The Lack of Civility Begins at the Top, But Taps into Ignorance and Resentment from the Bottom

This article was originally written in Sept. 2012 following the Democratic National Convention.

The Republican Convention was an attempt to humanize Governor Mitt Romney.  The Democrats and their surrogates have spent the past three months portraying Romney as a heartless businessman who does not care about average people.  After all, his persona is generally stiff and he is not charismatic on the television screen.  On the contrary, this is Obama’s greatest asset.  Are we voting for a successful manager or a celebrity?   This conundrum results from our poor education in social studies and civics.  Few students understand that our Constitution is a document generated by citizens limiting the powers of the federal government.  This contract between the people and the government is unique in the history of mankind as Mark Levin has shown.  Our President has remarked that he wants to fundamentally change that relationship.

Mark Levine cited the declining viewership numbers for the Republican Convention as a curious problem.  He asked why half the audience tuned into the Convention this year versus 2008.  Clearly, the press coverage has helped drive up Romney’s negatives.  The lack of enthusiasm for Romney by many conservatives has added to this decline in interest, but can’t explain it thoroughly.  The general distaste for things political is more aptly due to the many disappointments that our leaders have given us.  It is no wonder that politicians that provide new services are rewarded by re-election.  The electorate lacks the background to challenge the cost or unintended consequences.  The press selectively gives the daily news and analysis knowing that the ignorance of the public is their greatest weapon in shaping national opinion.  Much of the coverage implied that the Republicans lied during their speeches. 

A perusal of most American history textbooks from high school curricula portray the industrialists of the early 1900’s as robber barons who enriched themselves at the expense of ordinary people.  Many college texts give capitalism a negative implication.  The great wealth that results from individual efforts is rarely the model that is encouraged.  One must attend a graduate business school to study any encouragement of the entrepreneurial spirit.  Yet, most MBA programs are geared toward larger corporations, rather than small businesses. The left plays into this narrative which is underlined by Marxist theories.

The President requested that our politics be elevated while appearing in Tucson, Arizona after the shootings that killed several and wounded Representative Gabby Giffords.  Yet each day brings a reduction in the level of discourse.  This decline reflects an animosity by the President’s supporters toward traditional families, a dislike of capitalism, a challenge to individual liberty in favor of statism, and a desire to enact programs despite our ability to manage the cost.  The administration deflects from the poor state of the economy, while the opposition consistently attacks the President.   The most disturbing character of our leadership is that our President condones the animus.  The President questioned the efforts of business leaders when he said they did not build it without government support.  Obama said that the private sector was doing well.  The President’s comments demonstrate a skewed understanding of economics and enterprise which results from the biases of academia.   Commentators missed the irony that President Clinton reached out to Republicans to enact legislation that benefited the nation, unlike President Obama.

We are given a daily dose of inflammatory rhetoric from the campaigns.  Most have seen the Super PAC ads showing a like Ryan look-a-like throwing an elderly lady off a cliff.  Recently the First Lady produced an ad implying the Romney’s election would result in more cancer deaths.  The Vice President gave a speech now repeated for several days in which he discussed Romney’s plan to remove “the chains from Wall Street.  But they are going to put ya’ll back in chains.”  This, said to a predominately black audience, has racial undertones.

Hyperbole and dishonesty appears to be an often used tactic.  The California Democratic Chair, John Burton, likened the Republicans to Goebbels from the Nazi era.  They demonize Romney and Ryan, using words such as “extreme”, “hateful”, and “evil” which is meant to make them unacceptable.  Clearly, the administration’s record must be presented as interest group (such as the UAW) successes, rather than for the nation as a whole.  At the Democratic National Convention film from the campaign between the deceased Senator Kennedy and Mitt Romney was used to attack Romney.  Where is the decency in this approach?  Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC Chair, recently stated that Israeli Ambassador Oren had accused the Republicans of being a threat to Israel which was untrue.  The fight over the platform language concerning the use of the term “God” and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel demonstrates the lack of candor which is now commonplace in politics.  The press and politicians often play on the ignorance of this minutia.

The Republicans have a glaring problem which can be seen from the podium.  They advocate success and relate their stories of upward mobility in the United States.  The vast majority of Americans has not tasted this success and has no understanding of how to accomplish it.  This is the rub:  the Democrats have used class warfare because it speaks to the resentment of the majority of people.  They view Mitt Romney’s success as a negative:  he is too rich to understand normal people and is aloof and detached.  After listening to the tales of Romney’s personal commitment to families during difficult times, could anyone continue to feel that he is the Ebenezer Scrooge of Dickens tales?  But the liberals will still call for his tax returns and claim he evaded taxes in the Cayman Islands.  Stephanie Cutter continues in her position after remarking that Romney committed a felony.  The President could end this tone instantly.

