Defending Freedom

Consider the possibility of the following television ad:

A dark, windy night. Several horsemen gallop along a wooded, country way, their white robes blowing out behind them, their masks and pointed hats covering grim faces, torches held high. They arrive at a small group of modest cottages and check their horses’ gait. The leader of the five shouts to the occupants of the homes, "c’mon outta there, boy."
Five black men emerge from the cottages and point Model 1863 Springfield rifled muskets at the intruders. The foremost of them responds, "who’re you calling a boy, boy."
Fade to black, with a simple text message: "If slaves had been armed, would they have been slaves? Support Second Amendment rights."

A powerful message to send to Americans: no one is free unless they’re willing to fight to defend their own freedom. And to do so, one much possess the means.

Fancying myself a student of history, I finally got around to reading McPherson’s acclaimed "Battle Cry of Freedom", a history of the Civil War Era, only to encounter the following tale:

In the late 1840's, two slaves escaped from Georgia and found their way to Boston, where they become folks of some little repute. Their "owner", hearing of their presence, sent slavecatchers north to return them to bondage. One of the former-slaves’ Pastor took the wife into his home, "... where he kept a loaded revolver on his desk. (The husband) went to ground in the house of a black abolitionist who kept two kegs of gunpowder on his front porch and a veritable arsenal in the kitchen." Faced with such resolve, and a solidly abolitionist community, the slavecatchers "left on the afternoon train" rather than risk their lives in the cause of oppression.

Later, the author notes that "colored folks" around the nation were arming against the possibility of being kidnapped. Clearly, they understood how to prevent such calamities.

(Digression: today, those abolitionists, who often found their justification in their religious beliefs, would be reviled by the media and the Left as members of the "religious right", excoriated for attempting to impose their morality upon others. Indeed, one can hardly read an anti-slavery tract without marveling at its similarity to pro-life rhetoric of today. Reciprocally, the arguments of the slaveholders closely mirror those made by NARAL and NOW.)

The Second Amendment issue merits new attention, given the Supreme Court’s agreement to hear argument in a case arising thereunder.

Several citizens of Washington, DC, affronted by the District’s de jure ban on armed self-defense, sued, asserting a violation of their Second Amendment rights to "keep and bear arms". Two federal courts agreed and, now, the Supreme Court will attempt to resolve the dispute between federal appellate courts.

Put simply, the question presented is whether the Bill of Rights protects individual rights, similar to the protections accorded by the First – a conclusion seemingly compelled by the use of the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" – or merely a general, collective right, enjoyed by the States, subject to such limitations as they might see fit to impose. If a personal right, to what extent may the government impose limits?

As the above example demonstrates, our freedom may, in fact, depend upon our willingness to defend it, even – perhaps especially – against the government. In 1850, the Fugitive Slave law had just been passed and it was against this unjust and immoral law that the citizens of Boston stood prepared to fight. The Founders understood a thing or two about oppressive government and felt that an armed population – "the militia" – constituted the best possible defense of freedom, both personal and collective. Indeed, they saw state militias as a check on the feds and, later, after the Civil War, saw the individual right to bear arms as essential to protecting the liberty of former slaves.

As Hubert Humphrey, an icon of liberals, once said:

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."

In short, just because it hasn’t happened here, doesn’t mean it can’t, and a free people must forever be vigilant – and prepared – in case it does.

Sense from The Times (!)

(Originally posted on PoliticsNJ.com)

Holy Toledo!!

Who got to The New York Times?

First, an article which admits that the surge in Iraq is working!! (Curiously, BlueJersey neglected to link to this article.) The Democratic presidential candidates, apparently concluding that George Bush (gasp!!) was right and that the war in Iraq can, in fact, be won militarily, are hedging their bets. Not, mind you, that they display the slightest inclination to work with the President to ensure victory in the war; they’re just trying to find new ways of declaring defeat.

And, then, an Op-ed on health care policy which soberly and intelligently discusses the issue and proposes several very worthwhile "solutions".

What’s next? A conversion to originalism on matters constitutional?

