FreedomWorks

Perhaps the most prominent conservative health care reform idea is to allow Americans to buy health insurance across state lines. It’s undoubtedly the GOP’s favorite talking point when it comes to replacing ObamaCare. Not only is it well-known, it’s also pretty popular. The benefits to such a reform are obvious, as any economist will tell you that more competition in a market typically leads to lower prices and higher product quality. It makes intuitive sense to most Americans, and there aren’t any exceedingly obvious reasons to object to the idea. So, why hasn’t it passed through Congress? Why are interstate insurances sales still prohibited? It’s certainly within Congress’s constitutional power to remove these barriers to interstate commerce. Consider the relevant portion of the oft-abused commerce clause of the Constitution: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes…” - Article 1, Section 8 Removing barriers to interstate commerce was the primary purpose of the commerce clause, after all. Clearly, the sale of health insurance across state lines falls under regulating commerce “among the several States.” In 1944, the Supreme Court affirmed this view in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association. So, there must be political or policy objections to the idea. What are they? The main barrier to establishing the sale of health insurance across state lines is the lobbying of each state’s insurance commissioner. Simply put, their job is to regulate the sale of insurance in their state, including health insurance. In 39 states, the holder of this little-known bureaucratic office is appointed, and almost always by the state’s governor (with two exceptions: Virginia and New Mexico). The 11 states that elect their insurance commissioners are California, Delaware, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Washington. These state insurance commissioners fight against this popular health care reform for one reason: power. Right now, they have it. When the sale of health insurance is restricted to just inside their state, they have the power to set and enforce the rules however they would like. In fact, that’s their primary response to the reform proposal: You can’t trust those other insurance commissioners, they’ll set worse rules than me, overly lenient ones! You don’t know anything about insurance, especially not health insurance; it’s much too complicated. Don’t worry about it though, I’ll protect you. As long as I set the rules for insurance in our state, I’ll make sure the insurance companies cover everything you need. Promise! Realistically, it’s a power struggle. Insurance commissioners, like all bureaucrats, need to wield power in order to justify their position. Losing their total control over regulating the health insurance offered in their state means a loss of power. And like any other bureaucrat, they’ll fight that to their last breath. Liberals also oppose the interstate sale of health insurance. They worry that state governments will try to convince insurance companies to set up shop in their state by dramatically cutting their regulatory mandates on insurance. Is it possible this could happen? Sure, but it certainly isn’t likely. Why? People respond to incentives.  Consider this scenario: A state simply decides to stop regulating health insurers in a desperate bid to attract insurance companies (and the jobs/tax revenue they create). This doesn’t automatically mean that there will be a “race to the bottom” as insurance companies ditch consumer protections in order to offer the lowest possible premiums, but let’s go ahead and assume that this is what happens. In other words, every last insurance company greedily decides to offer cut-rate, low-quality insurance policies in this particular state.  What do you think will happen? People will respond to incentives. In other words, they’ll move to

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has introduced the Federal Reserve Transparency Act (S.202)—commonly called the Audit the Fed bill—in the Senate. As of today (9/20), the bill has 34 cosponsors. Find out if your senators are cosponsors here. FreedomWorks has identified the 13 Republican senators that have not yet cosponsored S. 202. Please contact them and politely urge them to cosponsor today! Don't forget to also call Senate Majority Harry Reid at 202-224-3542 or tweet him at @SenatorReid and ask him to bring it to the floor for a vote. There are many good reasons that Senator Harry Reid should bring it to a vote:Audit the Fed (H.R. 459) passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives by a bipartisan vote of 327-98.  Roughly 80 percent of Americans support auditing the Federal Reserve. Harry Reid endorsed auditing the Fed in 1995. Don't believe me? Here's the clip:  There is no entity in the world that controls our lives more than the Federal Reserve System" - Harry Reid in 1995. Call your senators today! 

Remember when candidate Obama promised to REDUCE health insurance premiums by $2,500 per family, per year? Premiums have gone UP by that amount: So our families are all, on average, paying $5,000 a year more than he promised. That's plenty of "change," I'll give him that. Dean Clancy is FreedomWorks' Legislative Counsel and Vice President, Health Care Policy. He leads our efforts to reverse the government takeover of health care and adopt a patient-centered approach. [Chart above is by Joint Economic Committee Republicans, Sen. Jim DeMint, Ranking Senator, 2012.]

