A Conventional Perspective

The Madison Conservative has long attempted to make the fundamental point that political parties, any and all of them, are not government and should have no input or connection with government. The mass media and their ignorant flacks continually attempt to convey that America as founded is a two party system.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Consider for a moment President Washington’s’ farewell address wherein he warned the fledgling nation of the baneful effects of party. To allow the polarizing effects of politicians to infect the body politic is anathema to freedom and American democracy.

That point being made, it is unavoidable to assess the two national conventions as they unfold over the next few weeks.

The Madison Conservative will gauge the conventions from the perspective of which major political party will keep to the principles set forth in our founding document, the greatest set of governmental limitations the world has ever known – the United States Constitution.

We willl return after the conventions to provide commentary and perspective on what should be the adopted policies from each political platform.

To further make the point, however, that those in elective office do not seem to understand that America is not a nation of political parties, but a nation of free people, the following article posted on a local CBSNEWS.com site, presented here in an edited form to keep to the more salient points, provides valuable insight into the underlying differences between the political parties and their respective presidential campaigns.

To wit:

The Democratic National Committee has informed a Connecticut town it will not be reimbursed for the thousands of dollars the city spent on costs for President Obama's fundraising visit earlier this month.

Gordon Joseloff, the first selectman of Westport, says he was informed this week the town's request to have the DNC and Obama for America cover the $14,812 the city paid in police and fire overtime was denied.

The president traveled to the area on Aug. 6 to attend a fundraiser in Stamford and a $35,800 per person dinner at the Westport home of movie producer Harvey Weinstein.

Local officials even shut down two popular public beaches to accommodate the president. They closed the 238-acre Sherwood Island State Park so the president's helicopter could land, and also closed the roughly two-acre Burying Hill Beach -- adjacent to Weinstein's mansion.

The New Haven Register reports that an executive of the Democratic National Committee wrote that as a private organization it did not participate in security, traffic control, fire or emergency planning. She referred questions to the Secret Service.

Joseloff tells CBS New York he knew not to expect reimbursement for security costs during a private presidential visit, but pointed out the president raised $2 million for his re-election campaign during the trip.

"I think if somebody really wanted to do a good deed for the president, they could make a donation to cover the cost, get a tax deduction," Joseloff said according to CBS New York. "We'll be happy and hopefully they'll be happy."

This isn't the first time local officials have gotten in a dispute over payments for security costs to accommodate presidential candidates. The city of Newport Beach, Calif., for months has been trying to get the Obama campaign to pay $35,000 in security costs for a fundraiser earlier this year. According to the Los Angeles Times, though, the Romney campaign did reimburse the city for security costs at a Republican fundraiser.

In Westport, Joseloff added the president also had the opportunity to soften any hard feelings in the town about the visit's costs by holding a public event, such as visiting a nearby 9/11 memorial. He noted that though the memorial was just yards from where the president's helicopter landed, Obama did not visit it.

Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security - part one

This past week has provided more than sufficient evidence that there is a fundamental disconnect between the two political parties and specifically their presumptive nominees on the issue of funding Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

For reasons that escape the majority of the electorate, there is being presented two absolutely diametrically opposed realities of the financial health of these programs, both short term and for the future, despite the universally bipartisan accepted  truth that all of the programs are facing imminent financial distress.

President Obama claims that he has secured the future for the foreseeable future without changing the benefits provided for anyone.

Mr. Romney and Representative Ryan are presenting that their vision includes not changing it for today’s’ recipients, but if enacted, their policies will provide secure benefit options for all future recipients.

To clarify – both candidates claim that their respective solutions leave the present unaffected but the future secure and that their opponents are intent on throwing the elderly off of cliffs, under buses and generally leaving them destitute in the street.

This is not possible; both versions cannot be true.

One party is obfuscating the facts to a much greater degree than the other.

In short, someone is lying to the American electorate.

The principle charge against the President is that he has taken some seven hundred billion dollars from Medicare to fund the needs of the Affordable care Act, principally we are told by employing the granddaddy of all canards – “cutting waste fraud and abuse”.

