Time for a hard look at the way we spend

It’s hard to find a bright spot in the current national recession. But if there is a silver lining, perhaps it will be in a new approach to the way state government spends.

On Dec. 11, the state Budget & Control Board voted to reduce spending for the current fiscal year. The mandatory cuts came after the state’s economists calculated that the amount the state would collect in revenue would fall far short of the amount the state was set to spend. This most recent budget reduction – a 7 percent cut – was the third decrease since the fiscal year began in July.

Our budget crisis was not caused only by declining revenues, but by too much spending as well. When times are good, state government simply spends too much of what it take in. We seem to spend everything we take in, rather than just what we need to fund government.

It was as a result of this practice that, when the economy soured, we became unable to support state government at the size we had grown it. Thus, we were forced to cut – requiring employee furloughs and layoffs.

Our current fiscal straits underscore the need for more thoughtful spending practices. The current budget predicament should teach us the perils of spending every dime we take in, as if the good times will last forever. That’s no way to manage a state. We must set priorities, focus on the primary functions of government, direct resources where they are genuinely needed, and pare back frills.

Simply put, it’s time to reform the way we spend taxpayers' money.

Over the past several years, Gov. Sanford has worked to draw attention to state spending practices he accurately sees as unhealthy. His answer is to cap spending by indexing spending growth to inflation and population growth, which would keep government from growing at a faster pace than the underlying economy. Others would be wise to accept his advice.

A new year and a new legislative session are approaching, and with them comes an opportunity for new beginnings – for a new chapter in the history of state government. Common sense demands we use this golden opportunity to change the way we spend.

Government transparency gaining steam...

Those who know me know how increased government transparency is something I feel strongly about. That's why I have been working hard as Comptroller General to do my part to shine a light on state spending... so the taxpayers have access to as much information as possible about how their hard-earned tax dollars are spent.

Fortunately, the government transparency movement appears to be picking up steam. Every day, the drum beat grows louder. Increasingly, daily newspapers are using their opinion pages to advance the idea that the best government is the government conducted in the open -- in full view of the citizenry.

Below are two such editorials from the Charleston Post & Courier and the Myrtle Beach Sun News. It is certainly refreshing to witness newspaper editorial writers using their "bully pulpit" to advance the important cause of open government.

New chance for roll-call solution
From the Post & Courier (Saturday, December 13, 2008)

A reform plan for roll-call voting by the state Legislature gets another chance with a bill prefiled by Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler this week.
The Senate shouldn't settle for something substantially less, as did the House of Representatives.
The Gaffney Republican's bill reflects the changes sought in the House by Rep. Nikki Haley, R-Lexington. It would require South Carolina's important legislative business to be submitted to a roll-call vote — as it is in the large majority of states.
The need for greater accountability was revealed by the S.C. Policy Council, whose analysis found that only 8 percent of House votes and 2 percent of Senate votes were recorded.
The Policy Council also found that South Carolina had the weakest requirements
in the nation for roll-call voting by the Legislature.
The House response was to approve a rules change that includes some mprovements, but far less than envisioned in the bill by Rep. Haley. The public support of more accountability is reflected in the bipartisan support for her bill. So far, 30 representatives have signed on to the bill.
Rep. Haley's bill, incidentally, has also been pre-filed for introduction to the House when the session opens. So the House will have another opportunity to consider her reform plan.
Sen. Peeler's bill has garnered broad support in the Senate, with 20 co-sponsors.
Sen. Peeler contends that the lack of accountability has resulted in irresponsible
spending by the state, and is partly to blame for the state government's current
fiscal problems.
"Transparency is clearly needed in South Carolina," Sen. Peeler said in a statement. "More roll-call votes will shine a bright light on the General Assembly, holding us accountable for the tax dollars we spend."
Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell supports more roll-call voting, but says the plan needs to be crafted as a rule change to avoid Senate gridlock. "We're trying to make sure that everything that is substantive and controversial gets a recorded vote," he said.
Presumably, those parliamentary concerns can be addressed during the debate.
The primary objective should be to provide more roll-call voting by senators who clearly haven't been on the record. If that requires some adjustments in the way the
Senate does business, then senators should be willing to make the necessary changes. Roll-call voting is essential to legislative accountability. It provides a record showing citizens how their legislators voted. It informs the electorate as voters go the polls.
The shortcomings in accountability have been revealed, and a remedy should be applied by the Legislature. A cure, not a bandage, is needed.

