At the age of 18, I took a job as a janitor at a local private middle school. The job paid just above minimum wage and involved extremely difficult physical labor. Worse, some might say, I was doing this menial labor for the rich kids in town. But I needed to save money for college, and this was the best job I could find. So for that summer, in the thick Pennsylvania heat, I scrubbed floors, shoveled dirt, and cleaned bathrooms. It was terrible, but it was a job—and I was thankful for it.

Looking back, I was never resentful of the students who attended that school. Their attendance meant they needed a janitor, and the steep tuition their parents paid funded my modest wages. Without that school I probably wouldn’t have had a job.

My small story demonstrates a truth that is critical to the current national debate: The economy is a rising tide that carries all ships. In other words, in a free market economy, success for some leads to opportunity for others. The entrepreneur who becomes wildly rich through the success of his venture also creates thousands of jobs for others at his company. Those jobs create income. That income is then used to purchase products throughout the economy, increase demand, and boost growth, all of which create more jobs. The cycle continues.

To make it concrete, consider the world’s richest man, Bill Gates. Did Microsoft’s success make Bill Gates wealthy? Yes—his net worth is over $50 billion. Did his company better the lives of millions? Yes—not only has Microsoft created thousands of jobs (it currently employs over 100,000 people), it has also helped lead a technology revolution that’s made business more efficient, information more accessible, and quality of life much higher. Bill Gates’ success was, in many ways, the world’s success.

Oddly enough, however, progressive policy discourages this type of prosperity. The more you make, the argument goes, the more government ought to confiscate. The U.S. already has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, and the Obama Administration is planning sharp increases in the top marginal income tax rate, despite the fact that many small businesses are organized as “individuals” and will feel the increased burden directly. If taxes can be used as disincentives (high taxes on tobacco, for example), and tax breaks as incentives (first time home-buyer tax credit; environmental product purchases etc.), why disincentivize success through exceptionally high corporate and income taxes?

Because liberal pundits and politicians see a much different world. For them, the economy is a fixed game, where the wealth of the rich increases the poverty of the poor. Rather than a rising tide, the economy is seen as a finite pie—if one person takes more, there is less for another.

This type of thinking has given rise to divisive rhetoric that forwards class warfare and demonizes industry. Proponents of this theory say they “favor the little guy,” will attack the “fat cat rich,” and call for us to “spread the wealth around.” Sound familiar? Or, consider recent comments by Howard Dean, former head of the Democratic Party: “In contradistinction to the Republicans…[Democrats] don’t believe kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.”

This, however, is an unfortunate distortion of both economic and philosophical reality. Study after study demonstrates that broad economic growth benefits everyone through technological advancements, creation of jobs, and specialization of labor (through which each worker’s value is increased). On tax policy, a recent study of 91 fiscal stimulus programs in 21 developed economies from 1970-2007 by Harvard economist Alberto Alesina found tax cuts are far more simulative than redistributive government spending. Christina Romer, in a study she conducted prior to joining the Obama Administration, found large economic multipliers from tax cuts, which she concluded “have very large and persistent positive output effects.” Tax increases, she also found, hurt growth. This of course has all been proven out through the exceptional growth in GDP and economic output following John F. Kennedy’s tax cuts in the 1960s and Ronald Reagan’s in the 1980s.

The common liberal retort is that, while the economy may grow, the rich simply get richer. But they ignore that the poor and middle class also get richer. Their relative increases may be less than that of the rich, but a better life is a better life.

Even putting considerations of liberty and property rights aside, low taxes are necessary catalysts and incentives to encourage the kind of growth that helps the whole of society. There exists, however, cognitive dissonance: The “rich” benefit directly from tax cuts; the poor benefit indirectly from resulting economic growth. Not understanding this nuance, many mistakenly throw the baby out with the bath water. They must realize there is simply no progressive utopia where the economy grows despite excessive redistributive fiscal policy.  

Conservatism believes the best way to care for the poor is through a free, open, and prosperous society where success for one leads to opportunity for another. It is a beautiful, unifying philosophy.  If you’ve ever traveled the world, you’ve witnessed the power of free, market-driven societies—someone at the current poverty line in the United States is richer than 87% of the world. China, India, and a host of emerging nations learned this lesson quickly when quality of life boomed after adopting free market principles (though they still have a long way to go).

John F. Kennedy said it best in 1963 when facing the difficult choice to cut taxes in the midst of declining federal revenues: “Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle.” The free economy is a rising tide that carries all ships, a powerful mechanism for broad prosperity, opportunity, and more importantly, unity for all.