The fact is that many a federal budget has been created by promising revenue from that particular source: this nation currently has a fourteen billion dollar debt with expectations of adding to that debt by one trillion dollars a year for the foreseeable future.

There cannot have been sufficient amounts of ‘waste, fraud and abuse’ in the history of man to provide sufficient revenue to address that level of fiduciary malfeasance.

Mr. Romney and congressman Ryan are presenting a scenario wherein those currently in the Social Security and Medicare programs will remain unencumbered by any changes, for they and those over the age of 55 are exempt from their plan. Those Americans aged 54 and under will have the option to remain in the programs as they exist or choose from a new slate of options, currently proposed to include the health care options afforded to all government employees. Their plan also calls for the repeal of the Affordable care Act and to return the seven hundred plus billions of dollars to Medicare that the President has accounted for in his plan.

As these two opposing concepts cannot coexist as a solution to the pressing issues, the Madison Conservative will attempt to provide factual context for both plans in upcoming blog posts.

As a matter of stated principle, the Madison Conservative is a proponent of smaller government, in the model envisioned for America by the framers and the founders, so it can be anticipated that there will be an objection based upon the supposition that ours will be a biased presentation of the two plans.

It is our intent to provide as much factual information as possible before providing an assessment of which plans adheres to the American sensibility of  freedom.

Paul Ryan

(ed. note – as a matter of policy, the Madison Conservative does not endorse any political party or specific candidate. The following discussion is intended to frame the 2012 presidential campaign now that Mr. Romney has selected his running mate)

The selection of Paul Ryan as the vice-presidential candidate for the Republican Party has been heralded by some as a ‘courageous’ choice, and lambasted as the selection of ‘an extreme right-wing ideologue’ by those who hold a contrarian political perspective.

Both attempted delineations are ridiculous – ‘courageous’ is more aptly reserved for those in the military, firefighters and by the folks working two jobs to support their families. ‘Extreme ideologue’ is more apropos for one in power who is looking to attain unilateral control of a nation – its use for a seven term member of Congress from Wisconsin would be comical if not so wildly imbecilic.

What the selection of Mr. Ryan does foreshadow however is the potential for a serious discussion on the economic future of this nation. That deliberation by the American people will resonate for generations in a way that previously promoted ‘elections of our lifetime’, as the political zealots trumpet every four years, have never actually attained as a status.

Mr. Ryan has done what the Obama administration and the Democratic Senate have failed to do for the past four years; he has presented a thorough budget plan. To be fair, the Presidents’ budget did garner a full floor vote in the Senate once – it failed 97-0. Congressman Ryan’s’ budget proposals have passed the House of Representatives twice, only to arrive at the Senates’ doorstep “DOA” – dead on arrival - unilaterally decided so by Majority leader Senator Harry Reid .

Mr. Romney’s’ theory on the basis for his candidacy is his acknowledged business acumen. There is little debate that he does indeed “know how to make a buck”. He is a true capitalist and understands the basic premises behind a free market economy. His choice of Mr. Ryan demonstrates that he believes that the financial health of the country is the paramount campaign issue. Mr. Ryan has demonstrated a unique ability to master the almost indecipherable national budget process and to clearly describe same.

There are many who may disagree with the choices made in what is now labeled as the “Ryan Budget”. What has been previously lacking is a serious discussion on what those choices are and the hard choices they will mandate as the nation struggles to regain its firm financial footing.

The selection of Mr. Ryan will now necessitate that all parties face the real challenges to America and understand the almost farcical nature of making the campaign about tax returns.

We applaud any substantive act that brings serious discussion to the forefront of the body politic. The sycophantic mass media will now need to understand the bigger issues and that such issues will never translate into ridiculous and trite sound bites.

The American electorate has been presented with the opportunity to engage all serious participants with a voice in the direction of the greatest nation the world has ever known in a true national debate on the meaning and purpose of America.

