Month: June 2015

Seven months before the first votes are cast, pundits agree, polls are largely exercises in name recognition.  The vast majority of voters aren’t paying attention.  Nonetheless, polls are the reason Bush, Walker and Rubio are put in the top tier, and Hillary is inevitable.  Bullshit.  Bush won’t be the nominee.  Bet on it.  There are half a dozen Republicans who might win.  Bush isn’t one of them.

And Hillary is not inevitable.  If a significant portion of big media treat her like an ordinary candidate then she is ordinary, and beatable.  A new poll from New Hampshire shows Vermont’s Bernie Sanders within striking distance.  It’s sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.  If the people of New Hampshire are open to a 73 old socialist, they’re open to anybody but Hillary.  She could lose New Hampshire, which has a long and distinguished history of smacking down inevitable candidates.  The people there take their role in our Presidential system seriously, and will not be a rubber stamp.  Hillary’s imperial style of campaigning won’t wash there.  She’ll have to mix and mingle, which she doesn’t do well.  She really has very little to say.  She’s a woman and she deserves it  — that’s the entire rationale for her candidacy.  Her supporters can’t cite any of her accomplishments, because he doesn’t have any.  LBJ won the ’68 New Hampshire primary, but he withdrew shortly afterward.  The New Hampshire McCarthy voters killed the career of a sitting President.  If Hillary loses New Hampshire she’s vulnerable to losing it all.

Germans were recently polled about their willingness to fight a war if a NATO ally is attacked.  They said no by a 3-2 margin.  If the Germans won’t fight, no one will, most definitely including Americans.  Now the Pentagon wants to deploy heavy weapons in Eastern Europe, as a deterrent to the Russkies.  It’s all bullshit.

After WW2 we decided we’d fight to keep the Russians out of Western Europe.  We weren’t willing to spend the money to match the Russians in conventional weapons, so we told them we’d nuke them to keep them out.  They believed it when Eisenhower said it.  By the time Carter got in they stopped believing, so we gave the Europeans Pershing missiles that they could fire off themselves.  The Russians believed the Europeans would nuke them if they invaded, so it worked.

That was over 30 years ago.  Things have changed.  We formed NATO not to stop the Russians, but to stop Communism, which died 25 years ago.  Ask an American millennial “Should the US fight a massive European land war to keep the Russians out of Eastern Europe?”  They’d say no by a lot bigger margin than 3-2.  All age cohorts would agree:  It’s not our war.  The Russians may or may not be a threat to Europe.  They’re damn sure no threat to us.  Why the hell would we go to war with them?

Putin knows this, which explains a lot of his behavior.  He’s acting in accordance with reality, and so should we.  The next President should sponsor a summit between ourselves, Putin and Merkel.  He or she should tell both of them that we’re there as an honest broker.  We want to help the two of them come to an understanding about the future of Europe.  A peaceful future that does not involve direct American involvement.

The only thing I like about Obama is his pacifism.  If he tells the Pentagon “no” he will have partially redeemed his Presidency.

The traditional BBA is, among other things, a demand for entitlement reform.  The Reagan Initiative adds regulatory reform.  If the Convention produces an Amendment which accomplishes both, it will be a huge success.  Both are necessary for prosperity and full employment.  Are they sufficient?

I don’t know, but it’s obvious that one critical reform is not included  — taxes.  It would fall within the scope of the call, just as much as regulatory reform or land transfers.  Should the Amendment Convention go whole hog, and abolish the IRS,, or some such?

It may be so far outside the box that people aren’t ready for it  — a bridge too far.  We won’t know for over a year.  The time to decide is when the Convention convenes in late summer or early fall of 2016.  The nominations will have been decided, and the Presidential campaign will be well underway.  If the Republican candidate wants to go for it, the Convention could do the trifecta   — entitlement reform via the traditional BBA, regulatory reform, and tax reform.  If the candidate takes no position it will be up to the delegates  — go small, or go bold.  It’s a purely political decision, which will be rendered by a gathering of some of the best politicians in the country.  Men and women largely unknown outside their home states, but with a wealth of experience and political accomplishment.  The people meeting in San Diego.

Would these people do a better job at tax reform than Congress?  A diverse, but strongly conservative,  group of largely citizen-legislators, in which California’s voice is the same as Wyoming’s?  As opposed to an entrenched  Congress composed of rent seeking agents of the special interests that finance their endless campaigns?   This is a question which should be put to the American people.

They’ll decide.

The two poles of regulatory reform are 1) Require all regulations be approved by Congress to 2) Require “expensive” regulations be approved by Congress.  But how to you get rid of existing regulation?  By Act of Congress  — not easy.  But this is linear thinking.  Article V is an open invitation to think outside the box.  If it’s politically feasible, it can be done.  That’s the only restraint on an Article V Convention.

Constitutional regulatory reform could involve the creation of an entirely new institution — say, the Federal Regulation Commission.  Its members would be appointed by the States.  It could repeal any existing regulation.  But Congress could overturn any repeal, by statute.

Maybe that’s not the answer.  There may be problems with that approach that I’m not aware of.  But the point is that it’s possible.  New institutions can be created.  The Framers didn’t anticipate the Regulatory State.  So the way to solve the problem is up to today’s political leaders.  The possible solutions are limited only by the imagination.

