Just to start out, I am not going to name every pundit that I feel is out of step with those who they claim to represent; the blogosphere has begun to usher in a new class of pundits that are on their way changing the whole equation.

I am going to be very honest here, I am not a fan of the conservative pundit class, but I say this while I am currently in school working towards a goal of working in the same field as said pundits. It would be anserine of me to say that all pundits know nothing about politics and they all have an agenda; not because it is not true, but because of course they know a lot about politics and of course they have an agenda. What most have the  knowledge of is precedent and what their agenda consists of can range from a left wing member of the establishment media class to the fall in line Republican Pundit that probably truly believes they have the countries wellbeing in mind.

In fact it is their agenda that really makes me so angry at most of them; but the very reason I have chosen the field I am going to school in is the hopes to break into the same punditry class that I often assail. I honestly believe there are not enough Erik Erikson’s and Moe Lane’s in the Republican media establishment (I respect these two a lot, they seem to always tell it how it is, even if it makes a good portion of their readers mad), but some of my conservative hero’s like Glenn Beck are seemingly out of touch with what the base is thinking.

Beck while mocking the base has decided to endorse Newt Gingrich for President, not because he wants Gingrich to be president, it is because he stated that nobody is listening to him; he liked Michelle Bachmann, but the base did not agree, Beck moved on to Rick Santorum, the base does not agree with him on that one either.

So instead of just acknowledging the base is willing to give Gingrich a chance to prove himself, Beck stated this “Whatever we say politically, you’ll do the opposite,” so “Now we’re coming clean, we not only recommend, we wholeheartedly endorse Newt Gingrich.”

Beck then went on to compare the race to the 1984 Reagan/Mondale election, with Gingrich getting landslided by Obama in the same manner that Mondale did against Reagan.

I have no problem with the Beck holding this opinion, but what did not sit well with me is the condescending way he went about mocking those who watch, read, and listen to him on the radio (I am a huge fan of Beck, we both used to have an addiction to drugs and alcohol, and he is kind of my idol when it comes to self-made men breaking into the game, and I read all his books, but I did not sign up to GBTV, did not feel like paying to learn things I already know).

What about Coulter, Hannity, and some of the others that have shielded Romney from any real criticism, they have not just let the nomination process play out, they have attempted to dictate the outcome. These conservative pundits spent the last few years slamming President Obama for signing Obama Care into law, but they have been so quick to jump to help Romney defend signing Romney Care, which for all intense and purposes is the same thing.

Hannity always says he is conservative not Republican, so why is he protecting a guy who is clearly not conservative.

I did not write this to slam Beck, Hannity, or Coulter, as much as to just point out how sometimes the conservative pundit class needs to remember that they are indeed the conservative pundit class because of the people who read and listen to them. When Erikson wrote his post about how Perry should drop out, I was not a fan of the idea. The thing is, he was correct in the sense that Perry did push Newt over the top, and handed Romney and the establishment a huge loss; it was a strategic decision that worked. Erikson did not insult those who supported Perry, just stated the raw facts. This is a lesson on how a pundit should treat their supporters. I feel that it is not hard to understand Erikson’s agenda; I suspect it is to get the most conservative candidates elected; but I could alwso be wrong.

We are battling for the Soul of the Party, even if the Conservative Pundit class sees this as a Conservative Popularity Contest; one they will attempt to heard the masses in the direction they see fit.

The News media has attempted to take the Republican nomination process and turn it into a reality show, and who can blame them, it brings viewers in. Most people wouldn’t watch 25 debates if each and every one of them was the same. The problem with the MSM is they do not treat all the candidates the same; can anybody imagine Wolf Blitzer asking President Obama the kind of question meant to bait Romney and Gingrich into driving each other’s negatives up.

With the country on the precipice of mirroring a European style socialist state; these games should be a minor subject, with issues being the main focus, but it is not, and this is fine with many of the people who inhabit the media establishment, and let’s be honest, the Republican Party has been complacent in this. One of the men on the debate stage tonight is going to be the Republican nominee, one would think at least the establishment would plan for the possibility this would be Gingrich and tone down their negative rhetoric against him; but these same people think they have an obligation to take Gingrich out.

So why in the world are the pundits so astonished that small government conservatives throughout the base no longer trust them to have the right answers?  If the Republican Party was to run on the promise of being the third coming of Bush, the election would be over right then and there. The same old big government Republicanism is not going to cut it, to many people still fall for the blame Bush campaign.

