The "Big Idea" of Freedom

A secessionist movement began recently, with brave rebels proclaiming the independence of an oppressed minority: the people of Northwestern New Jersey.

Such is not a particularly new idea. In the darker moments of deep despair caused by NJ’s seemingly inexorable slide into the depths of a socialist wasteland, a few intrepid, albeit frustrated, Members of the Assembly speculated on the merits of a similar proposal. Perhaps NJ might cut a deal with PA: NJ gets Philly and the Blue/socialist-leaning environs, while PA takes Morris, Sussex, Warren, Hunterdon, and Somerset, as well as, perhaps, a few of the more sensible, freedom-loving towns in Passaic, Bergen, Union, and Essex.

In one magnificent moment, the tax rate in NW NJ would decrease by about 50%. We could own guns. Our land use decisions would be dictated by people who have actually seen a bear, not by folks in West Orange and Jersey City. PA would, instantly, become reliably red; NJ would become even more hopelessly blue.

Such a new state might provide a lonely beacon of common sense in the increasingly forlorn North East. PoliticsNJ speculates: Scott Garrett, a US Senator; Chris Christie, Governor. And Yours Truly as CJ of the WestJersey Supreme Court!!

Ah, bliss! A Court which actually reads the law rather than making it up as it goes along. US Senators who don’t think that the people, collectively, need a national nanny. Tax rates which would encourage people to move in and stay rather than to find the fastest mode of transportation out.

Bluejersey, predictably, huffs:

"Here's an idea: instead of taking your ball and going home, why not show leadership and have big ideas, you know, the kind that resonate across the whole state rather than just your own corner of conservatism?"

The author’s problem, though, lies in a fundamental misunderstanding of conservatism. It’s not about "big ideas"; indeed, it’s deeply distrustful of "big ideas" as most "big ideas" – progressivism, a/k/a socialism, for instance – turn out to be Bad Ideas. Conservatism focuses on only one Big Idea: freedom.

Conservatism disputes the ability of government to solve problems, let alone with "big ideas". Consider that most of the Big Problems which confront society find their genesis squarely in the actions of government. Obviously, the fault for the massive tax, regulatory, and fiscal messes in Trenton – and Washington – rests with government. And, just as obviously, the less government we have, the less oppressive the tax and regulatory burden flowing therefrom. Whatever problems we confront, odds are the government either created them or exacerbated them. And the bigger, the more distant the government, the more likely it is to get the "solution" wrong.

Leftists – progressives as they prefer to be called – envision a utopian world, and set about writing rules and regulations to compel the people to implement that vision – whether they want to or not. Conservatives, contrariwise, envision a utopian concept – freedom – and set about attempting to provide that to the people. The Left views the consequences of freedom – some people will fail – harshly, and attempts to "fix" it. When the fix, inevitably, fails, the Left then busies itself attempting – fruitlessly – to fix the fix. The Left views government in positive terms, an entity which will ensure that everyone secures some measure of material security, a "safety net". The Right views government in negative terms, a check against those who would do privately that which the Left would do through government.

Simplistic? Sure. How many volumes exist on the subject, running to how many millions of pages? But, in the end, the Left is all about using government to "solve problems" – which almost never works. The right is all about using government to ensure freedom – permit people to solve problems for themselves – which almost always does.

Would (did) people starve in the streets without (say) food stamps? It’s a theoretical possibility. But whereas conservatives trust Americans – voluntarily – to make sure that this doesn’t happen, "progressives" start expensive governmental programs, just to be sure. Just as, of old, when a barn needed to be raised, the community raised the barn (without governmental compulsion), so, too, Americans inevitably spring into action to help those in need today. When government usurps the place of private charity, it inevitably hires squadrons of well-paid, well-benefitted, tenured, politically active, public employees to do at great expense what volunteers formerly did for free. To quote TJ, in the spirit of the day:

"He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance."

Such is the nature of Big Government, from which we suffer – in spades – today.

Northwest NJ feels a tad put upon? Well, why not? We pay the lion’s share of the state taxes and receive a pittance in return. Why? Because there are more people in Newark, and their representatives – "progressives" all – vote to increase other people’s taxes to spend on their own constituents. OF COURSE people in the urban areas vote for pirates like Sharpe James and Wayne Bryant; they keep the boodle flowing.