Let Us See the Truth
From the Myrtle Beach Sun News (Friday, Dec. 12)

Good for S.C. Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler, R-Cherokee, and the doughty and of Senate Republicans who believe that the long era of secrecy in S.C. lawmaking ust end. Local Sens. Ray Cleary, R-Murrells Inlet, and Luke Rankin, R-Myrtle Beach, re among senators backing Peeler's bill to let ordinary South Carolinians in on how he General Assembly handles their tax money. Under present Senate rules and recently evised House rules, legislators too easily can obscure money-handling decisions and ositions with which their constituents may disagree.
The Senate Republicans' Spending Accountability Act would amend state law to equire roll-call recording of senators' and representatives' votes on: Each section of appropriations bills on second reading; Floor votes adopting House-Senate conference-committee and free conference-committee reports (most final budget decisions have their beginnings in these reports); Second reading of all bills and joint resolutions; Concurrence votes on Senate amendments to House bills, and on House amendments to Senate bills; Third (and final) readings of bills and joint resolutions amended after second readings. We can almost hear readers' eyes glazing over at all this legislative inside baseball. The S.C. representatives who last week approved House "reforms" that would allow many financial dealings to remain secret are counting on them to react that way. Too
many legislators like it when we see the inside stuff as boring.
The House rules changes require recorded member votes only on bills to raise or reduce taxes, to increase budgets by more than $10,000, to adopt the final version of the state budget, to reapportion the General Assembly or U.S. House districts,
to raise legislative pay and to amend ethics rules. That sounds like transparency but really isn't.
House rules, as amended, do not require roll-call votes on the measures itemized in the Peeler bill - even though the inspiration for his bill came from a House member, S.C. Rep. Nikki Haley, R-Lexington. The House refused to consider her accountability bill. And Speaker Bobby Harrell subsequently stripped Haley and another transparency reformer, S.C. Rep. Nathan Ballentine, R-Irmo, of their committee assignments. The two got punished, in short, for daring to suggest that House members should show their constituents how they handle public money.
Why should readers care that S.C. legislators, when stacked against their counterparts in other states, are among the least accountable legislators in the nation? For the answer, one need only look at how poorly the current-year state budget, which has imploded by more than a billion dollars, has worked out.
How did that happen when it was clear at the beginning of the year that the S.C. economy was headed for a bad place?
Who is to blame for this fiasco? There's no way to tell because the official record of the 2008 legislative session does not speak to the dozens upon dozens of procedural votes made during budget construction in the General Assembly.
Peeler says that if the House refuses to engage on his bill, he'll work to incorporate its provisions into Senate rules. The hope must be, however, that Harrell and his cohorts recognize the weakness of their rules "reforms" and unite with the Senate to make legislative transparency a matter of law.

My thoughts on the Budget & Control Board's 7 percent state budget cut on Dec. 11

A budget cut now is better than a budget cut next February... and February is the soonest legislative leaders say they would be able to deal with our current budget crisis. That's why I insisted that the Budget and Control Board needed to step forward to cut state spending.

Cutting today allows greater flexibility for each agency, while later cuts would require much more drastic action to keep government afloat.

State government is bleeding financially, and we needed to act immediately to stop the blood loss.

But let's honestly admit that our budget crisis is more a problem of our spending too much than collecting too little. Economic growth over the last few years has given us a false hope that good times will last forever. So state government has increased spending beyond levels we can keep up. Now that revenues are falling, we’re unable to support government at the size we’ve grown it.

A new year and a new legislative session are around the corner and with them comes an opportunity for needed change in state government budgeting. State leaders would do well to recognize this unique opportunity to rethink our approach to spending. We must exercise greater fiscal discipline by living within our means and resisting the urge to spend every dime that comes in as if good times will last forever.

If there’s a silver lining somewhere in this current economic crisis, it’s that these challenges will force us to use greater fiscal discipline as we move ahead.

Reduced tax revenue -- and what it means for S.C.

Year-to-date, corporate income tax revenues are down more than 57 percent from last year.

Net Corporate Income Tax collections for July - November of this year are $30.6 million compared to $71.4 million for the same period last year -- a difference of $40.8 million. Also down on a year-to-date basis are individual income tax collections (down nearly 3 percent) and sales tax collections (down nearly 11 percent). The Board of Economic Advisors is expected to discuss declining revenues at its meeting Wednesday.