So how do the Republicans succeed at overpowering this notion?

I believe the nominee has to capture the very thing the conservative pundit class has treated as an immaterial process by the angry base for much of this nomination process, American voters are angry at the whole system. Not just the President, Senate, Congress, Supreme Court, and state and local government; Americans are mad at the media, the pundits, the talk show host, and Jen Rubin’s from Washington Post (OK, those angry at Rubin are those not supporting Mitt Romney for president).

This is why Gingrich has been able to encapsulate the anger of the conservative base in ways that Romney has not been able to do so; that and the fact that Romney is a complete charlatan, and on just about everything that comes out of his mouth seem to be contradicted by the vast collection of videos on You Tube that shows the opposite is true. It is kind of hard to be the leader of the party of Reagan when he once stated that he would not want to go back to the Reagan/Bush era. Romney cannot capture the anger of the party, and this is driving the pundit class crazy.

And this is exactly why it is my dream to become part of this conservative pundit class; because I think there is a need of a change of guard. Many of the pundits that have advocated the Doles, McCain, and now Romney, have not learned any lessons from the Republican landslide in 2010. This is indeed a different party, and because of that, we need a conservative pundit class that reflects it.

Thursday night a lot of people got to see Governor Gary Johnson for the first time in the Republican Debate. He made an impression causing “Gary Johnson” to be the most searched term on Google today. Here’s some facts everyone should know about Gary Johnson and his two terms as governor:

• Before running for Governor he grew a one man handyman business to a thousand employees.

• Not only did he cut taxes 14 times as Governor, Gary Johnson’s 8 years as governor  was the longest period of time New Mexico had ever gone without a raise in taxes.

• As governor Gary Johnson vetoed 750 bills during his two terms – more bills vetoed then all the other governors during the same 8 year period combined - earning him the nickname Governor Veto. One third of those bills were Republican bills.

• Gary Johnson used his line-item veto thousands of times.

• Gary Johnson made the healthcare plan he received as governor available to every citizen of New Mexico and transitioned the state’s Medicare program to managed care. This provided incentives for better care, cost control, and lowered the cost to the state of New Mexico by 25%.

• He reduced the number of state employees by over a thousand employees.

• When he expressed interest in running for Governor of New Mexico the Republican establishment advised him that in order to run for governor he would need to run for lower offices first. Gary ignored their advice and won against a Democratic incumbent 50% – 40% in a state where registered Democrats out number registered Republicans 2 – 1.

• When Gary Johnson ran for reelection the democrats put up a hispanic candidate in a state that is 40% hispanic and has a 2-1 Dem – GOP ratio. Gary Johnson then won 55% to 45%.

• Gary Johnson could not run for third term because he was term limited. He left undefeeated. When he left the state he left a $1 billion dollar surplus.

• Gary Johnson’s adherence to rock solid limited government principles brought his state 11.7% job growth over the course of this two terms.

Where others merely talk the talk about small government principles Gary Johnson has walked the walk as demonstrated by his unmatched rock solid limited government record as a two-term Governor.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

Conservatives are constantly being accused of wanting no government. When we talk about wanting to eliminate things like the IRS, the Departments of Energy and Education or rein in rouge agencies like the EPA and the NLRB we are accused of wanting no government at all. That’s simply false. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a conservative speak about wanting to eliminate all government, or even the federal government.

Most conservatives understand that the absence of functional government brings chaos. In an environment where chaos reigns, at some point someone will step in and impose order. That person or group then becomes the de facto government. Perhaps the clearest example of this in recent history was the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in the mid 1990’s. Although pockets of resistance remained, by the late 90’s the Taliban were firmly in control of the country. Most Afghanis didn’t like the Taliban, but they appreciated the relative order they brought to the country.

Here in America our problem is not a lack of government, but the opposite, too much of it. The strings of regulation end up wrapped around the wheels of the American economy and ends up clogging what might otherwise be a well oiled machine. An unfettered economy would not be flawless, but it would be far more dynamic than the straitjacketed one we have today.

To put this in perspective, take the IRS tax code. According to the Heritage Foundation, it will cost America just more than $400 billion in 2011 to comply with the tax code, and that does not include the cost of the actual taxes themselves. Given that the federal government will take in approximately $2.2 trillion in taxes this year, that means Americans will spend an additional 20% of their tax bill just trying to figure out how to pay the bill in the first place!