-Matt Benchener is Supervisor of Newtown Township and Founder of TruPolitics.net

During our final meeting before the Fourth of July, our Board of Supervisors (the local governing body in Newtown Township, PA for which I serve as Vice-Chairman) was faced with a difficult and emotional decision: Should we fund fireworks for our community in the face of a bleak financial outlook? Celebrating our nation’s independence with fireworks is a time-honored tradition in Newtown, but escalating costs and declining revenues meant we had to make tough budgetary choices. So, do you jeopardize a key community event in favor of fiscal responsibility, or fund the fireworks and risk a future tax hike?

Moments like this occur often in local politics. Unlike the federal government, municipalities can’t print money, issue endless mountains of debt, or finish the year in the red. The mandate is clear: Balance the budget or go bankrupt.  As such, local officials must constantly face the harsh reality of either reduced services or higher taxes. There is little alternative.

However difficult, such forced balance can be a beautiful blessing in disguise. We cannot pass debt onto future generations, leaving fiscal responsibility to our successors, or delay tough decisions in favor of political pandering. We cannot say “yes” to every request, or promise voters a utopia and spend others’ money to pay for it. A local leader’s philosophy on the role of government is constantly tested.

This was one such moment. The night prior, in a Financial Planning Committee meeting, we told our police chief to reduce his request for video monitoring equipment, and asked our technology head to pare back important operational software requests. Were fireworks more important than public safety or administrative efficiency?

As our board meeting progressed, I felt anxiety over the decision. I thought, “Do we want to be the ones that take away fireworks for hundreds, if not thousands of residents? Do we want to break a revered tradition and send our residents to other municipalities (or worse, New Jersey!) for the Fourth?” I’d campaigned on strict fiscal discipline, low taxes, and constrained spending, but since taking office I’d also learned the acute human impact of each of our decisions.

Then it hit me: What day were we celebrating? Independence Day. The day our country declared its separation from overbearing government, affirmed its unwavering defense of liberty, and sought a new nation bred of individual freedom and responsibility. Who were we to spend others’ money?

Independence, in many ways, means the freedom to choose. Any dollar government spends is a dollar taken from its citizens, and when that occurs, government has made a choice. By spending our residents’ money on fireworks, therefore, we were deciding how their hard earned money would be spent. In trying economic times, perhaps they would be willing to forgo fireworks. Perhaps they would prefer to save that money to meet rent, save for a home, or buy a car. Why not let them decide?

For Independence Day, the decision was clear: If the community wanted fireworks, let’s come together and make it happen. No government, no bureaucrats, no administrators legislating choice. But a community of private citizens committed to honoring tradition, history, and Independence, willing to donate to a worthy cause.

A few nights later, as I sat with my family and watched the fireworks light up the sky in Newtown, I smiled knowing our community had met the challenge. Volunteer and private organizations had come together to raise funds, and the fireworks were magnificent. Government got out of the way, and let Independence ring.

Everyday, our leaders are faced with similar decisions. Many might seem small—the fireworks represented about .01% of our annual budget—but every decision to defend liberty is invaluable. Liberty enables communities to come together, individuals to succeed, and societies to pursue prosperity. It is a fundamental human right, unalienable and foundational to our nation’s exceptional success. Too often, however, our leaders forget the creeping pull of government control. They forget that government is not a self-sustaining entity; it is funded directly by citizens. They forget that government action does not occur in a vacuum; it replaces individual choice and responsibility. They forget that as government grows, liberty shrinks.

That is why, as we begin to head into election season, it is every citizen’s responsibility to champion small government and freedom. Let our actions tear to shreds empty rhetoric and false promises. This Fourth of July, we decided that Independence is best honored not by fireworks, but by Liberty.

-Matt Benchener is Supervisor of Newtown Township and Founder of TruPolitics.net

Now imagine that the critical first step in the flywheel (pandering to voters) can be accomplished through a narrow political strategy: Spending. Recent data released from the Tax Foundation notes that a full 60% of Americans consume more government services than they pay in taxes. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center showed that by 2011, 46% of Americans will pay $0 in federal income tax. This group, despite paying nothing into the system, will receive over $40 billion in government services. That’s a pretty good deal.

Even better, according to the most recent data from the IRS, the top 5% of wage earners pay 60% of all income taxes (despite making only 37% of income). Under President Obama’s new tax-and-spend heavy budget, this number will increase year-by-year for the duration of his term.

So, if you were playing the political game, would you target the 5% payers, or the 60% consumers? If you could appease the vast majority of voters by giving free government handouts, would you favor small government or big government?

In a pure democracy, power is gained through votes. Votes are gained by appeasing the greatest number of voters. When the greatest number of voters are consumers of government service rather than payers, expansive liberal policy is simply smart politics. If you want to win, you had better deliver big government. That’s why billions of dollars are wasted each year in pork-filled legislation, why two-thirds of the nearly $800 billion “Stimulus” went directly to special interest groups, and why entitlement programs now consume more GDP than ever before.