Americans commemorated Constitution Day last Monday. Our founding document was signed 225 years ago in Philadelphia. When Ben Franklin left Independence Hall at the close of the Constitutional Convention, a woman reportedly asked him, “Well, doctor, what have we got, a republic or monarchy?”  He replied, “A republic, madam—if you can keep it.” If the Founding Fathers could see America today, they would surely be ashamed of how far we have drifted away from our founding principles of limited government and personal responsibility. The 2012 Economic Freedom of the World report released by the Cato Institute and the Fraser Institute finds that the United States has fallen to the 18th most economically free country in the world. As the authors explain:  The United States has fallen precipitously from second in 2000 to eighth in 2005 and 19th  in 2010 (unadjusted ranking of 18th). By 2009, the United States had fallen behind Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Chile, and Mauritius, countries that chose not to follow the path of massive growth in government financed by borrowing that is now the most prominent characteristic of US fiscal policy. By 2010, the United States had also fallen behind Finland and Denmark, two European welfare states. Moreover, it now trails Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Estonia, Taiwan, and Qatar, countries that are not usually perceived of as bastions of economic freedom. The authors measured the degree of economic freedom in every country using five broad areas: 1. Size of government 2. Legal system and property rights 3. Sound money 4. Freedom to trade internationally 5. Regulation Particularly over the past ten years, the size of U.S. government has dramatically grown, property rights have become less protected, inflation has risen, and the number of regulations has skyrocketed. We are clearly headed in the wrong direction and we must reverse course before it’s too late. Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

As I have previously pointed out, if you can successfully divorce the cool persona from the words he speaks, President Obama plainly and often tells us exactly what he thinks, believes and intends. And when you listen to or read the words he says, it becomes abundantly clear that he is dedicated to a big government solution for every problem - whether real or imaginary. So it should come as no surprise, then, that in an attempt to cover up his intentions with a cool veneer and an appearance on Letterman, the President once again gave us a glimpse into exactly how well he understands his job. In his apppearance on Letterman this week, Obama said the following: When a concerned Letterman asked him about the debt, Obama laid the responsibility for the U.S. national debt and deficit on his predecessor former President George W. Bush. "Well, here's what happened. We had a surplus when Bill Clinton was president," Obama said. "It was projected to continue to be a surplus. We decided to launch two wars on a credit card. We cut taxes twice without finding offsetting costs for it or ways to pay for it, a prescription drug plan and then we had a massive recession." "When I walked into office we had a trillion dollar deficit, debt had mounted and then we had to take a bunch of emergency measures, that cost money, saving the auto industry, making sure that the financial system got back on track," Obama said. "So now what we've got to do is we've got to pare down that deficit, get that debt under control and I think the only way we've ever been able to do that effectively is when you do it in a balanced way," Obama explained. When asked if he remember what the national debt was when he entered office, President Obama said "I don't know what the number was precisely." Obama told Letterman "we don't have to worry about it short term. [emphasis mine]" Wait a minute. He didn't know what the debt was when he took office? Do we have any indication that he knows what it is now?? And does he have any conception as to how much he's added to our debt? There is no evidence to answer any of these questions in the affirmative. That should frighten every citizen, even those who support his economic policies. David Letterman certainly seemed concerned. And here's what's even more revealing. In the course of researching the numbers for this post, I searched the internet for the federal budget, and the first result that popped up was the White House's own website. Here is the introductory statement: The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2013 We now face a make-or-break moment for the middle class and those trying to reach it. After decades of eroding middle-class security as those at the very top saw their incomes rise as never before and after a historic recession that plunged our economy into a crisis from which we are still fighting to recover, it is time to construct an economy that is built to last. The President’s 2013 Budget is built around the idea that our country does best when everyone gets a fair shot, does their fair share, and plays by the same rules. We must transform our economy from one focused on speculating, spending, and borrowing to one constructed on the solid foundation of educating, innovating, and building. That begins with putting the Nation on a path to living within our means – by cutting wasteful spending, asking all Americans to shoulder their fair share, and making tough choices on some things we cannot afford, while keeping the investments we need to grow the economy and create jobs. The Budget targets scarce federal resources to the areas critical to growing the economy and restoring middle-class security: education and skills for American workers, innovation and research and development, clean energy, and infrastructure. The Budget is a blueprint for how we can rebuild an economy where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded. Let's leave alone for the moment the fact that the three budgets he's submitted to Con