The problem with any freedom advancing "big idea" is that, inevitably, someone’s hugely expensive, taxpayer-funded, ox gets gored. For instance, treating every child in the state equally for educational purpose seems the very epitome of fairness. We’ll call this freedom-advancing "big idea" "choice": letting parents decide for themselves – each child with an equal voucher – how best to serve their children’s educational needs.

It would be great for kids, for parents, for taxpayers, and for freedom.

But it would mean that Asbury Park couldn’t spend $23,500 per kid and build fancy new educational Taj Mahals, all at someone else’s expense. It would mean that Newark teachers would not make half again the State (and Morris County) average – at someone else’s expense. Indeed, it would probably sound the death knell of the teachers’ union altogether, because many more parents, with many more choices, would elect options other than hugely expensive, governmentally operated schools.

Given the investment – ideological and financial – of so many folks (especially "progressives") in the existing, entirely dysfunctional system, what are the odds that this "big idea" would find traction among "progressives"?

It seems clear, though, that the siren song of "progressivism" – to get someone else to pay your bills – enjoys significant allure among a gullible populace. Freedom requires responsibility, and, alas, many Americans – and, apparently, most New Jersey residents – prefer piracy (taking something which they did not earn) to responsibility. They like the idea of guarantees, even as they become increasingly, albeit dimly, aware of the unsustainable costs. Small wonder that the people to whom government sends the bills for other folks’ guarantees – and for the swarm of public employees hired to administer them – are either leaving or idly musing about secession.

If the "big idea" of freedom and responsibility – being left alone and leaving others alone – fails to resonate with the public – on this of all days – that speaks poorly not of the conservatives who advance it, but of the public which rejects it (and, perhaps, of the schools in which they were miseducated).

It's Only an Outrage when Republicans Do It

Come now the Democrats in high dudgeon, waxing wroth at the temerity of the President in commuting the jail sentence – though not the fine or the probation – of "Scooter" Libby, he convicted of a wholly-manufactured crime in the Valerie Plame kerfuffle.

First, Congressman William Pascrell, whose statement BlueJersey quotes as follows:

"In September of 2003 President Bush claimed that there are too many leaks in Washington. He stated that if someone in his Administration had leaked information and violated the law that such a person would be 'taken care of.' He lied. The President's action is damaging to any remaining credibility that this Administration has with the public. It is another black eye to the ideals of equal justice under the law."

Alas, the Democrats, being without shame, display a carelessness, nay, recklessness, with language, bordering on the contemptuous.

Bush asserted, on repeated occasions, that someone who leaked information would be immediately fired and would not serve in his Administration. Unfortunately for the Democrats, the source of the leak was NOT a high ranking administrative official, but a State Department Aide named Richard Armitage.

Libby never faced charges of leaking; neither he, nor any other Bush White House official was the source of the leak. Pascrell knows this, so one can only assume that his present "outrage" is a deliberate attempt at obfuscation.

In less polite terms, a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, a/k/a a lie.

The President said that if anyone leaked information, they would not work in his administration. That happened. Hence, the assertion by Pascrell, that the President "lied", is, in and of itself, a lie.

And the Congressman, if he were capable of shame, would be ashamed of such flagrant misrepresentation.

In fact, the entire Fitzgerald affair represents a patent travesty of justice. At the time of his appointment, the identity of the leaker was already known. The correct course of action for an ethical prosecutor to undertake was: make a report, "case solved", fold up your tent, and go home. Instead, countless tens of millions of dollars were spent to investigate ... nothing.

Libby fell into what the pros call a "perjury trap". While falling into such a trap – assuming for the moment same to have been intentional – is inexcusable (lying under oath is NEVER acceptable ... unless, of course, you’re a Democrat who happens to be the President and it’s only about sex), a trap sprung in an investigation which never should have taken place is outrageous. Fitzgerald also threw a reporter in jail for refusing to reveal a source, despite the fact that he already knew the source of the leak he was hired to investigate. Again, inexcusable.

Rush Holt, the rocket scientist, gets into the act, too, asserting:

"This is an act of appalling arrogance. Mr. Libby should get his punishment just like a less privileged citizen. Although he was convicted of lying to a grand jury, everyone knows this was part of an effort to attack a national security official for politically partisan reasons. That makes this commutation of sentence all the more reprehensible."