In politics, it is much easier to provide handouts than encourage responsibility. It’s much easier to “solve” problems through programs than make hard budgetary reductions. It’s much easier to hand out than to cut back. It’s much easier to give speeches wrapped in rhetoric of “compassion” and “help,” to promise that you will fix, bailout, and save, than to talk about fiscal responsibility, individual liberty, and self-reliance. It’s much easier to cast yourself as savior than as referee. If it is true that “the easiest way to get a vote is to buy a vote,” then liberalism simply makes practical political sense.

The problem, however, is that such a system creates a tyranny of the majority. The rights of 5% are trounced in favor of the political expediency of 60%. Politicians create irreversible entitlements (Social Security, Welfare, ObamaCare), build burgeoning bureaucracies, and pack the court system with activist judges. The political flywheel spins with ever-increasing fury as government grows and grows, until it eventually crumbles under its own malaise, mounting debt, and unsustainable liability. Liberty for some is pushed aside in favor of power for others.

That is why America was not founded as a pure democracy. America was founded as a Constitutionally-constrained Democratic Republic. Certain rights were to be inalienable, no matter the shifting tide of public sentiment or the growth of special interests. Personal property rights, the right to keep what you earn, to be taxed only when absolutely necessary, were to be protected by immutable Constitutional law. Our founders knew that unconstrained government always tends toward growth—men have always longed for increased power. That’s why our founders outlined limited places government could intervene and spend, and sought to isolate the major branches from one another. Sadly, we’ve drifted so far from Constitutional constraint that our country—yes, even America—is rapidly being consumed by the weight of the political flywheel.

The center-left Tax Policy Center recently ran data models to show what it would take to stabilize the deficit at 2% of GDP (the level economists recommend for long-term stability and economic growth) under President Obama’s new budget. They found that government would have to raise $775 billion in new taxes every year through the duration of his term. If he keeps his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class, the rich (those making more than $200,000 a year) will have to pay 90% of their income in taxes. But, not to worry, they only comprise 5% of the voting public. 

We need leaders committed to principle over power. We need representatives who see themselves as citizens, not politicians. We need a government willing to roll back its unfettered reach, to return our nation to what it was meant to be. We may be at a tipping point for our country, and the stakes have never been higher.

-Matt Benchener is Supervisor of Newtown Township and Founder of TruPolitics.net

One Saturday night, a wealthy couple went to dinner at Le Poulet, an upscale downtown restaurant. Upon being seated, their waitress, Claire, came to take their drink orders. “We’ll both have Champagne,” the man said. “I was just promoted and we’re here to celebrate!” Claire smiled, took the order, and briskly walked away.

Recently, Claire’s best friend Sharon had fallen on hard times.  She had lost her job, her car had broken down, and she was severely behind on her rent. Unless she came up with $500 by Tuesday, Sharon would be evicted. “How lucky, a promotion,” Claire thought. “I wish people like Sharon and I could afford just one meal at this place.”

As the night wore on, Claire closely observed the man and his wife, overhearing several conversations about plans for a new home, an upgraded car, and a summer vacation. A few hours later, the couple finished their meal and left a substantial tip.

As she went to clean their table, Claire noticed the man had left his money clip on the chair. It had $500 in it—enough to keep Sharon from being evicted. “They’ll never notice the difference,” she thought. “If they have enough money to buy a new house and new cars, and eat here…” she paused, conflicted for a moment. But she quickly made up her mind: “Bottom line, I know Sharon needs the money more than they do.” She took the cash, placed it in an unmarked envelope and slid it under Sharon’s door later that night. Claire knew she did the right thing.

******

One thing is immediately clear from the story: Sharon needed the money more than the wealthy couple. They were rich; she was struggling just to get by. They were going to spend discretionary money on vacations and cars; she faced eviction from her apartment. Claire was just trying to help a friend.

But, was Claire right?

Most Americans would say that while Claire was well-intentioned, theft is still theft. If she had compassion for her friend, perhaps she could have used some of her own money, asked for donations from friends and family, or sought the help of a local charity. Per the Golden Rule, if Claire were in the wealthy couple’s position, wouldn’t she want her money returned? Maybe then the couple could have chosen to make a donation to help Sharon. Besides, the couple had a right to their own money—we would never want to live in a society where that which you worked for could be so easily taken…right?

Liberalism, at least in its current incarnation, would firmly disagree. Notions of “compassion,” “fairness,” and “redistribution” have dominated the past year’s political landscape. President Obama used taxpayer money to bailout underwater homeowners because they “needed help.” The so-called “stimulus” sent nearly $4 billion to ACORN (the far-left group that focuses on development of poor urban communities), spent $20 billion to hand out additional food stamps, and gave $36 billion to expand welfare programs (how did this money stimulate the economy?). Similarly, the administration’s budget, which adds trillions to the deficit, expands entitlement and welfare programs to previously unseen levels, all in the name of “compassionate government.”