As an election draws near, activity in Congress winds down.  No one wants to take on a controversial vote with their jobs on the line, and many of the bills that do come to the floor are meant for political posturing more than for any real impact.  That being said, there are still a few interesting bills and hearings on Capitol Hill this week that you should know about. Legislative Highlight of the Week: Probably the most impactful bill in Congress this week is H.R. 3409, the “Stop the War on Coal Act”, introduced by Congressman Bill Johnson of Ohio.  President Obama’s EPA has already promulgated a number of regulations that are causing great harm to coal-fired power plants, and the Department of the Interior is now considering regulations which strike directly at the coal mines themselves.  This bill would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from enacting proposed regulations on coal mining that would devastate the industry.  In addition, the bill also contains provisions from four other bills which have already passed the House, each of which limits the EPA’s ability to pass further major environmental regulations.  FreedomWorks has issued a Key Vote: YES on this bill - you can read our notice HERE. House/Welfare: The House is set to vote on H.J.Res 118, a resolution disapproving of the Department of Health and Human Service’s memo allowing states to ignore the work requirement for welfare recipients.  This resolution will allow the Senate to bypass cloture and vote on disapproval of the HHS rule by a simple majority vote.  The work requirement is the centerpiece of the bipartisan 1996 welfare reform, defining welfare as a temporary program to help struggling people get back on their feet instead of a no-strings-attached entitlement.   Senate/Spending: Since the House passed a Continuing Resolution (CR) to fund the federal government last week, the Senate will spend its time this week considering the CR.  The CR is a massive spending bill that continues spending steadily at last year’s massive deficit levels.  The only good point about the CR is that it extends past next year’s inauguration, which means that it cannot be used during the “lame duck session” of Congress between November and January as a vehicle for other bad proposals (which has occurred frequently in the recent past).   House/Ways & Means: The Ways & Means Committee Subcommittee on Health will be holding a hearing on Friday that will discuss Medicare Advantage (MA).  MA was passed in 2003 to add some personal choice into the Medicare program by allowing seniors to opt into private Medicare plans.  Currently, about 25% of seniors have opted into MA plans, and some experts believe that these patients’ cost to the system has decreased as a result.  However, MA was cut by over $300 billion under the President’s health care law in order to help fund ObamaCare. Reforming Medicare to make it sustainable will require more free market options, and Medicare Advantage was at least a step towards the right direction. House & Senate/Schedule: The House is in session Wednesday through Friday of this week, and will then recess until November 13th unless the Senate makes changes to the aforementioned Continuing Resolution.  If the House and Senate CRs are different, Congress will have to come back in session at some point to pass a unified bill and avoid a government shutdown.  The Senate will also recess after this week until after the November elections.

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE Dear FreedomWorks member,As one of our million-plus FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your representative and urge him or her to vote YES on H.R. 3409, Stop the War on Coal Act. Introduced by Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), the Stop the War on Coal Act would implement five bills that will support U.S. energy production and protect jobs. Title I of the bill is the Coal Miner Employment and Domestic Energy Infrastructure Protection Act which would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from issuing new rules or regulations that will adversely impact mining jobs and our economy. This will help stop the Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement from conducting a sweeping rewrite of coal mining regulations that will cost jobs and decrease American energy production. Title II of the bill is the Energy Tax Prevention Act which would strip the EPA of its ability to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. Without this legislation, the agency will continue with its plan to implement burdensome new rules and regulations on American businesses that will have a significant negative impact on America’s economy while having virtually no positive impact on global temperatures. Title III of the bill is the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation (TRAIN) Act which would establish an 11-member committee, chaired by the Department of Commerce, to analyze the impacts of a number of major Environment Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. This bill would push back against the EPA's unconstitutional, outrageous rules and regulations that raise energy prices for consumers, destroy jobs and increase our dependence on foreign sources of energy. Title IV of the bill is the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act which would prohibit the EPA from regulating coal ash as a toxic waste in any state which prefers to develop its own plans in that regard. This bill would further slow the EPA’s Regulatory Trainwreck and could save thousands of jobs in coal-rich states such as West Virginia and Ohio. Title V of the bill is the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act which would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State's water quality standards. This would reduce the federal government’s power over individual state’s water quality standards to help increase job growth. I urge you to call your representative and urge him or her to vote YES on H.R. 3409, Stop the War on Coal Act. We will count their vote as a KEY VOTE when calculating the FreedomWorks Economic Freedom Scorecard for 2012. The Economic Freedom Scorecard is used to determine eligibility for the FreedomFighter Award, which recognizes members of Congress with voting records that support economic freedom.Sincerely, Matt Kibbe President and CEO FreedomWorks [Click here for a PDF version of this key vote notice.] File Attachments StoptheWaronCoalAct.pdf54.72 KB