Generally, the forces of the Left express less than no interest in curtailing the high costs of health care, preferring, instead, to advocate for a governmental takeover: "single payer". Never mind that the two governmentally run health care systems for private folks – Medicare and Medicaid – are bankrupt. Never mind that their attempts to control costs by reducing physician reimbursements results in MD’s refusing to take patients covered thereby. Never mind that the vaunted VA system produced the Walter Reed debacle. Never mind the virtually every state sees endemic fraud in its publicly-run systems.

Americans do not lack access to health insurance; they simply recoil at the costs. And – be still my aching heart – on this, the Times has much to say.

First, it goes right after providers, noting that physicians make more in this country (vis a vis others in the economy) than essentially anywhere else in the world and advocating for reductions. THAT will delight the AMA no end; medical pay cuts probably rate relatively low on their list of proposed solutions.

Second, it specifically questions the price-fixing ability of the government – heresy for a leftist paper – and admits the benefits of consumer driven health care decisions. Heck, an admission that government does not know best, of itself, constitutes a magnificent step in the right direction, but even remotely supporting market-based reforms ... Wow.

Put pithily, The Times says, in effect, we can’t have everything we want, and that paying for it ourselves might be a good idea. Just so.

Start with the idea of a nationwide, individual market: carriers free to sell whatever policies they wish, free from any state mandates (provided that the carrier’s proposal is approved in any one state). Second, encourage HSAs, with high-deductible policies, such that consumers pay for routine medical care, routine prescriptions, etc., thereby providing an incentive to get only that which is necessary (the Times admits that such programs produce no adverse health outcomes) and, certainly, placing downward pressure on prices, as physicians to deal with patients rather than insurers. Adopt Bush’s proposal to take insurance out of the workplace and make it an individual purchase, offering tax benefits for same. There might even be room for government, providing for catastrophic/chronic programs against truly astonishing expenses.

Many folks who have used the political system to advantage won’t be happy. Those, for instance, who successfully lobbied get birth control covered will be back to paying this routine expense. Those who secured a mandate for infertility coverage will find themselves out of luck. And people accustomed to paying $10 or so for a doctor visit will find that visit costs more. (Which, of course, is as it should be; routine maintenance on one’s body should be treated no differently than routine maintenance on one’s home or car.)

America already does a pretty good job providing coverage; some 85% of the people already have at least basic coverage, and many of those who do not are here illegally. Reducing costs means that everyone takes something of a hit. Doctors will get paid less; consumers will pay more (out of pocket) but more than make up for that in reduced premiums.

In short, it appears that the Times has – astonishingly – entered the discussion as an adult, prepared to admit reality, as opposed to advocating for a Clinton-Vitale governmentally-administered, command-and-control, health care monopoly, the likes of which only the NJEA could love (as it would create a health care system every bit as thorough and efficient as the public schools.)

Perhaps, a few more articles and Op-Eds like this and the old Gray Lady, while still a denizen of the Left, will, at least, be entitled to be taken as something other than comic relief.

Shurely A Bad Sign

(First published on PoliticsNJ.com)

Seems the Governor thinks that Rutgers is giving New Jersey a bad rap.

Recently, RU Professors Seneca and Hughes released a study purporting to show that substantially more people were leaving New Jersey for other states than were moving in from other states. When they left, they took billions in economic activity and deprived the state of almost $700 million in tax revenue. Lots of folks, understandably, asked why NJ has become a state from which people wish to flee rather than one to which they wish to relocate.

Not to worry, says NJ Policy Perpsective, Jon Shure’s leftist "think" tank. NJ’s real problem is not that taxes are too high, regulations too stringent, governmental spending outrageous, the debt through the roof, or the economy flat, but that we don’t build enough taxpayer-subsidized housing.

Right.

The Governor thought enough of this "rebuttal" to send it to every Legislator. That’s not a good sign. If Hizzonor accepts the views of this entity – essentially, that NJ is such a wonderful place to live and work that people will happily pay confiscatory taxes for the privilege – the chances of getting the kind of reform he repeatedly promises (you know, "risking his job" to get the state back on sound fiscal footing) is essentially zero.