Most recently, of course, was the passage of healthcare reform. Democrat Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said ObamaCare provided a much needed “income shift” to help the poor:  “The mal-distribution of income in America [has] gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.” As the President said during his campaign, he would be proud that Claire chose to “spread the wealth around.”

When it comes to government spending and taxation, it is easy to lose site of where money comes from and where it goes. Just as Claire stole to give to a friend in need, federal spending on special interests is nothing more than government-sanctioned theft. Liberal politicians love to play the role of Robin Hood: Steal from the rich to give to the poor. They believe their actions noble, heroic, and morally justified. They forget that redistribution is a fundamental infringement on private property rights and Liberty.

Liberty means government taking only what it must, aggressively protecting the right of every citizen to keep what they earn. It is not about politicians legislating forced equality of outcomes. It is about small, Constitutionally-constrained government. It is about a society where individuals are self-reliant, free to use the product of their own labor, and can pursue happiness—they are not given it at the expense of others. Compassion and charity have a rightful and powerful place in society; but that place is through private religious and charitable organizations, groups funded by choice.

Those that find Claire’s theft well-intentioned but wrong must understand the same of government spending. Redistribution is not a form of morality: i.e. those that have more should give to those that need more. Rather, it is a form of tyranny: those that have more must give to those that need more. As Karl Marx, the father of Communism once famously said, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” He would be quite comfortable in the current political landscape.

-Matt Benchener is Supervisor of Newtown Township and Founder of TruPolitics.net

“It is to me a new and consolatory proof that wherever the people are well-informed they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.”

 —Thomas Jefferson, 1789.

“The Republican from Massachusetts has the Senate floor.” That’s a line we never thought we’d hear. On Tuesday, Scott Brown, a little known state senator, defeated Democrat Martha Coakley by over 100,000 votes in a special election for the seat held by the late Ted Kennedy for 47 years. This wasn’t just any election; it was a statement victory that reaffirmed the fundamental American experiment.

The significance Mr. Brown’s victory is marked by the fact that he simply was not supposed to win. In fact, he was supposed to get crushed (down 30% in the polls in early December). Massachusetts is one of America’s most liberal states—Democrats out-register Republicans nearly 3-1 (only 15% of voters are registered with the GOP). The last time a Republican held a Senate seat in Massachusetts was in the 1970s, and President Obama won the deep blue state by 26 points just 14 months ago.

So how did Scott Brown win?

He brought the race beyond the boarders of the Bay State. The context of the times made the election truly historic—a victory for Mr. Brown meant Republicans could break the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority. Americans were now able to choose the course they wanted for their nation. The answer was clear, and given President Obama’s recent victory, ironic: Change.

In its one year in power, the Democrat super-majority partnered with the Obama Administration to pass the largest spending bill in history ($787 billion stimulus), intervene deeply in private industry (corporate pay restrictions, AIG/GM/Chrysler takeover, TARP), widen massive entitlement programs, and propose controversial healthcare and cap-and-trade legislation. Partisan, hardball politics became the norm; the party finally had its chance to exercise and implement starkly liberal policy. Americans lost jobs at nearly record rates, and the national deficit ballooned.

Scott Brown decided to make the race a referendum on those liberal policies. He highlighted his opposition to the healthcare reform bill, runaway spending, and mounting deficits. He asked voters to choose between big government liberalism and Constitutional conservatism. He spoke openly about free market capitalism, job creation, and fiscal restraint. He even called upon Massachusetts’s most famous son, John F. Kennedy, highlighting the former president’s successful supply-side cuts. He drew a line in the sand between himself and President Obama’s aggressive agenda. He won.

Political spinsters from the left are desperately trying to downplay the results, saying Ms. Coakley ran a poor campaign and that Democrats took the race for granted. Such sentiments are at best disingenuous, predictable tactics used to blame the losing candidate—now the sacrificial lamb—in order to distance the party and its underlying ideology from the loss. Ms. Coakley was a strong enough candidate to win a sharply contested primary, dominating a field of four experienced and influential Democrats. She was a strong enough candidate to be the popularly elected Attorney General for the state. Most importantly, she was a Democrat running for office in Massachusetts. She lost.

Our nation’s leaders would be wise to take notice: Mr. Brown’s win was a powerful statement about what Americans want from their country. When considered with the landmark GOP victories in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races last November (states which Obama carried 53% – 46% and 57% – 42%, respectively), Mr. Brown’s victory is evidence of a roaring tide of discontent with liberal policy.