After the Republican Convention, it is clear that Romney has given women a place at the table.   Now liberals will question their policies:  Do they pay equal amounts for the same work?  Will they give women full contraceptive and reproductive rights without any additional costs?  Will the gender gap close after these conventions?  The Democrats will portray the opposition as anti-female.  Sandra Fluke’s speech at the DNC was inflammatory.  Yet the Democrats complain that the speeches at the RNC were a personal attack.  Perhaps the divide is too great to bridge.  However, the class warfare employed by Elizabeth Warren conflicts with Michelle Obama’s statement that her husband does not view people differently.  The conflict between the parties deepens as the public appetite for details decreases since we cannot hold them accountable.  Our ignorance and envy of success may undermine any public discourse.  It certainly limits any chance for compromise.

Advertisements

Will The Re-Election Of President Obama Encourage More Violence in the Middle East?

This article was originally written during the earliest period of response by Israel to the rocket fire from Gaza in Nov. 2012.

 

During 2012 Hamas has fired over 800 missiles and mortars from the Gaza strip into Israel.  The recent uptick in firings has led to retaliatory strikes by Israel.  This resulted in the assassination of Hamas’ military leader Ahmed Jabari.  At least 450 rockets have been fired during the past three days.  Israel has called up 16,000 reservists for an anticipated ground war and possible incursion into Gaza.  Already 30 people have died in the hostilities.

 

The Prime Minister of Egypt, Hesham Kandil, visited Gaza on Friday with a hope of ending hostilities.  He has indicated that his country supports Hamas, a change from the past administration of Hosni Mubarak.  But, the violence continues.

 

The escalation was predictable.  Hamas leaders in the Gaza consistently test the leadership of the PLO and Mahmoud Abbas who controls the West Bank.  He is weak and has asked the U.N. to recognize his territory as a new nation.  That effort threatens his financial support from Israel and the U.S.  Another challenge to Palestinian unity comes from Tunisian based Farouck Kaddoumi, who called for a federation between the West Bank and Jordan.  In the Middle East the status quo is unacceptable and is exploited by hopeful challengers.

 

 Prime Minister Netanyahu has called for early elections and must be perceived as protecting his country.  Iran threatens Israel and continues to enrich uranium at a faster rate.  Such work can only be aimed at bomb production.  He has told the world that Iran will reach the red line at some time in the spring.  Does Netanyahu believe that Obama will help if he attacks the Iranian nuclear facilities?

 

The Palestinian attacks had to be answered by Israel.  Netanyahu has had a poor relationship with President Obama, though he is close friends with Governor Romney.  Obama has supported Israeli defense, but with restraint.  Netanyahu cannot expect Obama to have his back, which results in a more aggressive response.  So full war threats mount.

 

Israel has four Iron Dome missile batteries to protect the country.  Another battery is to be delivered soon.  Defense Minister Barack is seeking three more batteries.  Missile defenses have limitations:  They cannot be used when the rocket firings are too close.  They cannot hope to stop every attack.  They are reactive and not offensive.  They do not control destiny.  Therefore, a ground war is more likely.

 

The attacks on Israel have involved Tel Aviv and Jerusalem using Iranian rockets.  Iran encourages strife and turmoil through its terrorist surrogates.  Weapons abound and move throughout the region.   Thanks to the Libyan civil war efforts by the West to oust Kaddafi, sophisticated Western weapons are in the hands of Islamists.  These weapons have been smuggled to Hamas in the Gaza.  Iran uses surrogates to test Israeli defenses.  Will Hezbollah fire missiles from Lebanon and widen the war?

 

An old adage reminds us to “beware what you wish for”.  Democratization of the Middle East comes at a peril.  Islamists gain in the elections and oppose American policy. The President encouraged the Arab spring revolution which began in Tunisia.  Syria is engulfed in civil war.  Egypt has turned against America as the Muslim Brotherhood has seized control.  This was predictable as the Islamists are most organized.  Egypt receives about $2 billion per year from the U.S.  We have leverage, but Obama is loath to use it against Arab nations.  Peace is not in the offering.  The Obama foreign policy in the Middle East is under pressure. 