It must be grabbed on with both hands and not allowed to be distracted by the political cowardice and intellectual dishonesty that the process has previously been subjected to – for ourselves and our posterity.

Freedom of Speech Under Assault

The adage used to be that you might disagree with every fiber of your being what someone else might say, but you would defend with your life their right to say it.

The freedom of speech guaranteed under the United States Constitution is amongst the most precious gifts entrusted to us by the founders and the framers.

This past week has shown two glaring examples of how that right is under assault under the guise of what is euphemistically called by its proponents as ‘hate speech’ in one instance and by the Majority leader of the United States Senate as a political gaming chip in the other.

The first event was the assault on Chik-Fil-A. The first fact that must be established and fully understood is that there is absolutely not one shred of evidence that the corporation has ever discriminated against anyone, at any time, for any reason. Ever. While many on the political left and their accompanying media sycophants have tried to frame the entire Chik-Fil-A situation as an example of hate speech, as a gay rights/homophobia event, the facts to not hold true to that belief.

It is none of those, try as they may to construct an argument around it.

To wit:

At the core of this nonsense is that the chairman of the company expressed his view that marriage was a traditional institution that applied solely to one man and one woman. That was what he believes; it is part of his deeply held religious faith. He runs his company based upon that belief system – the Chik-Fil-A restaurants are not open on Sunday, in deference to that religious tenet of resting on the seventh day.

That is the issue – what the chairman said, spoke, announced, stated, and pronounced as his belief.

It is key to remember that the organization has never discriminated against anyone, ever, based upon the personally held beliefs of the chairman.

So the hue and cry of Chik-Fil-A being somehow discriminatory and homophobic are utter nonsense. This is nothing more than attempting to persecute someone for exercising his freedom of speech, speech which has no deleterious effect on anyone, anywhere.

The American people must en masse understand the potential damage in allowing these attacks to continue unabated. There cannot be freedom of speech with the applied condition that it be acceptable to some type of politically correct media monitors. The disgrace that was the mass media covering this truly non-event was shameful, for the other adage is equally true – the moment one persons freedom is trod upon we all become enslaved at the hands of tyranny.

It is also worthy of note that mayors in two major cities- Boston & Chicago – have made veiled threats to thwart the expansion of Chik-Fil-A in their cities, noting that the company not share their cities’ ‘values’. This is more dangerous than many may think. Government in America is designed to protect the legal affairs of it’s citizens and business’ – to put some manner of ‘morality’ on the free exercise of legitimate commerce of Americans is a dangerous game that must not be allowed to continue.

The second event is the pathetic attempt made by Majority Leader Harry Reid in a sick and twisted political gambit to goad presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney to release tax returns for the previous ten years. Senator Reid stated that ‘someone’ had told him Mr. Romney had not paid taxes for the last ten years. Amidst the resulting media firestorm, Senator Reid stated that if Mr. Romney was innocent of the charge, then let him prove it.

This is beyond scandalous – it is beyond an affront to American democracy.

For Senator Reid’s’ edification, here is the summation of the relevant parts of the United States Constitution, a document he has sworn to protect and defend.

To wit:

One is innocent UNLESS proven guilty – the state must prove guilt, not the other way around. Senator Reid has the right to say what he will, but that right is limited by basic intelligence. Demanding someone to prove their innocence is anathema to America; to subject a citizen to proving innocence is akin to the McCarthy hearings where citizens were forced to reveal names of their friends, if indeed they were ‘true and patriotic Americans’.

Freedom of speech is clearly under assault and must be protected at any and all cost.

This is not hyperbole – attempting to undo a basic tenet of freedom is always a serious threat and must be addressed as such. Specious claims of homophobia and hate speech coupled with calls to prove ones’ innocence is not the America that has been entrusted to us by our ancestors and must not be the legacy we pass on to out posterity.

For those looking for clarification on several basic issues facing the electorate in the 2012 election, these two instances should give every member of the electorate pasue to consider the future path of America.