Glenn Beck: Do Your Research On Newt Gingrich

After Glenn Beck had Newt Gingrich on his radio show a few days ago, Judge Andrew Napolitano had Beck come on to his Fox News television show to give his thoughts about some of the 2012 candidates. Glenn Beck was not thrilled with the idea of having Newt Gingrich become the Republican nominee and challenged Tea Party people everywhere to really examine Newt's record and ideas. 

Watch Glenn Beck talk about Newt below: 

Glenn Beck is absolutely correct that Newt Gingrich is a Progressive. He's not a liberal progressive but a conservative one. I absolutely disagree with Beck when he says that "Gingrich and Obama are the same - progressives - if you like Gingrich, but don't like Obama, it must be about race." They are not exactly the same enough and one can like Gingrich but not like Obama for reasons other than race.

However, despite that both of these men are different politically and philosophically, they are on the same page when it comes to big government getting involved in people's lives in a profound way. Both of them want big government to implement their conservative progressive or liberal progressive vision.

I also disagree with Beck in his assessment that Romney "loves government." Mitt Romney isn't a conservative progressive like Newt. Unlike Newt, Mitt really does favor a smaller, smarter government, likes to run a government that is not in debt and that can provide a strong military to protect our country. 

However, I agree that the everyone, not just the TEA party people, should really be examining, researching and learning all they can about Newt because once they find out about Newt, they won't vote for him. They will not want Newt to be the President. Ever. 

In contrast, if people do their due diligence in learning about Mitt Romney, people will find that he's the candidate that America needs. Glenn Beck clearly hasn't done his homework on Mitt Romney. If he did, he wouldn't be saying that it will kill him to vote for Romney but he he'd be happy to do it.

Mitt Romney To Give Major Speech About Spending On November 3rd

Mitt Romney has revealed that he will be giving a major speech on government spending on November 3rd:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, will be in Exeter on Thursday, Nov. 3, to “deliver a major policy speech on spending,” according to an e-mail sent out Sunday night by Doug and Stella Scamman.

Romney announced his candidacy for president in June at the Scammans’ Bittersweet Farm in Stratham. Both Doug and Stella Scamman are former state representatives. Doug served two terms as House speaker.

According to the Scammans, the event will be held at 5:30 p.m. at Exeter Town Hall, 10 Front St., Romney was last in Exeter in August, when he appeared at a small forum at the Exeter Historical Society.

In his 2008 presidential bid, Romney led the early polling in New Hampshire, but was beaten by the party’s eventual nominee, Sen. John McCain. Romney enjoys a sizeable lead in the 2012 New Hampshire polling but is fighting tough battles with Herman Cain in Iowa and South Carolina and is facing intense attacks from former Gov. Rick Perry, who is trying to claw his way back into the race after some early missteps.

Mitt Romney has given lots of policy speeches on this issue. Yet, from the way I understand this, this is going to be something much more bigger and more significant than the speeches he's given in the past. Team Romney hasn't revealed the details of his speech yet but the fact that they have only stated that it was about spending has me excited and curious about what more he could say on this subject since he has written extensviely on the subject of spending government spending in his book, No Apology: Believe in America and provided voters with 160 page economic plan which includes ways he will rein in excessive government spending.  

However, Mitt Romney has revealed his underlying guiding principle that is foundation of each of his economic proposals: 

Each proposal is rooted in the conservative premise that government itself cannot create jobs. At best, government can provide a framework in which economic growth can occur. All too often, however, government gets in the way. The past three years of unparalleled government expansion have retaught that lesson all too well.

As a result, we can be confident in what Mitt will say on November 3rd. Like most Americans, I look forward to hearing Mitt Romney's speech on Thursday. 

The 53% of America Are Responding To The 99% Protesters

The Blaze had an article up that I want to repost in its entirety. Read it below: 

Meet The 53%. Who are they?  The term 53% refers to the people who are actually paying taxes for themselves and the rest of the country.