Worried about taxes chasing people away? Pshaw, says the leftist author. Between 2001 and 2005, state income grew by 15%. Everything’s great, right?

Well, no, actually. In just one year, from 2003-2004, federally reported AGI grew 9.4%, meaning that NJ lags far behind the rest of the county. And given that inflation between 2001 and 2005 jumped almost 13%, that means that NJ real incomes increased by a pathetic 2% over those years. Not much reason to crow.

The author avers that 24 states are losing population to western and southern states. But most states don’t count Pennsylvania and Delaware as "western". Sure, some states offer meteorological advantages enticing sun worshipers to abandon NJ for warmer climes. But Bucks County gets more snow than we do; hence, the building boom there, fueled by NJ refugees, requires an explanation other than Florida beaches or Arizona sunscapes.

Losing citizens? Who cares, asks the author? We attracted more than 350,000 foreigners over the same time period that we lost a quarter-million Americans. But a substantial portion of that influx arrived without permission; depending upon what statistics one accepts, up to 400,000 illegal aliens call NJ "home". We maintain our population only because people come here illegally to take low wage jobs, while imposing huge burdens upon the state for education and health care.

Well, lots more folks are paying the "millionaires’ tax" – Jim McGreevey’s apparently incurable fiscal STD – so things can’t be that bad, right? Believe it or not, there are still places which make NJ look almost sane, tax-wise; NYC for one. How many of those jobs are actually NJ based, as opposed to NY? And how many of those "millionaires" got clocked with this confiscatory tax upon the sale of their home preparatory to escaping our once-fair state, the Democrats’ final insult to people who shake the dust of this state from their sandals and move "south and west"?

Well, one might find a job here in NJ, no? We boast the lowest unemployment in the region. But we owe much of that employment growth to the inexorable expansion of government. Taxpayer-funded employment (which, in large measure, is the problem, not a solution) keeps clipping along – 7,300 new jobs last year and an estimated 8,200 this year – but private sector positions grew at an anemic .8%. Any wonder taxes continue to increase, and people continue to flee?

So, silly you; you thought that absurdly high taxes, outrageous spending, and the prospect of a massive debt time-bomb exploding under them, might persuade productive people to relocate somewhere else. When, all the time, the only problem with NJ is a lack of "affordable housing" and massive governmental spending on transportation projects!! NJ simply needs "... an honest look at our priorities and how to pay for them ..." That is to say, a big tax hike.

That’ll work, for Shure.

Our priorities should be cutting spending, slashing taxes, reducing the number of governmental employees, paying down the debt, reforming pension and health benefits, and "... maximiz(ing) the advantage of New Jersey’s location" by making us, once again, a frugal, freedom-loving state, to which AMERICANS wish to move rather than one they strive to escape. With those priorities, we won’t have to worry about "paying for" them; they come free.

And if The Guv is serious about effecting true reform, the first thing he should do is repudiate the entire platform of NJ Policy Perspective, which calls for massive tax increases on productive folks (e.g. increasing the income tax to 7.67% at $250K, sucking another $400 million out of the pockets of already oppressed earners) while increasing governmental spending on ... everything. Following that kind of advice produced our present, disastrous state of affairs.

So, instead of trumpeting (and distributing) an Op-ed piece from a group advocating for higher taxes, more spending, and bigger government, the Governor would do well to heed the silent testimony of a quarter-million now-absent American citizens, and do precisely the opposite.

Status Quo Ante, and Beyond

Whatever prism one employs to consider the results of Tuesday’s election, one finds some good, some ill, and a whole lotta nothing going on.

Legislatively, the GOP drops one seat in the Senate and picks up two in the Assembly. But none of the matchups were especially ideological. Van Drew often seems more conservative than Asselta and the latter received significant Big Labor endorsements, hardly typical for a Republican. The ideological distinctions between Beck and Karcher were noticeable by their absence (leaving Karcher desperate enough to resort to Beck’s youthful driving record as a campaign issue) Mike Panter made a point of running away from his Party, but lost anyway. Whelan’s coat tails proved short; both Assembly seats went to Republicans. Similarly, Bill Baroni’s coat tails were non-existent; both Assembly seats went to the Democrats.