These sobering numbers and the declining revenue projections already provided by the Board of Economic Advisors further illustrate the need for a complete top-to-bottom assessment of how we spend public dollars.

With the legislature set to return in a few short weeks, the economic crisis presents us an excellent opportunity to change how we spend public money. It no longer works to spend money as fast as it comes in, acting as if good times will last forever. Nor should the state continue to grow government faster than we can pay for it. The mess we’re in today proves that we need to change.

S.C. Budget Update

The state Budget and Control Board will meet Thursday, Dec. 11 to decide on a course of action for dealing with falling tax revenues.
That meeting will following Wednesday's meeting of the Board of Economic Advisors.

Urge local governments to put spending online

Increased transparency needed to restore faith in government

Providing increased government transparency -- giving people more and better information on how government spends our money and how elected officials make decisions that affect all of us -- is a cause dear to my heart.

Too many decisions are made behind closed doors, diluting accountability of our elected officials and eroding public confidence in government itself. When elected officials make decisions in secret and without a record of their votes, they sometimes pass things they never would approve in full view of the public.

Earlier this year, I worked with Governor Sanford to create an easy-to-use spending transparency Web site. It contains detailed spending information for more than 80 state agencies, giving the public more access than ever to information about how state government spends their hard-earned tax dollars.

This Web site, which is available through my office’s site (http://www.cg.sc.gov/), is serving as a national model for other states attempting their own transparency initiatives. Several states have contacted me hoping to duplicate our open-government ideas.

Today, the Comptroller General's Office is working to help bring increased transparency to local governments -- towns, cities, counties, special purpose districts, and school districts. We’re reaching out to work with local governments to put their spending data online, even offering to host the information on our own Web site.

Any transparency movement, however, is likely to meet resistance from those who prefer that the public not know exactly how their money is spent and who see increased transparency as an intrusion on their authority and into their exclusive domain. Excuses vary: Some say it’s too costly to put the information online. Others say there’s not enough public interest. Still others question the motives of any citizen interested in looking at spending by local governments. I disagree with all these weak arguments. They’re nonsense!

Government absolutely needs to provide this information with no excuses. Call it an on-line check register. People want and deserve to know how their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent, and people can be trusted with this information. In this information age, it’s easy and inexpensive to do.

It’s unbelievable that anyone could oppose this kind of initiative with a straight face or a clear conscience. But this has to be done. I hope that local governments all over South Carolina will do so voluntarily. If they refuse, I’ll try again this year to get support from the Legislature to compel local governments to make this useful information conveniently available to the public at no cost. What could be more convenient to the public than providing this information on the Internet?

But before asking the Legislature to pass another law, I’m turning to the public for help. I’m asking people to make their voices loudly heard and contact officials of their own town or city, their county, and their school district. People need to insist to them that local governments post their spending on-line. If local officials haven’t yet heard about my offer to put their spending detail in one centralized location on my office’s Web site, tell them about it.

I’ll soon be holding workshops around the state to help any local governments interested in working with me on this. Look up phone numbers. Call your mayor, your representatives on City and County Council, and your school board representatives. Tell them that, as a voter, you feel transparency is the best policy. While it won’t cure all that ails our state, equipping citizens with the knowledge gained by better access to how their money is spent would hold our elected officials more accountable and would better safeguard the public trust.

In other words, this is a common sense matter of good government.

Tough times mean we must dig deeper to help those less fortunate

We usually see a strong upswing in charitable giving during the Thanksgiving and Christmas season. It’s not that those needing assistance are fewer during other parts of the year; instead it’s that the spirit of this season often moves people to give a little more.

But the current economic downturn has resulted in less giving than normal from people and businesses bracing for tough times. There are simply fewer donors, and those who donate are giving less.

At the same time, charities are seeing a major surge in requests for help, and many food pantries are struggling to stock their shelves. Harvest Hope Food Bank, a charity that distributes food to South Carolina families facing hard times, reports experiencing as much as a 50 percent surge in demand in some regions.

The combination of fewer donations and greater need means many more people face the prospect of a Thanksgiving and Christmas season that includes hunger. That’s not something we should be willing to let happen. It’s our responsibility – as people of faith and as human beings created in the image of God – to help our neighbors. There are four meaningful ways we can all make a difference.

-- Perhaps most importantly, we can donate money to a worthwhile charity that serves the poor, such as Harvest Hope Food Bank, Oliver Gospel Mission, or the Salvation Army.