The 53% is a group of responsible young people organizing across the country. However, this group is not camping out in parks around the country and demanding the entire capitalist system be destroyed. These men and women have jobs (most of them work at more than one job in order to make ends meet), but they are talking about attending the Minneapolis Occupy Wall St. protest scheduled for today – Friday, October 7th.

Here’s a statement from their web page;

So, like, when you’re, like, community organizing for solidarity and stuff, it’s totally cool to have this little hashtaggy thingy when you’re on twitter, so other people, like, totally know what you’re talking about and stuff. So if you’re, like, totally gonna spread the word about being one of the 53% of people who actually, like, pay taxes in America and don’t just, like, hang out protesting stuff all day… like, here’s the hashtaggy thingy. See you at the protest!   #iamthe53

Filmmaker Mike Wilson (the man who gave us “Michael Moore Hates America“) maintains the page. We spoke with Wilson this morning and he explained that the 53% tumblr page came from his brain and the clever minds of his pals, Erick Erickson of Red State and Josh Trevino.

Reports out of Minneapolis say that a protest is expected today in front of the Government Plaza in downtown Minneapolis. The movement states they are going to try and reclaim and rename this area “The People’s Plaza.” Members of the 53% have mentioned that they will be in attendance to offer a counter opinion to the protest.

As we were talking, Wilson explained that he was loading up his camera and headed to the Minneapolis protest to capture it on video. The Blaze will link to Wilson’s coverage as it comes in.

Mike Wilson told us the group was in the very early stages of organizing, but it is happening online – mostly because they have jobs, families, and a sense of personal responsibility. And the 53% have responded to the people alleging to represent 99% of the country. Based on these photo messages, the 99% is patently wrong in their claim.

While the 99% protesters are angry at the 1% of Americans who have accumulated a lot of wealth through their own hard work, they forget about the 53% Americans (which includes the 1%) who pay taxes that pays for the government services that the 47% of Americans enjoy yet pay no taxes for. 

If there is any unfairness or inequality, its the fact that 47% feel that they have no obligation to pay taxes and feel that they are entitled to the benefits that the government provides that is paid for by the majority of people. 

What's worse is that they want more government services despite the fact that we can't afford it. And they want the 53% to pay more taxes to somehow cover up for the debt that is accumulating at the local, state and federal level. Not only that, but they want an increase in government control in every aspect of our lives and that the 53% happily accept the burden of more taxes in exchange for a reduction in our personal freedoms. 

The colonialist protested against England because they were getting taxed without having any voice in Parliament. Thus, the famous rallying cry, "no taxation without representation" helped launch the American Revolution. Yet, the "99% protesters" want representation without taxation. However, The 99% is really the 45% of America who do not pay taxes. Yet, they expect their demands to be heard and granted. 

This is unacceptable. It it is a perversion of the American way of governance.

The 53% expressed their anger and disgust in our government who have mismanaged the taxpayer's money to such an extent that we are massively in debt. That's what the TEA party was all about.

However, we need to make our voices heard again to remind the 45% that they do not represent America. Instead of occupying a plaza or park, lets liberate it this November 12th. 

Mitt Romney Wins Over House Republicans

Mitt Romney went to Washington D.C. to have a meeting with House Republicans today and got the House GOP very excited about his candidacy after a grueling question and answer session with the former governor of Massachusetts: 

Several dozen House Republicans grilled Mitt Romney on social issues during his visit to Capitol Hill Wednesday, including his position on abortion and gay marriage, according to attendees.

But the former Massachusetts governor generally earned rave reviews from a set of lawmakers who have yet to make an endorsement in the GOP presidential primary. Romney sought to make a distinction between his experience as an executive in the private sector and his rivals’ backgrounds.

“He hit it out of the ballpark,” said Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.), who had expressed concern Tuesday about Romney’s ability to counter attacks from President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign. “He gave a stellar performance.”

While some House GOP members were thrilled with Romney's responses to their questions, others were impressed with Romney but still wanted to learn more about him:

Oklahoma Rep. John Sullivan, who said he is “leaning” toward endorsing Romney, said the abortion issue remains “something that gives me a little bit of pause.” He said he wants more information on that topic from the Romney campaign. “He’s got a ways to go on that with me.”