Ah, so "everyone knows" that a crime that was never asserted, never proved, and for which precisely no evidence exists, must have occurred. This must be the scientific method at work: "everyone knows" it – perhaps everyone at the DNC – so it must, perforce be true.

We’ll call this the Tinker Bell scientific method: we all close our eyes, clap our hands, and chant that we do believe in fairies – or, at least, fairy tales – and that will make it so.

Now, just for kicks, I did a quick Google search on the reactions of our two esteemed Congressman to truly outrageous pardons, like those issued by Bill Clinton to REAL criminals, like Marc Rich. And the politically connected Henry Cisneros. You can find a list of Clinton’s pardons here. Curiously, our two intrepid Congressman seem to have been strangely silent about pardons then, but, perhaps, they might correct that impression by citing to a suitably outraged, contemporaneous press release or floor statement.

Now, it’s entirely possible to object to Presidential pardons, even for crassly political purposes. But if one wishes to be crassly political, one should say so. Imagine a simple press release:

"The President today commuted the sentence of Scooter Libby convicted of lying under oath. Just as I voted for the impeachment of Bill Clinton for lying under oath, I oppose this commutation of this sentence. Democrats and Republicans must be held to the same high standards of honesty and integrity. Even though the entire Fitzgerald investigation was nothing more than a cruel farce, and the crime of which Libby was convicted was manufactured out of thin air, lying is still inexcusable."

But, then, I suppose, this would require that one take lying under oath seriously, and neither Congressman displayed the slightest problem with perjury when one of their own committed it.

I confess to being agnostic on the commutation. Yes, Fitzgerald set a perjury trap; yes, the investigation was a joke. And, yes, 30 months of one’s life for lying in a wholly artificial investigation – looking for a "crime" which the Prosecutor knew never occurred – strikes me as patently absurd.

But, crucially, a jury found that Libby lied, a factor which simply cannot be ignored. Unlike Holt and Pascrell, I believe that lying under oath REALLY matters, and should be consistently condemned.

Monetize This

OK, lessee:

Over the course of the last six years, the Democrats increased the State budget by $10.5 billion. The Democrats raised 94 taxes – despite the promise of each elected Democratic Governor to foreswear tax increases. (Alas, the Democrats only talk about taxes when they lie about them around election time.) Contemporaneously, they borrowed up the wazu, usually illegally and always unwisely. They did precisely nothing about property tax reform and total state debt, including unfunded liabilities for health and pension benefits – about which they have also done nothing – now tops out at $175-$200 billion.

Despite this massive new spending, crushing tax burden, and gargantuan borrowing, Governor Jon tells us, it’s not enough, that he needs still more money to do all the wonderful things that government should be doing.

Corzine finds himself constrained by the realities of economics. He desperately wants to spend oodles of other people’s money on paid family leave, "free" health care for everyone, a massive school construction project weighted toward urban areas, open space preservation, etc. But New Jersey long ago reached the tipping point of tax, borrow, and spend policies; the targets of the Left’s avarice refuse to act as piggy banks for massive governmental projects. We’ve produced such a tax and regulatory hell that we’re losing huge numbers of productive people and businesses to less oppressive jurisdictions.

So, what’s a good socialist to do when reality mugs his dream for a Great Society?

Monetization.

Hizzonor proposes a nifty new scheme, pursuant to which some assertedly not-for-profit entity assumes control over the toll toads and, then, borrows kazillions of dollars against anticipated future tolls, turning over the money to the State, which, then, spends that money on new schools, open space, health care, etc.

Problem: we already have a not-for-profit entity administering the toll roads. And we’re already up to our patoots in massive debt incurred because the Democrats simply can’t refuse any constituency which demands a governmental subsidy. The monetization program amounts to nothing more than a mortgage upon the toll roads, diverting money (which would otherwise be employed to maintain and administer said roads) into general revenue, thereby turning the tolls into a straight tax.

This is a good idea ... why?

Well, from Hizzonor’s perspective, because it allows him to borrow and spend billions more on his pet projects, while some future Governor will need to deal with the consequences.

But, as any casual observer of NJ politics and finance understands, a want of revenue is NOT part of the problem. Government in NJ, at all levels, is among, if not the, most expensive government in the country. Our tax rates are the highest in the nation. The problem is spending. On all levels of government, we spend too much. The solution is most assuredly not to borrow more money to fund more spending, but to STOP SPENDING.