-- If we can’t contribute financially, we can lend a hand. Volunteering your time and effort frees up money that charities can then use to buy food and other supplies.

-- We can search our home cupboards for surplus non-perishable food items to donate, such as canned goods, pasta, crackers, rice, oatmeal, powdered milk and peanut butter. There’s also a need for diapers and personal hygiene items such as soap and toothpaste.

-- We can hold a canned food drive at our office, church, school or recreation center. We can find other groups to do the same, and compete to see who can collect the most. My office recently had such a competition with the offices of the State Agriculture Commissioner and the State Treasurer. It was a fun and productive way to support a worthy cause – in our case Harvest Hope Food Bank.

Yes, times seem tough all around. But while many of us may be feeling pinched right now, remember that there are many people in far less fortunate circumstances. If we stop to reflect, we’ll probably realize there are many, many blessings for which we should be thankful.

In these hard times, those of us who have enough and more to meet our own needs should prayerfully consider sharing our material blessings with those not as fortunate as we are. If we can, let’s dig a little deeper. But if we can’t give monetarily, let’s look for ways to volunteer our time at least once during this special season.

Four keys to a brighter future for South Carolina

Another election has come and gone, and those fortunate enough to have been chosen by their neighbors for public service now must devote their election-year energy into governing during difficult times.

Even in the best of times, the challenges facing South Carolina are unique. For too long we've languished at the bottom in education, healthcare, and personal income. These days, we also face an economic crisis and serious budget troubles largely of our own making.

It's obviously time for some major changes. We can no longer afford politics as usual, or business as usual. To my mind, there are four major reforms that are needed if we're to truly move South Carolina forward.

First, we must increase transparency. There's a long overdue move afoot to draw back the curtains of state government so that more decisions are made in full view of the citizens who are impacted by those decisions. One such measure, the 2009 Spending Accountability Act, would require more legislative votes to be recorded on the record rather than to pass legislation by group voice vote. This would deter lawmakers from casting votes which are not necessarily in thepublics' best interests and allow voters to make better-informed decisions in the voting booth.

Also, I recently worked with Gov. Sanford to create the state's first spending transparency Web site. This site is linked to my office's Office Web site (www.cg.sc.gov) and contains detailed spending information for more than 80 state agencies. Like the recorded-vote legislation, this is an important step toward telling citizens how their money is spent, and holding those in charge of our purse-strings more accountable.

Second, must show more fiscal restraint. Government spending is growing too fast – way too fast. There's too much unnecessary spending -- such as state grants for festivals and other "pork" projects which should not be the function of state government. For conservatives in particular, we should return to our core principles of limited spending and less government.

One common sense proposal by Gov. Mark Sanford would limit increases in government spending to increases in the inflation rate plus the rate our population increases, which would prevent the growth of government from outpacing our ability to pay for it. Lawmakers would do well to give the Governor's plan careful consideration or to come forward with another effective plan to accomplish the same purpose.

Third, it's time to restructure government, so that it operates more efficiently and puts our tax dollars to their best possible use. The current system, designed in the 19th century, is outdated and unwieldy. It gives the Governor control of less than half the executive branch, which dilutes accountability.

A good first step toward restructuring would be to dissolve the five-member Budget & Control Board, the powerful central agency in charge of the state's finances and landlord functions, which usurps much of the power that rightfully belongs to the state's Chief Executive. One common-sense proposal would replace the Budget & Control Board with a Department of Administration, one accountable solely to the Governor.

Fourth and finally, some soul-searching is in order. We need to examine anew our philosophy about public service. It's time to put aside the petty partisanship and individual self-serving ways that keep us from reaching our potential, and put government back to work for the people.

While remaining true to principle and standing for what we believe is right, we must also recognize our need to work with good people who hold other viewpoints when it's in the best interest of South Carolina.

No doubt some of these proposed reforms will be met with cynicism. Frankly, there's a battle going on in Columbia between those who want to reform government and those who are content with the status quo. But if we're to truly move our state forward -- out of last place and toward a brighter future -- we must change the way our government operates and start doing what's best for the taxpayers.

A Watershed Time for State Government

When you're spending other people's hard-earned money, it's just common courtesy to let them know how it's spent.

That's not a principle always embraced by government. Too often, tax dollars are spent under a shroud of secrecy, and decisions which affect your family are made out of public view.