Sullivan said Romney described himself during the meeting as more of a libertarian during his days as Massachusetts governor and in a Senate campaign against Ted Kennedy.

“[T]he response was when he became governor he said he’d leave things the way they were [on abortion] and then a bill came to his desk wanting the creation of embryos to destroy them and he said, ‘Look, I can’t do this,’” said Illinois Rep. Bobby Schilling. “Actually, I thought he covered it quite well today.”

Not only did Mitt Romney impress alot of House GOP members, but he managed to an introduction and endorsement from a certain House Representative:

In a bit of a coup for Romney, he was introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), a conservative on immigration policy who hails from GOP contender Rick Perry’s home state. The Romney campaign announced Smith’s endorsement on Wednesday.

I think you will see many House Republicans give their endorsements of Mitt Romney in the coming days, months and weeks. Not all of them will endorse Mitt Romney but I suspect a large majority of House Republicans will.

The Consequence Of Churches Promoting Entitlement Programs

As the August 2nd deadline to raise the debt ceiling comes closer everyday and as our politicians squabble on entitlement reform, its important to remember that there was a time in America when our government was not involved in running entitlement programs. Charity used to be a private enterprise. However, all of that changed when some religious organizations lobbied for government intervention:

The American experiment sought to wed the idea of freedom and virtue without the need or desire for a strong government to administer the details of life for every citizen. The American idea was an elimination of restraint by the government to be replaced by the constraint of virtue taught by institutions in society other than the government. The home, the church, the school and other voluntary associations were to be the primary relationship of life through which order and honesty were maintained.

The Great Depression, with its widespread economic emergencies, tested this idea and caused many to desire a government-run economy where predictability and security would be normal because most (if not all) personal and business decisions would largely be regulated by a governmental bureaucracy. New Deal legislation brought with it price controls on food, government insurance, monetary subsidies for bad years on the farm or in business, tight regulation on industry, new and expensive regulations for business and high tax rates.

Immediately following Roosevelt's speech in San Francisco, many theological journals and Christian denominations used the exact phrases of the soon-to-be president in their publications. Many discarded traditional interpretations of key Scripture texts to support a new political theology which mirrored Roosevelt's revolutionary New Deal. The close connections were not noticed at first, but after the laws were passed, it clearly was seen that without the church, much of the legislation could not have passed Congress. The president designed the policies, the church applied the pressure and the nation inherited the consequences.

The fact that many pastors and religious institutions encouraged the government to take over their role in providing charity has not come without terrible consequences for religious institutions: 

What is disturbing when reviewing the history of this time is how many Christian ministers defended the actions of government as fulfilling Holy Scripture's mandates to care for the poor, provide for parents in their old age and give to those who ask of you.

With this shift of thinking, the state began to function in roles once reserved for the church—to the detriment of any who would question the legitimacy of the legislation on theological grounds. The same reception awaits those in the modern day who seek to resist any "progressive" social policy in any way for fear that they will be branded as uncaring or un-Christian in their ideas.

Has government power expanded to such a degree that the church now has no voice at all in the public square? Perhaps, but the modern era of public policy reveals just how much the government has gained and how much the church has lost.

Its worth noting that the consequences of churches abandoning their role in providing charity are not limited to religious and private institutions. It has come at a huge cost to the American people. Look at the chart below: 

As you can see from the chart above, the explosive growth of spending on entitlement programs are startling. However, what's even more startling is the future of these entitlement programs:

What private institutions have done is lay a financial burden on the American people that grows larger and larger until it becomes financially unsustainable. As you can see by these graphs above, there is no dispute that entitlement programs are the single largest driver of our nation's deficit.

The reason why the costs of entitlements have sky rocketed is because these progressive and liberal churches weren't content with just getting social security into law in the 1930s. As time marched on into the 60's and 70s, many churches pressed for government intervention in medical care, housing, and education. As a result, our government had spend to spend more of our tax payer money as more entitlement programs were being created.