At its core, America is fundamentally center-right, built upon foundational conservative values of limited government, fiscal restraint, and personal responsibility. The nation has been differentiated since its creation by firm commitments to liberty and personal freedom. In America, individuals have the essential right to determine their own outcomes, to, as Abraham Lincoln once said, “Eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which [their] own hand earns.” We are a free nation, and freedom demands exceptionally limited government.

The American experiment—government by the people and for the people—was bred of discontent with the heavy-handed rule of the British monarchy. The experiment marched on in the face of socialism and communism, as central governments around the world attempted to control society in order to dictate outcomes. In 2009, we learned that some would like to “Change” the character of our nation to reflect that brand of government. In 2010, the Massachusetts election was a referendum on who we are as a country. America’s voice was heard loud and clear.

-Matt Benchener is Supervisor of Newtown Township and Founder of TruPolitics.net

This post was written by guest author Edward Mahee. Mr. Mahee has an extensive legal background, and is an emerging conservative thinker. This is his eighth posting for the site.

Since the beginning of the Progressive Movement, adherents to the Liberal philosophy have held themselves to be kind-hearted, open-minded and compassionate defenders of the rights of the little guy.  While conceding that may be true for particular individuals, Liberalism as a whole remains concerned, first and foremost, with the accumulation of power to control society at the expense of the rights and the dignity of individuals.  To illustrate this, one need look no further than the effort by Liberals to implement policies concerning climate change and healthcare reform.

First, looking at healthcare reform, we are admonished by Liberals that we need to reform healthcare so as to ensure access to quality and affordable care for all.  The plans put forward by members of Congress, with the support of President Obama, all have several key things in common: They substantially increase taxes; they set up systems by which the private insurance market will be strangled to death; and they have the effect of dramatically increasing the government’s role in the distribution of healthcare resources.  As the Wall Street Journal stated on November 16, “The various health bills stipulate that Congress will arbitrarily decide how much to spend on health care for seniors every year—and then invest an unelected board with extraordinary powers to dictate what is covered and how it will be paid for. White House budget director Peter Orszag calls this Medicare commission ‘critical to our fiscal future’ and ‘one of the most potent reforms.’”

And it won’t just stop with seniors.  When the government is in charge of health care, we will no longer be able to get the medical care we want from whom we want without government interference.  Consider the recent findings of a government panel stating that women under the age of 50 without special risk factors no longer need regular mammography to detect breast cancer. Currently, it is recommended that women over 40 receive regular mammography, and since that became standard practice in the early 1990’s, breast cancer deaths among American women have fallen by 30%.  Given that, why would the government panel recommend a change in a practice which is evidently effective in preventing cancer deaths?  The reason is that the panel (which included no oncologists or radiologists) decided that the change was more cost effective. 

While such findings by government bureaucrats are currently of no real import, under a Liberal healthcare regime, they would be binding.  So, a 42 year-old woman with no risk factors for breast cancer will have to wait until she can feel the lump in her breast to get treatment, because that is what the government decided was cost effective.  What she wants notwithstanding.

The Liberal elite in this country want to control the health care system because that is the most comprehensive way they can control the individual.  Health care reform is not about compassion or equality.  Health care reform, as Liberals envision it and hope to implement it, is about them establishing power over you; your rights notwithstanding. 

The same desire to control is exhibited with the Liberal desire to deal with climate change in the form of Cap-and-Trade legislation.  The direct cost to each American family under the proposed Cap-and-Trade legislation (a/k/a American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009) is estimated to be between $1,000 and $1,500 annually.  The indirect costs on the American economy would be staggering, in the form of lost jobs, lost productivity, and additional debt in the trillions of dollars.  To what purpose?  According to climatologist Chip Knappenberger, Cap-and-Trade would moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century. 

The odd contradiction of Cap-and-Trade and healthcare reform is this: Liberal healthcare reform institutes policies under which the government will not expend money to save certain lives because such expenses may not be cost-effective; and yet, under Cap-and-Trade, the government is willing to spend enormous amounts of money in the hope that we can make the planet slightly cooler in 90 years.  In both cases the rights of individuals mean nothing.  Rather, we are all expected to toil in the vain hope that Liberals can remake the world according to their designs. 

What Liberal health care reform and Cap-and-Trade show us is the soul of Liberalism: The desire to remake the world and to control the lives of ordinary people in the effort.  The rights, dreams and desires of those people, to the extent they conflict with the Liberal agenda, must be set aside and done away with—and all for the “greater good.”

-Edward Mahee for TruPolitics.net

“You know, there’s a lot of talk in this country about the federal deficit. But I think we should talk more about our empathy deficit.”

-President Barack Obama

A friend of mine, after reading an article I recently wrote against universal healthcare, asked me a poignant question: “As a Christian, don’t you care about the millions of people without health insurance?” My friend was presenting me with a false choice—I supposedly had to choose between conservatism, which speaks of limited government and personal responsibility, and my faith, which speaks of love and compassion.