Fortunately, this is a watershed time for South Carolina government. There's a growing movement afoot to improve and reform government, and chief among the reforms is increased transparency.

Earlier this year, I implemented a transparency Web site with Governor Sanford which allows anyone with Internet access to view spending data on state agencies. It’s linked to the Comptroller General’s Web site -- www.cg.sc.gov/ -- and contains detailed yearly and monthly spending information for 80-plus state agencies. The premise is that state agencies are far more accountable when their spending is done in the open, and the taxpayers should have as many tools as possible to find out how their money is spent.

Aside from allowing taxpayers to see how their hard-earned dollars are used, it should serve as a reminder to public officials that their spending will be seen, and therefore they should act responsibly with your tax dollars. Sunshine, as they say, is the best disinfectant.

Several weeks ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers announced they’re renewing a push to have more legislative votes recorded for the public to see. There are too many “voice votes” on important issues, they rightly contend, and so they’re now leading a charge to have more votes cast on the record, in full view of the citizenry.

Like the spending-transparency Web site, this would be a tremendous step toward a more open, accountable government. Elected representatives who truly vote in their constituents' best interests should welcome this change.Empowering ordinary citizens with the access to how money is spent and how their representatives vote will help safeguard the public trust, hold those in charge of our purse strings accountable and allow people to make better-informed decisions in the voting booth. At a time when many believe there is a real crisis of leadership and trust in our country, these common-sense reforms are more important than ever.

Ultimately, an informed citizenry is the watchdog that ensures sound governance.

In an election year, "change" and "accountability" become political buzz-words, so it is encouraging to know there's a serious challenge to the "business-as-usual" mindset which is pervasive in Columbia. Other good-government reforms which will likely see vigorous debate during the upcoming session include restructuring state government so that it operates more efficiently, and capping the growth in state spending so that overzealous government doesn’t outpace our ability to pay for it.

But if we are to truly change the ways of Columbia, we must first change the way we view the role of government: We serve the people, and they have a right to know how we spend public money and how we arrive at decisions that impact them.

Good government can flourish best in full view of the public.

Voting is a Sacred Right and Solemn Responsibility

In recent weeks there have been shocking stories about highly organized efforts to fraudulently register voters. Thousands of duplicate registrations have been reported along with the registrations of dead people, ineligible people, and even nonexistent people. Fraudulent votes have already been cast on behalf of the mentally impaired and the dead. In some states, political leaders have led aggressive efforts to register soon-to-be-released prisoners, while finding technical grounds to disqualify absentee ballots from our personnel in the armed services. These efforts are sinister, often criminal, and those involved should be prosecuted.

This reported fraud being carried out throughout the nation not only demonstrates a contempt for our country and its Constitution, it is an attempt to diminish and even take away the sacred right that you and I have to determine those who will represent us at the local, state and federal levels of government. In a nation of, by and for the people, those who carry out such activities are as much a threat to our nation as any enemy combatant.

Of course we hear in many quarters that all of this activity is simply to ensure that everyone votes. But what is the benefit to society in having everyone vote? In San Francisco, illegal aliens have been given the right to vote in municipal elections. A Boston Alderman has proposed that legal, non-citizens should be permitted to vote in that city’s elections. And some free Western nations actually compel everyone to go to the polls. But our founders did not create an absolute democracy where the emotions and whims of the mob rule. Instead they created a republic where certain things, such as one’s right to life, liberty, and property, and even the right not to vote, can never be taken away by majority vote.

There are many people we encounter every day who have no interest in government, politics, and the domestic and foreign affairs of our country. No doubt many of them are good people who love their families and contribute to their communities. But should they be rounded up and delivered to the polls to make decisions about issues that effect all the rest of us and on which they have little if any interest or knowledge?

No eligible citizen should be denied his or her right to cast a vote. But when illegal aliens who don’t speak English, and who know nothing of our history, Constitution, laws and culture, are encouraged to vote, is our country made better or is it made worse?

At the beginning of our national life, only 20% of adult males cast ballots. No one suggests that we should return to such a limited franchise, but those informed voters did manage to elect such monumental historical figures as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Adams.

Efforts to ensure that anyone with a driver’s license becomes a registered voter, or to permit phone-in votes as one Colorado organization advocates, cheapen and demean our political process and potentially turn what should be a high privilege and solemn responsibility into a common task.