Ben Domenech, editor of the indispensable morning newsletter, The Transom, has published an excellent "top ten" list, which we are happy to reprint with his permission. + + +  TEN THINGS EVERYONE SHOULD READ ABOUT HEALTH CARE [From The Transom, September 10, 2012.] There is so much to read these days about health care policy and entitlement reform. But we oftentimes lose sight of the longer term debate about these matters, instead focusing on the arguments dictated by the framework of an election cycle and partisan political lines. Suddenly Republican-leaning writers all have very strong opinions about the workability of competitive bidding despite having no interest in it a month ago, while otherwise intelligent Democratic-leaning writers compose complex apologetics structures for IPAB and the individual mandate. Politics often warps policy debates, but this is a particularly egregious case. So let’s step back for a moment and assess things in terms of the past thirty years or so instead of the past two with a list of essays, books, and other items which make up the Ten Things Everyone Should Read About Health Care. I’ve tried to keep things from getting too dry with this list, but you can tell me if I’ve failed. 1. Milton Friedman: “How to Cure Health Care”, The Public Interest, Winter 2001. http://vlt.tc/ght  “The tax exemption of employer-provided medical care has two different effects, both of which raise health costs. First, it leads employees to rely on their employer, rather than themselves, to make arrangements for medical care. Yet employees are likely to do a better job of monitoring medical care providers—because it is in their own interest—than is the employer or the insurance company or companies designated by the employer. Second, it leads employees to take a larger fraction of their total remuneration in the form of medical care than they would if spending on medical care had the same tax status as other expenditures.” 2. Max Gammon: “Health and security: report on the public provision for medical care in Great Britain”, St. Michael’s, 1976. http://vlt.tc/ghu  Origin of “the theory of bureaucratic displacement.” “In a bureaucratic system, an increase in expenditure will be matched by a fall in production. Such systems act rather like ‘black holes’ in the economic universe, simultaneously sucking in resources and shrinking in terms of ‘emitted production’.” More on Gammon in this report. http://vlt.tc/ghv 3. H.E. Frech, ed.: “Health Care in America: The Political Economy of Hospitals and Health Insurance”, Pacific Research Institute, 1988. http://vlt.tc/ghx  Just about everything you could ever need to know concerning the monopsony power of hospital systems and insurers. Additional literature is here.http://vlt.tc/ghw 4. Joseph Bast, Richard Rue, and Stuart Wesbury, Jr.: “Why We Spend Too Much on Health Care”, Heartland Institute, 1992. http://vlt.tc/gi0  “By first bidding up the price of health care with a payment system that encouraged excessive utilization and spending, and then imposing cost-containment measures that led to cost-shifting, government inadvertently increased the cost of health care to other buyers and changed the way care is delivered. In so doing, government has contributed to a process that has priced health care and insurance out of the reach of millions of Americans. Medicare and Medicaid have given the elderly and poor greater access to health care. However, this benefit must be weighed against the costs borne by taxpayers and other health care consumers.” 5. Richard Epstein, “Mortal Peril,” Basic Books, 2000. http://vlt.tc/gi1  Epstein concentrates on the moral and philosophical case against the false promise universal coverage and in favor of a more modest and more private safety net—but his main thrust is against the idea of health care as a natural human right. 6. J