As a Christian, I care deeply about the plight of the poor and underprivileged.  It is reprehensible that in a nation where close to 33% are obese, that others cannot afford to eat at all; where 80% receive high-quality healthcare, that millions do not have access to the most basic of such care; where many worry where they should vacation, that others worry where they will sleep.

As a conservative, I also care deeply about the principles that have differentiated our country since its founding. Liberty is woven into the framework of our nation, and is predicated on personal responsibility, constrained government, and private property. Individuals should keep what they earn, use their wealth at their own discretion, and be free to guide their own outcomes. Where government must intervene and spend, it must do so within strict Constitutional constraints. America was founded on the pursuit, not the governmental provision of happiness—our founders recognized this as the defining line between capitalism and socialism.

So, are compassion and conservatism in opposition to one other? For many, compassion necessitates increased government intervention and support. President Obama recently passed the mortgage relief plan to help struggling homeowners, built $56 billion into the stimulus for expanded welfare programs, and proposed a government option healthcare plan to fund the uninsured. Each was wrapped carefully in rhetoric of empathy, redistribution, and duty.

Nearly every liberal thinker I’ve talked to holds similar views. Those that support universal healthcare, for example, do so because of sympathy for the uninsured. The statistics regarding inefficiency, rationing, and expanded bureaucracy are undeniable, but seemingly do not matter when juxtaposed with empathy. I am yet to hear a cogent argument in support of nationalized healthcare regarding increased quality or effectiveness—I’ve heard hundreds regarding compassion for the uninsured.

The idea of empathetic policy is admirable. Most who believe in it have honest intentions and place great faith in government. But charity should be a personal choice, and government should not legislate specific values on behalf of individual citizens.

The problem is that not all people define compassion the same way. A member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) may believe that compassion means using taxpayer money to rescue abandoned animals. A member of the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) may believe that compassion means providing housing and job opportunities for poor, urban African-Americans. A representative from ChoiceOne Pregnancy may believe that compassion means providing a viable alternative to abortion for unwed pregnant mothers. A representative from Planned Parenthood may believe that compassion means offering guidance, support, and assistance through the process of abortion.

This incongruity is why our founders wanted government to be limited. If government takes a citizen’s money and spends it on another’s special interest, government is simply the pass-through agent for theft and redistribution of private property.

As such, the Constitution provides the government with power to ensure certain explicit rights, and these rights are wholly separate from notions of sympathy and empathy. The rights to private property, free speech, and due process, for example, are not derived from compassion; they are derived from fundamental inalienable human rights. If liberals want to fund mortgage bailouts, welfare, and socialized medicine, they should provide Constitutional justification for the massive expansion of government. As yet, none has surfaced.

In conservatism, faith, liberty, and compassion align within Constitutional constraints. Individuals, not the government, give to those organizations or causes they support. As Christians, my wife and I choose to give a significant portion of our income to our church, which in turn provides key services to support the poor and needy in our community. Among other things, we also sponsor a child in Africa, providing the resources necessary for her to attend school, eat regularly, and receive medical attention. We give freely from our earned income without the hand of government—an expression of liberty—to care for those in need.

From a Christian perspective, Jesus never asked the Roman government to care for the poor, nor did he compel government intervention into private life. Instead, he asked that each individual, and by consequence the church, give, serve, and care for the community. Forced charity is no charity at all, and compassion should be bred of love, not compulsion.

There is a fundamental difference between charity and redistribution. Imagine a nation with a 100% tax deduction for charitable giving—perhaps there would be no need for Mr. Obama’s “change.” The intersection of conservatism and compassion is found in giving by choice, and it is perhaps the most beautiful and unifying expression of liberty we have yet seen.

-Matt Benchener is the founder of TruPolitics.net and a candidate for Newtown Township Supervisor. Learn more at www.benchener09.com

Recently married, John worked for a local manufacturing company, while Jane worked part-time at the local supermarket. In preparation for their new life together, they bought a house in Oakfield Communities, a new development in a nice part of town. The house was a bit of a stretch for them financially, but owning a home was a dream come true for the young couple.

Last November, in the midst of the stock market’s steep decline, John worried that his company might reduce overhead.  In January, when the recession accelerated, John was laid off. As the primary earner for the couple, John’s job loss posed a serious problem for the couple–how would they afford the lifestyle they had built on his income? Their home payments were expensive, and they had received health coverage through John’s company.

After two months unsuccessfully searching for a new job, John and his wife were without health insurance, and were falling behind on their home payments.

But all was not lost. The Smiths were fortunate enough to be friends with the chair of Oakfield Communities’ Homeowners Association, Barney Reid. Mr. Reid saw that the Smiths were struggling and had compassion for the newlyweds. Something had to be done to help them.