Those who devote themselves to ensuring that ballot boxes are jam-packed with as many legal, as well as illegal, votes as possible would do our nation a far greater service if they directed their energies to ensuring that our citizens are truly prepared to knowledgeably exercise their responsibility as voters.

As President Kennedy stated: "The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all."

Figures Don’t Lie, But Liars Figure

Mark Twain’s observation that "Figures don't lie, but liars figure" is an important thought to keep in mind when looking at government statistics, opinion polls, and so many of the surveys and studies that are presented daily to the American public. Indeed, many in government and in business and advocacy groups have learned that the way information is calculated, the phrasing of a question in a poll, or the methods used to structure a so called “scientific survey” can dramatically influence the results.

One area where reported statistics frequently misrepresent reality is in the host of ways school districts and states calculate graduation rates. It does little good to compare one district with another, or one state with other states, because they may all use different ways to calculate the percentage of students who actually graduate.

Thirty-three states use the “Leaver Rate” which divides the number of students who received standard high school diplomas by the combined number of students who dropped out, who graduated with a standard diploma, and who graduated with other completion credentials.

Only ten states do what many people of common sense would do, which is to compare the number who enter the ninth grade with the number of those who graduate with a diploma four years later.

The other states use an array of meaningless calculations, such as basing published graduation rates on the percentage of high school seniors, counted in the fall of their senior year, who graduate in the spring. Of course, this method conveniently ignores the fact that many high school students drop out during their sophomore and junior years.

Perhaps most leading and dangerous to our democracy are the flood of polls, all purporting to “scientifically measure” what Americans think. Thirteen different polls currently measuring support for the two major Presidential candidates show one candidate leading by nine different percentages, ranging from a lead of 2% to 14%.

Whatever the latest news-making survey, poll, report, or study might show, it’s always a good idea to look behind the curtain to determine who is sponsoring the project, to consider what their motives might be, and how they may be attempting to influence public opinion. It’s my “unscientific opinion” that nine times out of ten, somebody has an agenda!

What Does It Mean To Be A "Conservative?"

President Reagan and the Triumph of the Conservative Movement

In 1947, the liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. proclaimed: "There seems no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals." There is no doubt that champions of big, activist government dominated the first half of the twentieth century. But historians like Schlesinger are better at looking back than predicting the future. The pendulum had indeed swung far to the left but, imperceptibly at first, it had begun to turn by the century’s midpoint.

In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower was so accepting of New Deal principles that both parties sought to make this celebrated war hero their nominee. When he ultimately decided to seek the Republican nomination, he easily beat a conservative challenge from the highly respected Senator Robert Taft. Nevertheless, the relatively serene Eisenhower years were a time when conservative thinkers like Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, and Milton Friedman were laying the intellectual foundation for a new conservative movement that would be built with the timbers of a renewed commitment to small government, individual liberty, faith, family, and economic opportunity.

The Kennedy-Johnson years were a triumph of big government liberalism with greatly expanded roles for the federal government. The so called “war on poverty” began with $3 billion and spawned numerous new agencies such as the Office of Economic Opportunity, the Jobs Corps, Neighborhood Youth Corps, Model Cities Program, Upward Bound, and many others. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Higher Education Act of 1965, and the National Teachers Corps marked a new and constitutionally questionable role for the federal government in education. Medicare and Medicaid were established, along with the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. There were greatly expanded roles for the federal government in public broadcasting, consumer protection, environmental protection, transportation, and civil rights, with scores of new departments and agencies serving various targeted constituencies.

Finally, many in America, later known as “the silent majority,” had had enough. In 1964, they flocked to the candidacy of libertarian Barry Goldwater. But a nation so recently rocked by the Kennedy assassination was in no mood for a second change in Presidents in little more than a year. Goldwater strategist John Sears observed, however, that Goldwater “changed the rhetoric of politics” by challenging the principles of the New Deal, “something no Democrat or Republican before him had dared to do.”

Although Goldwater lost in a landslide, his bold philosophies inspired a new grassroots conservative movement that produced the entry of thousands of young people in American politics and policymaking. Goldwater’s campaign also spawned a new political star, Ronald Reagan, whose clarity of principle and persuasive speaking captured attention when, late in the campaign, Reagan delivered a speech entitled “A Time for Choosing.” That speech contains the essence of Ronald Reagan – a hopeful, optimistic vision of a better, free and prosperous America, where the foundational principles of our republic and its founding fathers guide America’s ship of state to its “rendezvous with destiny.” The memory of that powerful speech helped him two years later to defeat the incumbent Governor of California by one million votes.

