per month of various Republican groups:  Will County Republican Central Commitee, Will County Young Republicans (of which I am Vice-Chair and Treasurer), Frankfort Township Republican Organization, along with many others.  There is a diversity of opinion within the various groups.  I can tell you first hand that none of them wish to expel moderates from the party.  In fact, in some cases, these groups are dominated by moderates (sometimes not).  The point isn’t whether we’re more dominated by conservatives or moderates — the point is that a diversity of opinion is welcome in the Republican Party.

In the end, the ideological divide is less about rigid ideology and more about world outlook.  In the Republican Party, we believe individuals can best decide for themselves how to live their lives, and government should step back as much as possible.  The Democrat Party wants government to act as your nanny, making decisions for you, because Papa Government knows best.

Cross posted at Freedom Illinois

I’ve been outspoken about one fact in current political discourse — namely that Republicans should not give up ground to Democrats on some issues where the free market can solve problems but are traditionally liberal issues — issues like the environment, healthcare and education.

I want to focus on the evironment here.

Let’s be clear about one thing — if human activities are responsible for  global warming, then liberals should speak out against their own system.  After all, it was under the watch of the EPA that human caused global warming supposedly has occurred.  So if we are to become believers in the human caused global warming phenomenon, clearly the EPA has failed and we need to look to other solutions.

One of the most significant obstacles to having this discussion is a lack of understanding by some liberals about what the term ”free-market” actually means.  Hint:  If you point to China to use an an example of the free-market, you don’t understand the term.  If you think that “free-market” means unregulated capitalism and the rule of robber barons, you don’t understand the term.  If you think that “free market” means that market failures aren’t possible, you don’t understand the term.  Under a free market system, corporate welfare and corporatist laws are just as destructive as socialism.

So, hopefully we’ll be able to have a reasonable debate without people thinking that “free market” is anarchy or means a total lack of government, laws or regulations. 

Now, on to the master, John Stossel:

How might the free market — which relies on consent, not coercion — be better than government at addressing global warming? Policy analyst Gene Callahan points out that government is a big part of the problem because it encourages overuse of fossil fuels.

For example, use of highways is not subject to market pricing, so it appears to be free. The resulting traffic jams are bad for the environment.

We’d use less coal if the government didn’t create regulatory obstructions to nuclear power.

The creative market process — if unburdened by state subsidies and regulations — would discover alternative fuels that bureaucrats can’t even dream of.

Today, an energy maverick is likely to be punished by the government, as Bob Teixeira learned when he had the audacity to run his Mercedes on soybean oil. If climate danger is real, the profit motive will drive entrepreneurs to find technologies to reduce CO2.

Markets outshine governments in innovation and flexibility. Those virtues would come into play if global warming does become a problem. “For example, the financial industry, by creating new securities and derivative markets, could crystallize the ‘dispersed knowledge’ that many different experts held in order to coordinate and mobilize mankind’s total response to global warming,” writes Callahan.

“Weather futures can serve to spread the risk of bad weather beyond the local area affected. Perhaps there could arise a market betting on the areas most likely to be permanently flooded. That may seem ghoulish, but by betting on their own area, inhabitants could offset the cost of relocating should the flooding occur.”

A less-regulated insurance industry would have a strong profit motive to anticipate problems from any warming and set prices for property coverage appropriately.

Insurance companies would rely on the best scientific information because, unlike government, if they make a mistake, they face bankruptcy.

The most important thing we can do is not to impede production of wealth.

As the late Aaron Wildavsky said in his wonderful book Searching for Safety, “Wealthier is healthier.” A rich society is resilient and able to respond to unforeseen threats.

People in the developing world desperately need prosperity. Blocking their development on the flimsy promise of climate “fixes” will only make hard lives harder. Their primitive environments are killing them.

The question then becomes, what specific proposals can we as free-market Republicans provide to the issues of environmentalism?  Many are outlined above.  What do you think?

Here’s the weekly Republican address, given by Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan on Obama’s budget and the Republican alternative.