How is that even possible? Well, the tax code is approximately 72,000 pages long and it’s broken down into 750 subchapters. Imagine if you are a widget manufacturer with 10,000 employees spread out over 20 states. How many employees would you need to have on staff to make sure that that company was complying with the regulations written on every one of those 72,000 pages? How much time (read: money) would your accounting and legal staffs have to spend to ensure that everything you did was within the IRS’s guidelines? How much time would management have to waste evaluating what product or service to provide or what energy provider to choose depending on what provides the best tax advantage? How about deciding how employee benefits should be allotted between taxable and non-taxable to maximize employee compensation?

As difficult as scenario is, at least large companies can pay for the necessary accounting and legal staffs. Imagine you are a struggling businessman with 5 employees who has to choose between spending money on another employee to help him compete in the marketplace or on someone to decipher the 72,000 pages of the IRS tax code. The fact that an employer (or homeowner or parents of a college student or someone approaching retirement…) has to base many of their financial decisions on what the IRS rules are is bad enough, but for the rules to be so numerous and incomprehensible that it restricts productivity borders on criminal. And to put a cherry on top of it, all of that effort is spent just to figure out how to give the money to the government so they can spend much of it on stuff you’d never pay for if you had the choice.

Lucky for Americans, the tax code is not the only sign of a government gone wild. There is also the Code of Federal Regulations (the codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government). The Code covers 163,333 pages, in 226 books. Those are the regulations that cover everything from that ticket on your mattress to the kind of gas you can put in your car to how long an airline can delay a flight to what can be labeled diet in the supermarket to the endless pages of directions and warnings provided with medicine bottles. Unless you are living in Ted Kaczynski’s summer home, not a day goes by that you do not cross paths with hundreds or thousands of these regulations. Like microwaves, you may not see them, but they are there nonetheless, impacting everything from hiring (or not, as the case might be) or marketing or investment decisions for everyone from Fortune 500 companies to neighborhood entrepreneurs.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute estimates that federal regulations cost Americans $1.75 trillion each year. That includes everything from environmental regulations to cable rates to the number of hours employees can work to months of tax compliance research. Add to that the $2.2 trillion Uncle Sam collects in taxes and you have almost 25% of our GDP being directly driven by government. Given the suffocatingly large and restrictive presence of government in our lives, is it any wonder that our economy is moving along at a dying snail’s pace? At the end of the day conservatives don’t propose no government, just limited government. We’d like to free up the American people to transform this moribund economy into a juggernaut of creativity, productivity, jobs and prosperity. That can’t be done while they are being strangled by government rules and regulations…

 Over the last few weeks I kept thinking about term limits and if they are really effective. I mean I live in a state(Cali of course) where term limits are suppose to be a model for the rest of the nation. Yet if you look at California everything is getting worse schools are failing,businesses and families are moving away for greener pastures and our debt(about 90 billion and counting)  continues to grow.  Before my generation grows up California could end up bankrupt. But that’s all negative thinking hopefully voters here(which I am sadly not one yet:( ) will be smarter for 2012 and elect some fiscal conservatives both for Sacramento and Washington. Then I thought their was an obvious reason our GOVERNMENT’S too big to untransperant and simply to partisan.

Obviously term limits should make California’s legislature more down to earth and less corrupt but in reality Cali’s legislators are becoming either puppets of party or big union. Both groups that can support big irresponsible government. So I have a couple of ideas on how to help bring back integrity and perhaps prosperity for California.

1) There’s a balance budget ammendment but unfortunately our assemblymen and senators refuse to adhere to it properly(apparently its late a LOT). Perhaps the Board of Equalization(or someone  maybe Us with a prop)! can withhold revenues until our Capital can fix their messes(this means them and their staffors wont get  paid :D). Hopefully if conservatives in the houses can keep to their principles we can truly cut spending ,reform taxes (more revenues) most of all shrink government(the cuts are going to hurt me so I say this with great reservations and timid optimism).