 

Some call for the President to engage in Mid East peace talks.  Until the Palestinians are willing to accept the existence of Israel, there can be no peace. This means the end of the “right of return”, which would lead to a Muslim majority in Israel.  Israel sought a partner in Abbas, but his influence dwindles.  He sought a seat at the UN, but was rebuffed.  America appears unengaged.  Foreign overtures by the U.S. are limited to the Afghanistan war.

 

Our influence in the Syrian crisis is limited since Russia is a continuing protectorate. Russia supports President Assad against the rebels.  Syria is also the strongest ally of Iran in the Arab world.  The hegemony continues since no Arab state is willing to engage Syria in battle.  America provided air power to assist the rebels in Libya.  However, this time the President is unwilling to do the same.  In Libya, he used air power at the behest of the Europeans; this was done without seeking Congressional support. Ironically, Libya was no longer an enemy of U.S.A. as Khadafy resumed relations with our nation after the second Iraq war began.

 

The Syrian civil war threatens to involve other nations.  Missiles from Syria have crossed into Turkey.  Will combatants decide to involve Israel in the Golan Heights and redirect the war?  The policy of leading from behind (as the administration described the Libyan effort) may allow Islamists in Syria to misjudge our resolve.  Our country provides funds to many of the players, but will this translate into influence?

 

As the hearings regarding the murder of four Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11th begin, some events become evident.  People will argue whether the President was aware of the deteriorating conditions in Libya.  There will be fights over his handling of the post-attack reaction.  Our Middle East enemies will note that he was unengaged, a sign of weakness.  Every void is an opportunity for aggressive action.

 

Our low profile in Libya left a small footprint.  The Ambassador requested more security, but the

Department of State denied a greater military presence.  This policy was naive and foolish.  Radical elements in the Middle East are always testing for weakness.  Moderation has never been a hallmark of strength in the area. 

 

Our departure from Iraq has not evolved into a peaceful condition there.  Bombings occur regularly and the extreme elements of the Sunni and Shiite communities vie for relevancy.  As we draw down in Afghanistan, more extreme elements of the Taliban will arise.  The administration has shown a desire to reduce aggressive rhetoric.  Will these efforts result in peace?  Can they keep us out of conflicts?  Or will we be an unwilling victim of hostilities for years?  In the Middle East, overtures for peace have often been confused for weakness.  Weakness in the Middle East invites conflict.

 

Projection of power requires financial strength and a solid economy.  The discussions to avoid the “fiscal cliff” will help maintain this stability.  Any solution that weakens our economy will threaten our military strength.  This may ultimately lead to more hostilities in the Middle East as the stabilizing influence provided by the U.S.A. shrinks.  President Obama’s budgetary policies do not offer sustained economic growth.  In the end, spending beyond ability was the ruin of the great military empires of the past and will lead to more wars.

President Obama Is The Same Person That We Elected in 2008

This article was originally written during February 2011 while the media was claiming that the President was mainstream.