In the fourteen years between Ronald Reagan’s election as Governor of California and as President of the United States, there was little philosophically that separated Democrat and Republican presidents. Federal spending continued to grow at record rates, inflation was frequently out of control, and a Republican president went so far as to impose wage and price controls. By the end of the Carter administration, with unrelenting inflation, soaring interest rates, fuel shortages, and the humiliation of the Iranian hostage crisis, Americans were finally ready to break with the political culture of nearly a half century.

President Reagan acted quickly and boldly to cut income taxes 25%. He reduced the top income tax rate from 70% to 50% and indexed all rates to blunt inflation’s hidden impact on those rates. These measures resulted in 60 straight months of growth, the longest uninterrupted period of expansion since government began keeping statistics in 1854. There were 15 million new jobs created and just under $20 trillion worth of goods and services. Policies belittled then and now as “Reaganomics” fired America’s economic engine in ways unseen before or since, and led to the defeat without even firing a shot of one of the most dangerous regimes the world has known.

Great as America’s economic renewal was under President Reagan, his buoyant, optimistic belief in the power of freedom, individual initiative, America’s Constitution, free-market principles, and the idea that America’s greatest days lay ahead, provided spiritual renewal to an America beaten down by twenty years of political assassinations, scandals, advancing socialism, inflation, war and defeat.

The name Ronald Reagan has become the gold standard for conservatives -- his name still is invoked in every debate -- and yet the great movement that he ultimately led to victory now seems fractured and leaderless compared to the conservative movement that emerged as a result of his efforts.

In the past decade, the size of the federal government has exploded, our economy is in extreme distress, and the federal budget deficit has soared to record levels. Yet many in their desperation look for still more government to solve problems that all too often are the result of already too much government.

It has been said that Franklin D. Roosevelt turned to government to solve the problems of the people, while President Reagan turned to the people to solve the problems of government. Perhaps that is the key to what it really means to be a conservative -- an abiding belief in the dignity and power of free individuals, unshackled from government interference to create lives for themselves, their families, and their communities.

Concluding his first Inaugural Address, President Reagan told the story of Martin Treptow who gave his life for our country in the First World War. The President concluded by saying:

“The crisis we are facing today does not require of us the kind of sacrifice that Martin Treptow and so many thousands of others were called upon to make. It does require, however, our best effort, and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds; to believe that together, with God's help, we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us.

And, after all, why shouldn't we believe that? We are Americans.”

Reagan’s words were so true then. They are so true still.


(This is the fifth and concluding installment in a series on What Does It Mean To Be A "Conservative?”)

Trust Capitalism and Let It Work

In recent weeks I’ve been reflecting on what it means to be a conservative. Given the extraordinary economic events of the last couple of weeks, I want to comment on our current economic crisis before concluding my series on conservatism.

The current economic crisis is complex and many people and institutions both in Washington and on Wall Street have a role and bear some level of responsibility for it. Many attribute the crisis to the quasi-governmental agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Others attribute the crisis to the intervention of the Federal Reserve and the market distortions it may have created with artificially low interest rates. Still others blame the crisis on Wall Street greed and the extraordinary pay, bonuses, and severance packages realized by corporate CEO’s even while the institutions they headed were failing.

Whatever flaws and abuses exist in our economic system, what most observers agree upon is that this economic emergency has been precipitated by an extreme softening of housing markets in many parts of the country. And at the deep root of this problem is overzealous government interfering in credit markets by requiring lending institutions to abandon sound lending practices to advance a political agenda. Leading the list of government culprits are members of Congress.

In the 1970’s Congress enacted the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) with the intent of requiring financial institutions to expand credit to a wider marketing base rather than to just credit-worthy customers. The lofty goal was to provide more affordable housing and promote more home ownership among low-income families. But the effect and scope of this act was fairly limited until 1995, at which time the Clinton Administration promoted new regulations requiring even more aggressive marketing of mortgage loans among low-income groups, imposing quotas, and mandating stiff penalties for banks that failed to offer “no money down” mortgages, floating rates, and loans made to people with no credit history or even bad credit history.