First, this means a simple, but emphatic NO to more state-funded school construction, even – especially – if it means telling the Supreme Court to pound salt. As Paul Mulshine repeatedly notes, there are no crumbling urban schools; it’s a myth. At a time when suburban districts retrenched and economized, urban districts built pools. Because they could afford it. Because the rest of the state’s taxpayers picked up the tabs for their schools.

Nope, sorry. This isn’t about kids; it’s about responsibility. I live a block away from a nearly century old school building – Alfred Vail – which I (and I and some of my kids) attended, and which is still doing fine; age is not dispositive of a building’s utility. In Jersey City, numerous buildings enjoy tax abatements, which means that they don’t contribute to the costs of education. Why should Morris County residents assume JC’s educational costs when they don’t pay their own fair share? And why should ANYONE be spending $23,500 per kid on "education", as happens in Asbury Park? (That’s $1000 more than Delbarton’s tuition)

While Corzine objects to the Republican’s "demagoging" of the issue, legislative candidates from his own Party have been running away from the proposal with all deliberate speed. Not that THEY have any better ideas, mind you – fiscal responsibility is anathema to Democrats of all stripes – but they know a poisonous political issue when they see one. This risky borrowing scheme will indebt our kids for decades to fund present spending.

In point of fact, monetization represents massive borrowing paid for by a huge tax increase, in the form of perpetually increasing tolls. (In part, the same tolls the last Democratic Governor promised to abolish; see Democrats, lies, taxes, above)

If Hizzonor truly believes in making the sort of "investments" (aka massive governmental spending of other people’s money) he envisions, let him get down in the trenches and do the hard work of prioritizing spending. If, for instance, we reduced governmental employment down to 2000 levels (if we can reduce greenhouse gases, we can cut governmental employment), we’d have 40,000 fewer workers to pay. That, in and of itself, would pay for most of the nifty spending schemes Corzine envisions, as well as permit hefty tax cuts. Couple that with eliminating defined benefit pension plans, repeal of Abbott, etc., and REAL progress could be made.

Monetization represents just another fancy name for boondoggle. More taxing, more spending, more borrowing; the dying gasp of the desperate socialist.

More Hot Air

Al Gore comes forth now with the carbon pledge. (Conveniently, it arrives on a web site enabling the faithful to purchase various Al Gore products with a simple mouse click)

But there’s nothing particularly wrong with doing well while doing good. And let’s leave aside the inconvenient truth that Gore lives in a home the size of a small country with a carbon footprint approaching that of West Virginia, and deal with his pledge.

1. To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next 2 years that cuts global warming pollution by 90% in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth;
2. To take personal action to help solve the climate crisis by reducing my own CO2 pollution as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become "carbon neutral;"
3. To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the CO2;
4. To work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means of transportation;
5. To fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal;
6. To plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests; and,
7. To buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crisis and building a sustainable, just, and prosperous world for the 21st
century.

Let us consider:

1. What would such a treaty say? How would we effect its implementation? At what cost? If, as many have persuasively argued, the costs of managing global warming (or the human contribution thereto) pale in comparison to the costs of trying to eliminate it, would not the former be a better idea?

Like most hysterics, Gore simply ignores the costs and offers precisely no solutions.

2. Ah, like, for instance, not living in a huge house, with 8 bathrooms, a (heated) pool, a guest house, etc.? (Sorry, I promised I wouldn’t play the hypocrisy card.)

Again, if there is a specific proposal therein, it seems to have escaped my attention.

3. And replace them with ... what? Curiously, Gore simply can’t seem to make his lips form the word "nuclear".

4. OK, I’ll give him this one; good idea. But, again, how?

5. "Laws" and "policies" are not the same thing. The difficulty with "renewable" is that it’s synonymous with "hugely expensive". Solar panels on one’s home cost, in many cases, as much as the home itself. (At the same time that the NJ Legislature passed a global warming "response", it adopted a budget which redirected $10 million away from a renewable energy fund – designed to help subsidize solar energy installations – to shore up our bloated state budget. Rats, again with the hypocrisy card...)