On a daily basis much of the media tells us that the President is moving toward the political center. They feel he is emulating President Clinton and will triangulate. This is quite perplexing to the outside observer since they are different personalities. President Clinton had no ideological compass, while President Obama clearly holds strong progressive views. Perhaps the most striking comment made by the President on Sunday during his interview with Bill O’Reilly was his refusal to concede a move toward the center in recent months. He stated that he is the same person that the nation elected two years ago. This reiterates the statement made by Valerie Jarrett recently. So what is going on? The President has correctly stated the situation. Will the press stop trying the help him get re-elected by putting the most favorable light on his actions?
President Clinton held no true ideology, while being a liberal. Obama is a socialist and is trying to do a head fake as commonly used in basketball. A look at many issues reveals his concern for social justice and economic reform. His programs are not capitalist in orientation. While he claims an interest in small business protection and encouragement, the policies demonstrate antagonism. How can you share the wealth without taking it from those with it?
Obama rushed to pass the Stimulus Plan in March of 2009. He rushed to get the Health Care Reform bill to Congress. The Congress used questionable methods to pass the reconciled legislation in April 2010. He had no trouble with the procedures and signed the legislation. The President insisted on rushing the Nuclear Reduction Treaty with Russia through the Senate during the lame duck session of the 111th Congress. The President in conjunction with the overwhelmingly liberal and large Democratic majority Congress succeeded in passing Investment and Banking Reform legislation. The large number of new regulations continues the progressive effort to control the business sector.
The President is a master of the head fake. He constantly spins the mid-term election results as a vindication of the need for health care reform with cost control and availability despite pre-existing conditions. But this is not the lesson of the November 2010 elections. Instead, the change in direction demonstrates the electorate’s disapproval of the policies undertaken by the President and the Congress. Nobody can say for certain which policy is at fault, but the lack of job growth, soaring budgetary deficits and less certain future must be considered. The President is the same liberal/socialist who began his career as a community organizer. The political reality of the mid-term elections has forced his hand and style. As a result, the Bush era tax cuts were extended. However, the President negotiated a reduction in Social Security withholding taxes for the employee. This will not help in creating any jobs, since it is not a reduction for the employer. This is his version of the “rope-a-dope” in which he accomplished an increase in spending while transferring income or redistribution of wealth.
The left, though some may challenge him in a primary, has no other option in 2012. The President has sought to remake the Democratic coalition. The primary support comes from the unions and government workers. Seniors have traditionally supported the Democrats due to Social Security and Medicare. However, senior support of Democrats has waned in the past elections as other policies have moved too far to the left for their tastes. As a result, the President has not been a strong supporter of the elderly. Hence, the Social Security and Medicare have not gotten the increases in funding usually supported by Democrats. The President allowed a sacrifice of funding for Medicare to ensure adequate funds for the health care reform bill. Obama did not push for an increase in Social Security funding for inflation. This transfer of money toward the youth, immigrants, and uninsured may derive from the President’s desire for social justice, but also seeks new potential voters. A desire for a comprehensive immigration reform is an attempt to court Hispanic voters.
The President reaches out in public, as he did at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce speech, but there are no changes in policy. In the speech the President offered to reduce business regulations, but failed to mention the great number his legislation added. Obama promised to “share the wealth” in 2008, but how does this create jobs? It does not. Any transfer of wealth from individuals will necessarily cost jobs, but that is the progressive approach to government. In one week the administration has unveiled several more programs aimed at government growth. On Tuesday a program to bail out states that borrowed money for unemployment insurance payments was proposed. This increase in costs for employers will not result in more private sector jobs. On Wednesday, the Vice President unveiled a program to spend $53 billion to expand rail service. Again, government solutions are offered rather than private sector ones. Our President is correct that he has not changed. Is this not socialism?
Members of the TSA are seeking unionization. The administration is behind this effort. Again, the policies are supportive of organized labor. The administration still wants to see the union “card check” legislation passed. The President still wants to see the petroleum industry limited. The EPA is still considering regulating the carbon-emitting industries. The administration has not obeyed the federal court ruling concerning the moratorium on deep water drilling. The President has chosen to ignore the rulings by federal judges against the health care reform bill. He has offered a small correction by eliminating the tax 1099 reporting requirement. This is hardly compromise.
A willing group of legislators may see a move toward the center, but this is a mistake. Watch the actions of the administration and do not let the words fool you. The President has offered a budgetary spending reduction of $600 billion over ten years, but is short on specifics. The only move toward the center can be found in style. The President is the same person the country elected two years ago. Believe him!

The Two Political Sides Could Not Be More Different: The Socialist Left Versus The Capitalist Right

This was originally written in July 2011 as the Congress and the President agreed to raise the debt ceiling and put in place the sequestration that presently contributes to our fiscal cliff dilemma.