This is the third and final episode with Rep. Scott Garrett.  The Congressman talks about the Republican Study Committee budget, the alternative balanced budget proposal which he helped to write.  He notes that the more aggressive balanced budget received more votes than ever before in 2012, as opposed to the president's endless spending plan, which received no votes from either party.  Rep. Garrett also explains how the President's economic policies assault the basic Constitutional right to property, which underlies all other contracts.  Finally, he talks about government involvement in the mortgage and finance industries are distorting the free market. Tea Time Interviewee:  Scott Garrett

This is the second of three episodes with Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey.  He talks about his founding the Constitution Caucus in Congress, in order to make more Members aware of how their votes apply to the original intent enshrined in the Constitution.  Rep. Garrett also talks about the new Constitutional authority requirement in the House, and how Members are circumventing that requirement. Tea Time Interviewee:  Scott Garrett

Chicago Teachers Union got the strike desired by a core group of activists, but the strike is not about the issues on the table. The strike is about who is in charge: union bosses, or the taxpayers. It's the latest example of government union employees turning up their noses at the conditions private sector employees can only dream about, especially during the economic downturn. But the CTU knows they are playing with house money, and that it is in the interest of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the Chicago Public Schools to give in on the money.  The issue in the strike isn't money, working conditions, or benefits per se, though the union has demanded an exorbitant pay increase to their already extraterrestrial salaries, to keep their lavish health benefits, and that instructional materials be provided immediately, as if by magic. These are only on the table as bargaining chips, so that the union can back down on those and say they've compromised. They know the money isn't there anyway. Most importantly, the union wants not to be tied to the performance evaluation rules put in place under President Obama's Race to the Top initiative. At the center of the strike is power: who will decide how teachers are hired, are compensated, may be fired, have their performance judged, and what basic curriculum they use. The real prize in the strike is the balance of power between union bosses on one side and the representatives of city, state, and federal taxpayers on the other. The backdrop of the drama is, of course, the presidential election coming November 6. President Obama has been a supporter and practitioner of community organizing in the style of Saul Alinsky, as is the current leadership of the Chicago Teachers Union. A transcript of that video, and more about Lewis, can be found here. But Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has extremely close ties to the President, as his former Chief of Staff and current bag man. Amid criticism from Illinois Republicans, Emanuel took a hiatus from fund raising for a pro-Obama superPAC. While Emanuel may believe that the waffling President Obama will back him up, he doesn't offer much evidence: "I want you to understand, the president has weighed in," Emanuel said. "Every issue we're talking about regarding accountability of our schools, quality in our schools to the education of our children, is the core thrust of Race to the Top." Emanuel added that the "notion" of the teacher evaluations he proposed came from Race to the Top. "In that sense there couldn't be a bigger push for the president," Emanuel insisted.   As the Washington Examiner editorialized it, Most public expenditures are decided through legislation and the democratic process, but not monopoly collective bargaining agreements for public employees. Systems that allow them give government employee unions an inordinate incentive to throw their political weight around because the unions understand they can help choose their own adversary across the negotiating table. We're all part of The Machine.  The Machine doesn't refer to Chicago machine politics, but to ... well, just watch it: The Chicago Teachers Union strike is not about kids, but union power. That's because the machine that runs the K-12 education system isn't designed to produce better schools. It's designed to produce more money for unions and more donations for politicians. We're spending more money on education but not getting better results for our children and now America's public education system is failing. Our kids deserve better. For decades, teachers' unions have been among our nation's largest political donors. As Reason Foundation's Lisa Snell has noted, the National Education Association (NEA) alone spent $40 million on the 2010 election cycle (source: http://reason.org/news/printer/big-education-and-big-labor-electio). As the country's largest teachers union, the NEA is only one cog in the infernal machine that robs parents of t

In this first episode, Rep. Garrett talks about his personal background, living in the more rural parts of Northern New Jersey.  He then talks about how his upbringing led to his conservative philosophical background, which led him to found the Constitution Caucus when he arrived in Congress in order to foster a better appreciation of the Constitution's intended limits on Federal authority. Tea Time Interviewee:  Scott Garrett