Not all American political institutions are creatures of government.  Our political parties created themselves.  The Majority Coalition of the 2016 Amendment Convention, if it comes into being, will have created itself.  Even after the Convention has adjourned it can continue in existence if that is the will of the group.  It may be just an informal committee of correspondence, but it can meet, and, collectively, make decisions  — decisions binding only on itself, such as what is the consensus for a subject of a second Convention.  Individual members of the Coalition would come and go with each election cycle.  But there would be enough continuity to create a new political institution, if that is the will of the members.  An institution with the potential to solve many of the problems we face.

Imagine.

Alan Dye is a big time 501(c)(3) lawyer who formed CBBAC with Charlie Black and Rod Smith four or five years ago.  Biddulph is staging a friendly takeover.  He, Fruth, Stu McPhail and I would be added to the board.  It will likely be the official sponsoring organization behind the San Diego Summit.

I’m going to suggest that CBBAC contact every Presidential candidate and ask them to make a five minute presentation to the Summit, either live through our Go To Meeting connection, or pre-taped.  We’d ask them to state their position on the BBA and on the effort to achieve it through Article V.

I think we’ll get a very good response.  Why not?  Afraid to piss off the Birchers?

The most interesting response will be from Scott Walker, who has been nowhere to be seen as one of Wisconsin’s outstanding legislators, Rep. Chris Kapenga, has struggled for three years to pass our Resolution.

Harry Bradley was a successful Milwaukee industrialist who was one of the founding members of the John Birch Society.  He and his brother Lynde set up the Bradley Foundation, currently with assets of around $800 million.  This Foundation is one of the pillars of Walker’s strength, and has greatly assisted him in a variety of ways throughout his career as Governor.  Michael Grebe is a retired lawyer who runs the Foundation.  I suspect that he opposes Article V for the same reason that the Kochs do, and Utah Senator Lee did: fealty to the previous generation and its prejudices.  Walker is just playing along.

It’s a mistake, and he’s going to get a chance to rectify it.  When he’s asked by CBBAC for his position on an Article V BBA he’ll have an opportunity to rethink his position.  If he passes he’s not smart.

Maybe he’s not smart.   This cycle, up against this field, you don’t win if you’re not smart.

And what does Jeb Bush do?  We made our pitch for help to his “issues guy” a month ago, and haven’t heard a peep.  You got a problem, Jeb?  What’s your problem?  Ted Cruz says he’s with us, in private.  Nothing in public.  Why so shy, Ted?

I don’t think people in New Hampshire like the Iowa caucuses.  And they’re flinty New Englanders.  When Walker goes to New Hampshire will anybody ask him about his support for the ethanol boondoggle in Iowa?  Why not?

Kasich’s in Utah attending Romneyville.  Mitt’s money guys will be looking him over, along with four or five other contenders.  At least on the surface he should appeal to them.  A pragmatist, not an ideologue.  A solid record of accomplishment in Congress.  A Lehman veteran.  A highly successful Governor of The Swing State.  If he talks up the BBA, will any of them be smart enough to see the political fallout from a successful Article V BBA?  Would any of them have the wit to act on this insight?

Probably not.  These guys spend their time on money, not ideas.  For some reason the two don’t mix well.  Money may not stink, but it doesn’t make you smart.

Brad Bales says the letters from Faber went out, so it’s time for the follow up.  I’ve decided to be personally responsible for raising the money for eleven western states.*  If I can’t raise the money I’ll pay their expenses out of my own pocket.

My follow up email will advise them of Faber’s invite, briefly describe the agenda, and offer to prepay the expense of airfare and two nights hotel for the legislator and their spouse/companion.  If they do intend to come, and need expense reimbursement, they will be asked to RSVP with their estimate of their expenses.   A check in that amount from the National Tax Limitation Foundation will be sent to them no later than July 10th.  If the email elicits no response phone calls will follow.

I’ve got enough squirreled away to cover the costs of eleven states, if, God forbid, I can’t raise the money.  We’ll have to figure out something else for the other 39 states.  On a state by state basis.  Lots of lobbyists like to do favors for presiding officers.  We’ll find a way.

We’ll have a mini cattle call in San Diego.  We’re going to ask every Presidential candidate, Republican and Democrat, to Skype in to the meeting to make a five minute presentation on their position on an Article V BBA.  If every damn one of the says yes it would extend the time by less than two hours, which is manageable.  We’ll ask Kasich first, and I’d be shocked if he said no.  If you’re Rick Perry, or Bobby Jindal, or Rick Santorum, or Carly Fiorina  etc. etc., why would you not take five minutes out of your Saturday schedule to appear before some of the nation’s most powerful political figures from all across the country?  I think a bunch of these people will say yes.  Getting them on record, on C-Span,  in support of the campaign will be a big boost.  It will help us get to 34.

Momentum is one of the intangibles of politics.  Timing is another.  The political tide runs strongly with us, and the stars are coming into alignment.  It is time to act.

For time, and tide, wait for no man.

*ID, AK, WY, NV, MT, AZ, WA, NM, CO, CA, and OR>