As the debate over the budget and the national debt rages, it would be illustrative to understand how different the opposing sides are. Liberals/progressives see the government as the solution to all big problems. The argument given by the liberal/progressive side is that in times of economic downturns the government must inject a stimulus to counter the effect of diminished employment. This is the essence of the Keynesian counter-cyclic theory produced during the Great Depression of the 1930’s. Unfortunately, this misses the corollary part of the theory which states that during better times, the government should reduce spending. Therefore, though socialists often enlist Keynesian theory for their support, they miss that he was not a socialist and did not view government as an ever-growing entity. Keynes came to prominence after World War II when he warned against the onerous conditions imposed upon Germany by the Allies, which ultimately lead to the rise of power of Hitler and the Nazis. Few in the media remember that the Nazis were the Nationalist Socialist Party of Germany.
On the other hand, the conservatives/libertarians have developed their own dogma. Though they are closer to the essential Enlightenment era document which established our country, the Constitution, modern realities and Supreme Court rulings have complicated its observation. Most Americans would agree that they support the market principles of capitalism with government safeguards. Yet, conservatives, in the words of President Reagan, see the government as the problem. I would agree with this, but it limits our ability to resolve these issues. One can take Milton Freidman’s views to the extreme and seek individual freedom, at the expense of the national well-being. His “Capitalism and Freedom” sparked my rejection of socialism, which has been surreptitiously incorporated into the basic school curriculum over the past 100 years. However, we cannot undo every aspect of the entitlement culture that has resulted during this time-Social Security, Medicare, Anti-Trust legislation, government regulation of the environment, business, and social life, and the welfare state- because the general public is not ready to abandon all these programs.
Any deal that is reached by the two sides will not address the root problem-spending more than we can afford-while authorizing more debt. The national “AAA” bond rating may not be saved by these compromises. Divided government was the intent of our founders, but it is being used by the administration to continue spending beyond our means. The country must recognize that the only solution resides in growth of the economy in the private sector. If we taxed every one whose income exceeds $250,000 per year at a 100% rate, we only raise $900 billion per year at the expense of all the jobs they create. After all, have you ever gotten a job from a poor person? The only hope for our future is to encourage the private sector. The tentative plan reached on Sunday may not provide enough savings to satisfy the bond markets. (They wanted $4 trillion at Moody’s, while this plan is half that amount.) Of course in all this wrangling, it must be remembered that we are only discussing cuts in the rate of growth in spending that results from zero based budgeting with automatic increases.
The essential American cultural distinction from European nations which dates to our colonial period is the ability of our citizens to own land or property as a guaranteed right versus the grant of use that feudalism allowed previously. Socialists do not see this point as particularly American and do not value the final clause of the Fifth Amendment. This underlies their stark difference with the conservatives. This ownership right encourages entrepreneurial spirit and risk-taking that has created much of our national wealth.
Add this philosophical difference to the political difference and you can see a difficult compromise. The Democratic Party has managed coalitions of many different liberal groups (environmentalists, abortion rights advocates, civil rights activists), while the Republican Party is organized around many conservative social, religious, and financial issues. If the cuts are real, then the result will help our future. Unfortunately, the triggers might allow for tax increases or massive military cuts during a time of war. This is only the first salvo in the battle over spending. Our Representatives must keep up the fight even as they reach agreement on this issue.
The ideological difference between the Democrats and Republicans results in stalemate. Compromise is only possible when common ground is reached. The President and the Senate, controlled by the Democrats, see increased spending and increased taxation as the means to accomplish redistribution of income and wealth. The Republican House sees wealth, property, and income as an individual right under the Constitution. Demagoguery of these differences cannot close the gap, nor ensure any solution. It is only through honest negotiation that any compromise can be reached. Sadly, the gulf is too wide to accomplish this aim.

A Plea to Speaker John Boehner and the House Republicans to Avoid the Fiscal Cliff Trap

The President and his advisors have set a trap for the House Republicans. The President plans to ensnare them into voting for greater federal spending and wealth redistribution in return for extending the Bush era tax cuts. Republicans have already agreed to raise taxes on the upper 2% of income earners. The Speaker, at great political risk, acquiesced to the President’s original proposal to raise taxes about $800 billion over ten years on the wealthiest Americans. As a result, the fight is over the method: rate increases or closing loopholes. This tax increase of $80 billion per year cannot close the budget deficit which exceeds $1 trillion annually.

The President sent Secretary Geithner up to Capitol Hill to outline the administration plan. Senator McConnell broke out in laughter after hearing the White House plan; it is clear that the President is not offering a “balanced deal”. Three weeks ago, the President offered a similar proposal: An increase in taxes of $1.6 trillion over ten years, more stimulus spending for several years, a permanent debt ceiling increase, and unspecified and non-guaranteed cuts to entitlements amounting to $400 billion (which is less than the increase in spending). With time eroding before the January deadline, the President’s open gambit is an endgame.

The President hopes to split the Republicans, which has happened. He is not going to offer real compromise. Real spending cuts have never been his aim. Four years ago he told them that “elections have consequences” while meeting at the White House over plans for health care reform. Now Representative Nancy Pelosi has reaffirmed this admonition. Tax and spend politics has allowed Democrats to secure scores of interest group voters since the FDR days.

Some pundits advocate that the Republicans walk away and let the nation go over the fiscal cliff. Original concepts of this cliff included automatic tax increases and federal spending cuts resulting from the 2011 sequester agreement. Fears abound that this would put the country into recession and some advocate more intensive talks. Talks can occur when both parties are genuinely interested in compromise. Sadly, this is not the case.