Unlike their elected representatives, the people demonstrated the ability to reject high-sounding, assertedly "popular" programs, when funded by borrowing. Deprived of the Party label – many "genetic" Democrats remain very socially conservative – the electorate felt free to vote its moral conscience and rejected an ill-advised borrowing program to fund (embryonic) stem cell research. The people understand the merits of borrowing in the service of a good cause: they supported open-space borrowing to purchase capital assets, but rejected it for operating expenses and research of dubious morality and practicality. A very mature judgment; one, alas, which the Legislature proves repeatedly incapable of making.

(The Left consistently refuses to understand that just because the people favor a particular undertaking in theory does not mean that they favor governmental subsidy thereof. The people generally favor covering all uninsured kids, for instance, but that does not mean that they favor a massive governmental program. Witness the decisive defeat of S-CHIP-lite at the hands of the voters in decidedly Blue Oregon)

Clearly, Steve Lonegan is more in touch with the electorate’s mindset than is Jon Corzine.

Cleverly, the Democrats simply kept all of the fundamental issues facing the state off the table during the campaign. Monetization? What’s that? Within about a week – maybe a month – the plan – which, of course, couldn’t possibly be finished before the election – will suddenly burst forth from Corzine’s brow, fully grown and ready for immediate legislative action. Query whether Senators Van Drew and Whelan – who opposed monetization during the campaign – will remain "independent" and stalwart? Further query how Corzine’s massive borrowing scheme will affect Linda Stender, John Adler, and perhaps Jeff Van Drew as they seek higher office. If nothing else, their squirming will make for good political theater.

But would debate on major issues make the slightest difference? Thanks to unconstitutional districts, foisted upon the electorate by a lawless reapportioning commission and a similarly lawless Supreme Court, Republicans find themselves in an essentially impossible scenario. Despite garnering more legislative votes than the Democrats, the GOP cannot prevail in the districts as presently constituted.

Given that reality, the GOP might profitably spend the next four years championing the cause of redistricting reform. It has the virtue of appealing to GooGoos – even leftist GooGoos (is there any other kind?) – and offers the GOP the only real hope (absent massive realignment) of competitiveness. (I was going to say, "absent numerous indictments", but as Democratic voters expect their representatives to be rogues, if not thieves, even that wouldn’t help the GOP. Republican misdeeds can elect Democrats – Karcher owed her job to such, and this year’s relatively close result in Somerset speaks to the issue as well – but Democratic voters simply don’t care. They don’t hold their Party responsible for harboring countless, ethically challenged pols, and don’t permit trivialities, like prison, to stand in the way of party loyalty)

It might be possible for Republicans to win a few other seats – 14 and 1 come readily to mind – but that still leaves the GOP in a perpetual minority. The only chance the GOP has to prevail rests with districts which more accurately reflect the wishes of the electorate.

Devoting itself to the cause of redistricting reform, making common cause with – say – Common Cause, enlisting the electorate in this most fundamental of ethics reforms – districts drawn without regard to party sensibilities or incumbent protection – makes sense.

Lonegan demonstrated that the reassertion of the Republican "brand" – fiscal responsibility – actually plays, that politicians need not cringe in fear when opposing "popular" – but foolish – spending programs. This in what promised to be a horrible Republican year, in which a Republican President boasts poll numbers approaching single digits and despite an Everest of special interest, Democratic cash.

Having purged itself of some of their more egregious members, notable for supporting the McGreevey/Codey/Corzine tax increases, thereby undercutting the Republican message, the GOP Legislative caucuses now stand poised to deliver a powerful message: cut taxes, cut spending, stop borrowing. Or, put another way, the Legislature -- at least, the Republicans therein -- should start acting like adults. If the people can do it, so can we.