At the next monthly meeting, Mr. Reid made an impassioned plea to the association’s board: “The Smiths are great people and hard workers. John wants desperately to provide for his wife, and Jane is working long hours at the supermarket. They are victims of the recession that Wall Street gave us. John is still out there looking for a job, and if we don’t help them they might lose their home. And what if one of them gets sick? Without healthcare, it could be devastating.”

Mr. Reid’s message resonated with the members of the board. “This is a compassionate community,” they thought. “No member of Oakfield should ever be without healthcare or be at risk of losing their home. We are fortunate to have jobs, and if we all pitch in we can help out the Smiths.”

Needing to act quickly, the board drafted a letter to the community: “Effective immediately, the monthly association fee will be raised from $200 to $500. The money will go directly to the Smiths to help provide them with health coverage and allow them to keep their home.”

Members of the community were outraged. They had worked to save money and keep their jobs, and had purchased homes within their means. Yes, the Smiths’ situation was sad, but why should they be forced to pay for their healthcare and home? Didn’t they have a right to decide where their own money was spent? What incentive would John have to go back to work?

The board members were confused by the objections—they thought Oakfield residents would understand the Smiths’ plight.

But then they had an ingenious idea. There were five families in Oakfield that each earned over $250,000 per year, far more than the other families. They had more than enough money to live on and more than enough to give to the Smiths. They were, after all, rich.

So the board sent out a new letter: “Everyone in the community wants to support the Smiths, but not everyone has enough discretionary money to help out. But there is one group who does and who will gladly help. Effective immediately, the monthly association fee will be raised from $200 to $2000 for all homes with a combined income over $250,000. All other fees will remain at $200.” The idea was perfect—take from those who could afford to give and give to those in need.

But something strange happened that the board members had not expected. Over the next few weeks, they were flooded with requests for financial assistance. It turned out that the Johnsons were struggling to put their child through college, the Millers’ car had broken down, and the Richards had huge credit card debt to pay off. How would they pay for all these requests? Perhaps they could simply raise the association fees again.

——

If you lived in Oakfield, how might you have responded to the forceful redistribution of your wealth? How would you have felt if your hard work and responsibility were rewarded with payment for the indiscretion of your neighbors? The story seems unpalatable and distant, the injustice exceedingly clear.

But the troubling truth is that the story of Mr. and Mrs. Smith may soon be the story of America.  Financial, auto, and mortgage bailouts took from a few to give to the irresponsible. Historically high tax rates are close on the horizon, the price tag for increased social welfare and a universal healthcare proposal that amounts to forced charity.

We have a president and party in power that want to “spread the wealth around,” and believe that prosperity is something to be given, not pursued.  They call the poor “victims,” and wrap their policy in noble, but utopian notions of “compassion” and “fairness.” Ironically, they find justice in providing for some while taking from others.

The story of Mr. and Mrs. Smith seems remote, but government acts similarly everyday. If the country continues down the path set by the current administration, America will begin to look more and more like Oakfield Communities and less and less like the land of Liberty and Justice for All.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net

President Obama recently completed his first 100 days in office, a period marked by an aggressive agenda in the midst of an economic crisis. His early policy initiatives have been nothing short of historic, and it is clear he hopes to redefine the nation. In this brief period, he passed the largest spending bill in history (the stimulus), initiated unprecedented government intervention in private industry (the bailouts, the AIG controversy, and the GM/Chrysler takeover), rewrote foreign policy (release of the torture memos, closing of Guantanamo Bay, the apology tour of Europe), and forwarded a spend heavy budget funded by aggressive redistribution taxation.

His election came in the wake of an incredible overturn in Congress, where Democrats now hold a powerful majority that it is virtually filibuster-proof. The course of the nation is now decidedly left. In reflecting back on President Obama’s first 100 days, what is perhaps most astonishing is how dramatically the course of American politics has changed in just four years. When President Bush was reelected in 2004, the Boston Globe declared that his sweeping victory granted him “a clear mandate to advance a conservative agenda over the next four years.” Conservatives are now left wondering what happened.  

While the answer to that question is varied and complex, it is important to note that the rise of the Democratic left came with the fall of the Republican right. The roots of the fall can be traced back to the decision to shun traditional conservatism.

The Bush Administration was arguably the most polarizing administration of the last three decades. “Conservative” or “Republican” meant you were a right-wing extremist who went to an evangelical church every Sunday, owned a gun, were pro-life, hated homosexuals and immigrants, and adhered to a rigid belief system. You also supported the Iraq War, thought global warming was a farce, believed stem cell research was immoral, and were a shareholder of Halliburton. The Republican Party had become a caricature of its leader in the White House.

In an effort to win two very difficult elections following the popular Clinton Administration, Republican strategists thought it necessary to mobilize the traditional conservative base through hot button social issues. Controversial lightening rod issues, like abortion and gay marriage, became the focal point of debate, and the party was “finally rallying behind its conservative base.” 