Federal law required banks to set aside prudent lending practices. Financial institutions began making profits in the expanded mortgage origination process, and they knew that even if borrowers defaulted the government would bail them out for defaulted loans they held. And so our most financially vulnerable citizens were encouraged to buy homes and take on debt they could scarcely afford. With growing pools of money being made available for home mortgages, home prices grew faster than inflation, ultimately creating a huge bubble waiting to burst.

Eventually, interest rates began to rise thus creating a crisis for those borrowers who had been enticed by adjustable rate mortgages. As monthly mortgage payments were dramatically rising, so too were gasoline prices. Many borrowers stopped paying, the once overheated housing market became a glut of foreclosed properties, lenders stopped lending, housing prices declined, and the bubble finally burst.

A national crisis -- threatening the very foundations of our nation, the stability of the dollar, and the economic well-being of future generations -- has been caused by a Congress willing to disregard the laws of human nature, prudent business practices, and free market principles all for the sake of a political agenda and the political benefits that come with promising something for nothing.

The free market is one of the most highly efficient and productive forces on the face of the earth. It intuitively understands that businesses that show poor judgment in their business practices deserve to fold, while stronger, well-run businesses gain market share and expand their profit margins for their owners.

Freed from government interference, the marketplace functions precisely as it should. Investors who made mistakes in this market should be held responsible, and those who managed to navigate all the distortions imposed by Washington should be rewarded. The last thing we need is for government to play an even larger role, to prop up institutions that should be allowed to fail, and to use massive amounts of taxpayer dollars to further interfere with the marketplace. Should we really trust the very members of Congress who created the mess and failed to see the crisis coming with the task of fixing their mess?

When we free our markets of government controls, manipulation, and political considerations to pursue what free markets do best, which is to create wealth and jobs, our nation will be stronger. A so called “bailout plan” that saddles every American with thousands of dollars of debt, that artificially props up failed institutions, and that actually penalizes risk-taking and success will make our economy smaller and weaker, and only postpones a day of eventual reckoning that will likely include even more serious economic troubles.

What Does It Mean To Be A "Conservative?"

The Emergence of "Progressivism"

The “Progressive Era” in American history conjures up for many people memories of Teddy Roosevelt’s trust-busting efforts, the enactment of child-labor laws, and reforms to ensure food and workplace safety. Yet along with reforms like those, which most Americans supported, was a vastly expanded role for government and a loss of individual liberties. In his best-selling book, "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning," author and columnist Jonah Goldberg has described excessive and unconstitutional measures taken by the Wilson Administration. Using the emergency of wartime, the Wilson Administration fired the opening salvo in a campaign that is still being waged for large, powerful and centralized government.

Many influential “progressive” thinkers in that era of American history saw World War I as an opportunity for fundamental political change. The human suffering and economic destruction caused by the Great War in Europe and the world-wide economic crisis that became known as the Great Depression would soon sweep away most eighteenth and nineteenth century notions about the sovereignty of the individual and a government that is of, by, and for the people. Seizing the opportunity provided by the Great Depression, the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt quickly made permanent, and dramatically built upon, the big-government excesses of the Wilson years.

Among American progressives it became not only acceptable but fashionable to admire what Lenin was imposing in Russia and Mussolini’s Fascists were experimenting with in Italy. Here at home, the great number of new government agencies and programs advanced by the Roosevelt Administration intruded into every aspect of American life and commerce. We ask today how 100,000 Japanese-Americans could have been forcibly housed by our government in internment camps during World War II. President Gerald Ford answered that question best with his observation that “a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

Government at all levels continued to grow throughout the twentieth century in the United States, and at mid-century there was little that fundamentally separated our two major political parties. Indeed, some critics ridiculed the Republican Party by accusing it of promising “less of the same.”

The flame of classical liberalism, which was the foundation of modern-day conservatism, had been bestowed across the ages through the five historic cities chronicled earlier in this series. Yet while seriously jeopardized in the twentieth century by the advancing winds of progressivism, the flickering flame was not completely extinguished. At mid-twentieth century, progressivism or modern-day liberalism was at its peak, but the tide was turning.

Senator Robert Taft made an unsuccessful attempt in 1952 to challenge the big-government orthodoxy of the Republican Party and return it to the ideals of limited government respecting freedom and individual rights. National Review Magazine, which catered to the philosophies of many influential conservatives, was launched by young William F. Buckley, a resident of Camden, SC. And a former Democrat and union official named Ronald Reagan began giving speeches about the important need to restore Constitutional government in the United States. Indeed, the tide was turning.