Unemployment is sure to increase whether we go over the cliff or not. New taxes in Obama Care and a restoration of the total employee withholding for FICA payroll taxes (an increase of 2%) are coming. Layoffs and reductions in working hours resulting from businesses’ attempts to reduce overhead under requirements of Obama Care will reduce economic growth. The President has successfully decoupled tax increases from spending cuts in the electorate’s perception of the fiscal cliff. The House leadership can continue this decoupling since time and leverage are minimal.

A lesson can be gleaned from President Reagan when he refused to end defensive missile systems while meeting with Gorbachev at Reykjavik in 1986. Eventually Gorbachev agreed to missile reductions but not Reagan’s entire proposal to eliminate nuclear weapons. A compromise should not violate strong principles. The Speaker should not agree to any increase in spending that his caucus opposes. He can offer to extend the tax cuts for the 98% and negotiate the details of the increase. The President will blame the Republicans for any future problems regardless of agreement. After January 1, 2013 there is no guarantee that he will agree to extend the Bush tax cuts for anyone.

When the Bush era tax cuts expire, the tax rates instituted by President Clinton take effect. During the campaign Obama said that he wanted to hearken back to those days. He needs more revenue to close the deficit and keep Obama Care from devastating the gap further. The middle class will shrink either by loss of income or by higher taxes. The Republicans have no choice but to reduce taxes on the 98%, since he will not sign a bill he opposes. This will result in some reduction for the wealthiest since the lower brackets will be taxed at a reduced rate. If they walk away, then all rates increase giving the President more revenue, harming greater numbers of citizens.

However, the President intends much more: He wants to remake the national Democratic coalition for several generations. He has forged an alliance between unions, public sector workers, young unmarried women, minority ethnic groups, and younger voters through targeted government spending programs. He will endeavor to increase the numbers of dependent persons. He wants to transfer wealth from the producers to the indigent. Already some on the left are calling for wealth redistribution during his second term. Saul Alinsky, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels would be proud.

Speaker Boehner can take a page from Speaker Tip O’Neill who stalled legislation that would help President Reagan. The next four years are going to be a political holding pattern. The economy will be flat during the period as taxes increase and many companies dump their health insurance plans. Employers will convert full-time employees to part-time as a way of avoiding the rules of Obama Care.

Boehner has a chance to forge a new coalition for the Republicans. Emphasis should be on the debt reduction for the next generation, which is an opening with youthful voters. Bankruptcy of the Medicare and Social Security systems is a consequence of underfunding and excessive spending. Blame can be laid at the President’s feet as he has spent these years creating a new health care system instead of repairing the existing ones. The rhetoric should be to “save” these programs.

The other aspect of the fiscal cliff is the spending issue. The agreement of 2011 to raise the debt ceiling has resulted in an automatic sequester of domestic and military spending amounting to over $1 trillion over ten years. The Republicans fear devastation to the military preparedness when additional $500 billion cuts delay weapon systems and deployment of forces. The President used this approach to guarantee cuts to the military that the Republicans would never knowingly approve. They fell into the trap he set in 2011. They cannot compound the insult with another mistake. Instead, use this opportunity to reorganize the Pentagon and reduce the numbers of civilian and uniformed bureaucracy, creating a leaner and more nimble planning structure. The Congressional power over the purse must be utilized to maintain the most effect force projection.

Other entitlement programs such as Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Aid to Dependent Families are safety nets. However, the constituency groups that support these programs generally vote for Democrats. The House should work to block grant these programs to the states depriving them of federal bureaucracy and cutting into their interest groups. This will give greater flexibility and reduce costs.

The Republicans can pass small pieces of legislation that improve the situation. If the Senate under Harry Reid’s leadership rejects these efforts, then continuing resolutions might include these changes. Continuing resolutions should be at 2008 levels, not present ones. The Senate has not passed a budget in three years to allow the President’s 2009 stimulus spending to continue unabated.

Speaker Boehner has an opportunity to expand the Republican coalition through programs aimed at specific interest groups as Democrats have done. These include saving necessary programs and cutting wasteful ones such as the Rural Electrification Program. Small ball is the approach to take when leverage is poor but offensive action is warranted.

Last year I wrote that the divided government offers few good choices. The media supports the President. The public voted for this division. During the past two years stalemate with the House opposing the President’s initiatives resulted in continuation in the 2012 elections. The Republicans can moderate, but this will lead to their defeat. Their supporters want to stall progressivism. It was the intent of the Constitutional framers that competition between the federalist parties would restrict growth of governmental power. This is how Madison, Jay and Hamilton envisioned the process.