Despite strong support for basic, common sense laws ensuring the integrity of the vote across the country (see here, here, here, here and here), the Left continues to insist that requiring positive identification and verification of eligibility before voting is somehow suppressive, racist and and an evil plot to steal elections for Conservatives. Few public officials, however, are bold enough to state it in public. They'll poo-poo and soft peddle it so as not to sound extreme. Here in Oregon, we don't have to worry about such delicate political sensibilities. Our leftist politicians feel perfectly comfortable stating their beliefs, secure in the knowledge that in Portlandia, Keeping Portland Weird means never having to pretend to be reasonable. To wit: Kate Brown, Oregon's Secretary of State (elected in large part due to support from George Soros' SOSproject.org), went way off the deep end at a Labor Day Labor Rally, declaring that it's all just a vast, right wing conspiracy: Now, to be fair, Secretary Brown has not been known recently for her strong adherence to state statutes or common sense. She arbitrarily changes election dates; she writes rules allowing counties to circumvent state law requiring the destruction of unused ballots at 8pm on election day; she has consistently fought to restrict citizen access to the ballot initiative process. In fact, she's left such a wake of medicrity and supposed incompetence that she's inspired the Twitter hashtag - #KorruptKate. Oregon has long been the playground of socialist experimenters. It's high time that we instill some basic common sense in our public officials.

Warning: this video will be difficult for liberty lovers to watch. Posing as an anti-business crusader, Peter Schiff found a number of DNC delegates and attendees who support explicitly outlawing profitability. Watch below: Of course, profits are a good thing. It means that businesses are selling a good or service that people want to buy. Voluntary exchange creates wealth which benefits everyone. How is that a bad thing? That being said, businesses should be allowed to fail if they do not produce a product or offer a service that people want to buy. All businesses must sink or swim on their own merits—with no government bailouts. In case you missed it, FreedomWorks Foundation and Reason Foundation hosted Peter Schiff to give a lecture on the Federal Reserve back in March. Watch below: Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

The 2012 election is setting in stark contrast the message of the two major parties. Instead of the usual choice between the lesser of two evils or the less clearly evil of two barely distinguishable choices, the two candidates will stand firmly on the ideology of their respective parties. The leftist rhetoric and agenda of the Democrats is opening up the wide, patriotic center for the Republicans to fill.  A video containing the shocking catch phrase "Government is the only thing we all belong to," apparently didn't raise any eyebrows in the Obama campaign or in the Democratic National Committee, both of which could be expected to have vetted the materials. We are committed to all people. We do believe you can use government in a good way. Government's the ony thing that we all belong to. We have different churches, different clubs, but we're together as a part of our city, or our county, or our state ... and our nation.  Attendees at the Democratic National Convention were asked to approve or disapprove of the statement. The video shows many voicing approval, but their understanding of the phrase "belong to the government" appears different from the jarring one others might have. The Romney team responded quickly, drawing a clear distinction: We don't belong to government, the government belongs to us. September 4, 2012 But rather than seeing themselves as chattel  of the government, belonging to it in the sense of being property, the liberals tend to see themselves as members of the government. They are proclaiming approval at belonging to a giant social club. Indeed, the host committee video contrasts the "different churches, different clubs" with universal membership in the government club. And yet, the membership and description of belonging to a community clearly go deeper than mere club membership. The warm, cozy feelings of protection and safety expressed by those interviewed take on an almost religious quality, far different from the wary, arms-length approach of libertarians and conservatives. Government is not a club, because membership, such as it is, is mandatory. One doesn't voluntarily join the government, except perhaps as an employee or holder of public office. The two parties are setting up a stark contrast for this election, which is unusal in presidential politics over the last few decades. Typically, the parties tack to "the center", to grab as many unaligned voters as possible. As The Washingon Times'  Joel Gehrke put it, That’s a very different message from what voters heard at the Republican National Convention from Clint Eastwood. “We own this country,” Eastwood said last week, adding that politicians are just the employees of the American people. “When someone isn’t doing the job, we’ve got to let [him] go,” he also said, in calling for Obama’s defeat this year. I am glad that this election is shaping up as one of sharp contrasts, rather than as an absurd choice between two amorphous bags of goo. The radical leftism of the Democrats is forcing, or perhaps allowing, the naturally equivocal Romney to defend positions those in his party hold dear.