2) Since California’s houses are becoming more like puppet stages we should simply cut the strings of their masters, lobbyists. There’s gotta be a way to cut lobbying. Yes I know this could hurt us but if our movement is really grassroots then our people will survive this. Perhaps a lobbying tax, a tax on partisanship and politics(less taxes for us, more for the Political class

3) Ok this might make a lot of people mad but how about an extension of term limits. I know some of you guys would oppose this and I know Cato wouldn’t love it either but how about letting assemblymen serve for 10 years and let the senate be unlimited because it can be the “Higher House”. This could mean that State Senators would get a pay cut,be restricted form some forms of lobbying interaction and pay higher campaigning fees. Or we could let some good public servant get simple 18 year careers(2 terms in Senate 4 each after assembly limit)  a generation of service is a good engough career length for any poltician esspecially citizen legislators(they have lives too hopefully :))

Term limits are wonderful way to expel dirty lobbying and formulate citizen legislatures. But they cannot be a tool used alone. Civil service reform,oversight on officials and mega majorites for some major ammendments(like 3/5 for tax hikes) are other ideas that can help enhance civic participation,reduce government and most importantly letting us live free. California can change for the better :). Look at Maine everyone so goes Maine, goes the nations :). Thank you for reading this

Richard Cohen, of the Washington Post writes a convoluted article where he rails against the concept of American Exceptionalism (you can find it here).  In it, Mr. Cohen suggests that America is in decline and that we should be a nation of compromise to fix our woes.  Why should America compromise?  I suggest that we are in decline because of a failure to stay true to our fundamentals: individual liberties, free markets, and small government.  Since the first Progressive Movement at the beginning of the 20th century, through the New Deal and the Great Society, and up to today, both Democrats and Republicans have altered, changed, and manipulated the American system with a hope to create a Utopia in the United States.  Has it worked?  The left’s answer is “more needs to be done!,” while the right’s answer is “haven’t you done enough already?!?!”

Through legislation and taxation, the government takes the wealth from the “haves” and gives it to the “have-nots.”  By sanctioning forced altruism, the federal government has created a dependency upon the state, and has taught the “have-nots” that they can get everything they want if they remain poor.  Mr. Cohen, as well as Progressives, suggests that American exceptionalism should be the government giving away money, goods, and services to the poor.  On the contrary.  American exceptionalism is grabbing hold of an opportunity, working hard, and seeing the fruits of your labor.  Ask for nothing.  Expect nothing.  Depend on nothing.  Simply be responsible for your own welfare.  If Mr. Cohen wants to call that American narcissism, then I will heartily embrace that moniker.

So today I decided to go watch C-SPAN today and it actually wasn’t boring as usual for me as a hyper active teenager who despite having an obession in politics finds th House to be bland on TV. It was only for a few minutes though but it really jumbled my head. Maybe the More Mature Redstaters and help me process what happened and give me their insight.

SO I am watching a debate on some Continuing Resolution and they talk about education cuts. Congresswoman Rosa DeLAuro stats how the Federal Government has an obligation to fund Special Education 40% but instead the gov only grants 17% or something. Then she goes how programs for schools,teach quality and Title 1 are going to be cut and how its harmful to children,schools and such. Then Congressman John Kline states that the change in funding will actually help Special Education but it is rebuttled with one of the Democratic congressmen stating how it grants money to Special Education through stealing(shifting) education funds for Disadvantaged students. One of the responses state that not only will school districts be forced to lay off teachers they may have to rasie Property Taxes.

Then we move to a debate about Title 10 Family Planing funding which supposingly helps with STD testing,contreception provision,(sex education?) and pap test for Cervical/Breast cancer. Title 10 seems to be a small program but according to the Congresswoman promoting it, it apparently provided for a million  pap tests and other monumental achievements. According to the Congresswoman it lessens abortions through prevention and cares for other health care initiatives(relating to Breast Cancer for example) and that scraping the program would increase taxpayer burdens through burdening medicaid.

The final part I watched was about education again where I see Ms.DeLauro mention tht some education programs are earmarks. But to me I thought earmarks were local congressional projects many of these programs were national projects with national goals.

After watching I marveled at the complexity of Congress or is it simply the simple mind I have that makes thing hard to understand. Programs do need to be cut and every  program is in the chopping block but there’s one thing to hope from these cut. Compassion. With cuts there’s compassion and charity and isn’t that what America is about. Charity wouldn’t occur if our government was there to solve every social ill. Yes government has a job to create a safety need by where does Social Welfare end and Social Responsibility begin. Yes the feds should help promote a strong public education but where is the fine line between help and regulation. Government’s so confusing no wonder people want limited governemnt people’s minds are only so limited to understand a mass myriad of regualtions,bureaucracy and laws. That’s why the Founding Fathers created an eloquent piece less than 10,000 words that’s now our constitution which evolves over time never really changing its true intention. Although I know families like mine will be hard hit from these cuts,that kids like me will have a lesser education this is only a temporary situation. Its time we all face the music. If this means a pathway to renewed opportunity,prosperity,liberty and a better world so be it.

(whats your insight)