6. A debate exists respecting whether "preserving" forests helps or hurts, if, by "preserving", one means leaving same forever intact without logging. New growth, some aver, removes substantially more carbon than old growth. Especially given the substantial carbon release which occurs when nature takes man’s neglect into its own hands via massive fires, would not a careful management plan, logging older forests (which, presumably, will store the carbon contain in the wood as housing products, etc., for a considerable period of time) and replacing them with new growth, make sense?

7. His commitment? Puh-lease. (Back to the hypocrisy card again; sorry.)

OK, so we shouldn’t insist upon saints, lest we, as a society, have neither politicians or priests. But we might, at least, expect intelligent discussion from those who purport to oppose an "Assault on Reason".

Any policy must start with one basic philosophy: provide the best possible standard of living for the most number of people, at the lowest cost, while preserving maximum amounts of individual freedom.

Confining myself, for the moment, to my own milieu, what might the State do to affirmatively advance the fight against man-made global warming?

And the answer is, a lot of little things, which tend to encourage people to act responsibly. That is, we can help people make good environmental choices by making it worth their while.

Consider: we could eliminate the sales tax on all high mileage vehicles. Instantly, everyone gets a $2000 price break on a Prius. (‘Course, this means Uncle Jon has to do without a few hundred million a year, but it’s for a good cause). Eliminate the tax on ethanol, rendering it more competitive. Aggressively promote the solar energy fund, and provide income tax credits for those who convert their homes. Amend building codes (if necessary) to provide for better solar alignment of homes and installation of energy saving devices, such as "geothermal", radiant heating/cooling systems. IMMEDIATELY CEASE all efforts to deny relicensing of Oyster Creek and, indeed, encourage more nuclear plant construction, both in NJ and regionally. Encourage use of personal wind turbines, where practicable, by exempting them from zoning regulations. Link heavy rail with light surface rail and ultra-light surface rail (exempt construction thereof from cost-generating rules like prevailing wage), eliminate parking fees at stations, and cut transit fares. Explore opportunities for additional hydroelectric generation along smaller rivers, and, if we think big, perhaps even exploring reinvigorating projects like Tocks Island.

(Now, NONE of these projects can be undertaken without offsetting disadvantages. Nukes inevitably tick off the technophobes among the lefties and do, in fact, present potential targets for terrorists. (But, then again, so do schools, and we’re not shutting them down) Every program produces other consequences. Consider the more toward compact fluorescent lights. Sure, they consume less energy, but they’re made with mercury, and we just banned thermometers which contain mercury out of fear of contamination. Just WAIT until these bulbs start hitting landfills.)

If we’re serious about addressing global warming, without either ceding control over our lives to an increasingly omnipotent government or living in wigwams, using nothing but our bodies for warmth, we must understand the need to make trade-offs. Which, for instance, presents a greater threat: the possibility of terrorism or the certainty of carbon-related warming? Which is worse: discommoding some fish in the Delaware, or melting the polar ice caps?

The problem with charlatans like Gore rests in their unwillingness to present credible plans for achieving their goals. Leave aside the patent absurdity of taking environmental advice from a man with a 20 room mansion (ooops) who contends that we should adopt "his commitment". The real difficulty lies in the fact that many of the same folks who are all hot about global warming oppose just about every method of addressing it – consistent with any semblance of a comfortable, modern lifestyle. Almost uniformly, their sole response to any problem is "conservation". Usually mandatory, governmentally enforced "conservation".

We most certainly SHOULD tread lightly. As lightly as possible, anyway, so as to "conserve" resources, like any good conservative should. Given that all of human existence requires environmental tradeoffs, the question is always the same: how best to maintain and improve our lives while treading as lightly as possible upon the planet our posterity with inherit?

So, global warming is a problem? Fine. Build nukes. Build dams. Build windmills. Build railroads. Buy more efficient cars. Stop raiding dedicated solar energy funds. Them what can afford it – and, giving Gore his due, he’s apparently been shamed into spending some portion of his massive fortune on installing solar panels and other very environmentally sensitive devices in his megahome – should lead by example. But, also, be honest.

Gore’s pledge says precisely nothing about alternatives. It offers up a picture of a better future, without ever bothering to mention how that future might be brought into existence. Treaties, laws, policies, rules and regulations all require one essential element: massive government. THAT would be a disaster. The trick lies in finding someone with the vision to implement a broad, well considered, freedom-respecting environmental policy.