These churches promoted a culture of dependency on government rather than on religion. Everyone knows that  dependencies develop quickly. If you want to kill a bad entitlement, kill it quickly before expectations calcify. However, thanks to private institutions like churches and private insurance companies in the 1930s, they didn't work hard to kill these entitlement programs in its infancy but labored diligently to ensure that its existence would calcify into a permanent fixture in American government.

Yet, what is so fascinating about entitlement programs is that they are considered mandatory spending programs even though it is really a discretionary program:  

People are often shocked to learn that Social Security and Medicare are not “entitlements” at all.  Congress could pass a law stopping all Social Security and Medicare payments tomorrow, and no citizen would have a legal claim against the government based on how much payroll tax he or she had paid into the so-called “Trust Fund.”  Because Medicaid is financed by general tax revenue, its constitutionality under the general-welfare clause is even more secure, according to current legal reasoning.

Given that America's dependency on these entitlement programs have calcified, the idea of government stepping away from the enterprise of helping others isn't politically feasible or acceptable. As a result, entitlement reform is not only necessary but should be easy to do. However, the reason why they've become the third rail of American politics is that politicians are afraid to make the crucial and necessary reforms to entitlement programs for fear of provoking the wrath of those who rely completely or partially on these programs.   

At some point, we have to realize that these programs are not mandatory and that spending doesn't have to be on autopilot. Politicians and citizens alike will realize that the third rail of American politics was as only as dangerous as we believed it to be. As a result, the biggest reform we will have to make is not with the entitlement programs themselves but in changing the hearts and minds of the American people.

That means we need to educate people about the real history of charity in America. I highly recommend two books that look at what America was like before the government became involved in entitlement programs. Those books are The Charity Organization Movement in the United States; A Study In America Philanthropy and The Tragedy of American Compassion.  

It also means we need to promote a culture of independence not dependence. That means we need to teach self-reliance, independence and accountability at home, in churches and in school. The more people learn that they can make their own success and that if they ever fall on hard times, they rely on individuals and private institutions who will work to ensure that they get back on their feet again. 

We also need to push for a greater role in private institutions in helping people out and reduce, but not eliminate, the government's role in helping people. There was a time when private corporations and religious institutions provided social security, rent assistance and medical assistance and that time needs to come back again.

People don't mind helping the poor, the elderly, the sick and the disadvantaged and they will continue to help people long into the future. The problem is that one institution is not suited or capable of helping people while the other institution is. Governments cannot provide that kind of service at the same quality or cost that private institutions can. 

Governments can still play a role in helping people but its role must be minimal. The government can't take care of everyone which it has promised with the passage of all these entitlement programs. If we can make entitlement reforms, reduce the government's role in helping people while increasing the role of private institutions in helping people and reintroduce the ideas of self reliance and accountability, our national deficit would be reduced, if not, eliminated completely.

The Swine Flu & Limited Government

It is surprising that a conservative approach to handling the recent swine flue would show up in the New York Times but it did. David Brooks has written a piece in the NYT's op-ed called Globalism Goes Viral in which he argues that decentralized institutions are better than centralized institutions in handling threats.

David Brooks' arguments can be be applied to the debate over whether or not the size of our government be big or small. The Founding Fathers knew that decentralization always works best and that's what they had when they set up a Republican form of government.

A decentralized institution, regardless if is to handle a health crisis or manage the affairs of a nation, is the best way to go. Here's what David Brooks said about why decentralized institutions are better at handling problems:

It is a fact of human nature that in times of crisis, people like to feel protected by one of their own. They will only trust people who share their historical experience, who understand their cultural assumptions about disease and the threat of outsiders and who have the legitimacy to make brutal choices. If some authority is going to restrict freedom, it should be somebody elected by the people, not a stranger.

Finally, the decentralized approach has coped reasonably well with uncertainty. It is clear from the response, so far, that there is an informal network of scientists who have met over the years and come to certain shared understandings about things like quarantining and rates of infection. It is also clear that there is a ton they don’t understand.

A single global response would produce a uniform approach. A decentralized response fosters experimentation.

In a few short paragraphs, David Brooks has successfully made the case for why a smaller, limited, decentralized government is better than a larger, expansive, centralized government.