Such policy required a new brand of political activism, known to Bush advisors as “neo-conservatism.” At its core, neo-conservatism sought to advance certain “conservative” values through government intervention. With abortion, for example, neo-conservatism called for government funded abstinence programs, faith based pregnancy centers, and pro-life public relations funding. Stem cell research brought similar action, coupling tight regulation with increased spending on alternative methods of scientific research. The list goes on and on.

The party was realigning itself along highly controversial lines, forwarding an agenda focused on government activism, and by proxy, government spending. Interest groups within the party, and certain policy leaders, felt that the country ought to look a certain way and embrace certain societal, cultural, and religious values. Those values became “conservative” values. The “conservative” government was attempting to define societal and cultural norms.

“What’s the problem with being pro-life, or believing in the sanctity of marriage?” you may be asking. Nothing. Each of the social programs embraced by the Bush Administration had merit. The problem arose when Republicans became functional liberals, expanding government and spending wildly to enforce these values. The defining line between the left and the right was no longer marked by small government v. big government, low taxes v. redistribution, or personal responsibility v. welfare. The defining line was now marked by incredibly controversial and divisive issues, and the new level of government activism posed a direct threat to those on the opposite side of that line.

That threat brought about an astounding degree of political activism, and gave rise to a highly energized liberal base. The early years of the Bush presidency gave rise, among other things, to MoveOn.org, Nancy Sheehan, and a decidedly liberal media. When the movement began, they were not fighting for liberalism, they were fighting against President Bush. All the while, the Republican Party lost its conservative identity, and became a party marked by partisan politics. It was only a matter of time before the partisan tables were turned.

A recent Fox poll showed that 76% of independents worry government will spend too much to help the economy; only 12% worry it will spend too little. The same poll showed that the vast majority of Americans fear big government more than they fear big business. Americans are conservative at heart. Our nation was founded on the principles of personal industry, small government, and fiscal responsibility. Excessive taxes, after all, gave rise to the original tea party. When the Republican Party was its strongest, it embraced Ronald Reagan’s Big Tent: Anyone who believes in low taxes, strong national defense, and small government is welcome. Reagan left office with the highest approval ratings of any President.

It is a great shame that conservatism took on a wholly different identity over the past eight years. Now we are reaping the political consequences. It is time that conservatism become the foundational political philosophy it was always meant to be.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net

“Let’s be very honest about what this is about. It’s not about bashing Democrats, it’s not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don’t know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. And there is no way around that.”

-Janeane Garofalo on MSNBC’s Olbermann Countdown

Media coverage was rife with biased and even vulgar commentary, referring to the events as extremist anti-Obama protests, and making countless inappropriate innuendos to “teabagging.” Politically, President Obama refused to directly address the issue, instead filtering his responses through Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. Gibbs dismissed the tea parties as misinformed, finding it “amusing” that

Thousands gather in Cincinnati for a tea party

So what was I to expect when I prepared to attend a local tea party? Not to mention a tea party in rural Pennsylvania-where everyone clings to their guns and religion.

Rather, this was simply a gathering of people concerned that the country is heading in the wrong direction. People who believe in personal choice over government control, in low taxes over redistribution, in fiscal responsibility over wasteful spending, and in personal responsibility over government welfare. People who are not going to sit back and watch as defining American principles are abandoned in favor of European liberalism. The tenor of the afternoon was clear: We do not want to lose our country to a failed ideology.

For the first time in a long time, I had the sense that America’s true identity was not yet lost. Americans were doing what we always have-fight for our country. This was not the beginning of a violent revolution, but of a revolution of ideas. Conservatism lost its way over the last eight years, but the election of a sharply liberal administration has reinvigorated the movement. Sometimes juxtaposition is the best definition of truth. 

Though not surprising, the marginalization of the tea parties ignores the reality of a grassroots movement that is steadily building across the country. Americans are beginning to see that elections have consequences. The Republican Party is rebuilding itself on the conservative principles that once carried it to victory, and there has been a growing sense of buyer’s remorse among voters who expected a more moderate president. The tea parties were a product, not a driver, of this movement.

The tea parties certainly did not change the country overnight, or plot its new history. They did not lead to a change in government power, or a newly elected Congress. But what they did do was demonstrate that millions of Americans from all walks of life still passionately believe in our founding values.

As I watched the growing crowd sing the national anthem with more passion than I had ever seen, I couldn’t help but think that George Washington would be proud. Our tea party was not as heroic as his crossing the Delaware, or as historic as his colleagues’ Boston Tea Party. But in the same vein of our founders, who saw the injustice of government overreach, Americans are beginning to unite around the common ideals that have always made us American.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net