Saturday, December 31, 2011

My Closing Argument for Rick Perry: An Open Letter to Ben Mandelbaum and Iowa Conservatives

Dear Ben,

We had a good conversation on the phone yesterday and I understand your lack of enthusiasm over the candidates. That being said, I still believe strongly that Governor Rick Perry offers the best combination of pluses and minuses of any of the candidates. Furthermore, once you've read what I have to say, I'm confident you'll understand why going to caucus Tuesday is worth a measly three hours of your life.

A couple notes before we start: While I'm primarily writing this for you, I'm also doing it as a blog post for other undecided Iowa conservatives. Thus, while this pitch is mostly tailored to you, I'm going to touch on a few things that might not be vote moving issues for you.

Also, this post by some Dallas based blogger I've never met was essential to my preparation of this letter. Many of his sentiments are similar to mine, but in case this post goes viral, the last thing I need is accusations of plagiarism when it's easier to share credit at the beginning.

So, why do I STILL support Governor Rick Perry for President?!?

As you know, Governor Perry has been my fantasy first choice for a 2012 nominee (with the possible exception of Dick Cheney) since I moved to Texas four years ago. Up to that point, I'd never been represented by an elected official who simply 'got it' on the level that Rick Perry does (and that includes Rudy Giuliani). Even after his unsteady opening months on the campaign trail, I still feel he offers the best mix of positives and negatives from a conservative perspective. As garnet92 says:
He's not perfect, but I think when his strengths and weaknesses are compared to his rivals, none has his combination of qualifications, experience, and record of success [Emphasis in Original]. I've done quite a lot of research on Governor Perry and I've found lots of good and some not-so-good, and the good outweighs the not so.

Now, obviously, for you Israel is the #1 issue. While this Republican field is a bit of an embarrassment of riches for friends of Israel, Perry has still DELIVERED MORE ACTION than the other candidates. In 2007, Governor Perry led a movement to get Texas State employee funds to divest from Iran. In 2009, Governor Perry won the defender of Jerusalem Award. It's also worth noting that Governor Perry and Pastor John Hagee are longstanding allies and that it's already given MSNBC conniption fits.

Moving on, your other major issue is spending and the national debt. On that score, Governor Perry has helped balance six budgets, three of which had spending reductions of some sort, and the most recent of which had a net spending cut across the entire Texas budget for the first time since WWII. Put simply, he's the only candidate in the race who has consistently delivered government that lives within it's means for over a decade. Obviously, Washington D.C. is a different ballgame from Austin (which is why I live in Austin), but if we're going to send someone to achieve the monumental task of balancing the Federal budget, it's better to send someone who has already balanced six state budgets, cut spending three times, and even in those budgets where spending grew had it sill grow far more slowly than other states.

Obviously, the real money is in entitlements, and there Governor Perry has a stronger position on entitlements than any candidate that doesn't have kooky foreign policy positions. Also, lest you forget, Governor Perry caught hell for his position on Social Security shortly after entering the campaign. That said, unlike a lot of other Republicans who have good entitlement positions on paper, Governor Perry displays a certain level of comfort discussing Social Security other candidates simply lack. Consider the following conversation with Jay Leno:

Put simply, I don't think any other candidates offers higher odds of actually DELIVERING Entitlement Reform and reversing this mountain of Red Ink than Governor Perry.

The discussion on spending and entitlements segues nicely into a discussion of Governor Perry's governing style. While Texas has a conservative population, a conservative Governor (obviously), and a super majority in the State House of Representatives this past session, the Texas Legislature is actually home to a stunning number of RINO's who will collaborate with Democrats to kill good legislation. Our legislative leaders Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst and House Speaker Joe Straus are the mothers of all RINO's. Making matters worse, the Texas Constitution actually gives the LG and Speaker far more legal power to craft legislation and the budget than the Governor has. In comparison, the Governor only has his veto and the bully pulpit.

This past session, Texas faced a MASSIVE deficit. Governor Perry indicated at the beginning of the session that he wanted the full 28 billion in spending cuts. That being said, $28 billion in spending cuts was NEVER going to happen in a Legislature controlled by David Dewhurst and Joe Straus. On the budget, Governor Perry set forth two inviolable principles: 1) DO NOT RAID THE RAINY DAY FUND TO PAY FOR ONGOING EXPENSES and 2)DO NOT RAISE TAXES. While Governor Perry had to compromise somewhat on the numbers, he stuck to his guns on the two big items, and he won. As a result, Texas should have a modest surplus for this biennium.

Looking deeper into Governor Perry's governing style, I think his biggest mistake as Governor actually reveals more about his style than many of his successes. In 2007, Perry issued an executive order mandating all 12 year old girls in the state receive an HPV vaccine. People were obviously outraged and opposed. What happened next, however, is quite instructive: PERRY BACKED DOWN!!! Contrast Perry's response to the public outrage and opposition to the HPV vaccine with Bush's reaction to TARP outrage and opposition or Obama's reaction to outrage and opposition over Health Care.

Given what you said on the phone, you're not crazy about how Governor Perry has emphasized the so-called 'Social' issues over the past month. I totally understand how you feel. One day, you'll understand how the so-called 'social' issues are actually the moral foundation on which representative democracy and free-market capitalism rest, but I doubt that day will come by Tuesday. Instead, consider EVERYTHING you've ever said about how evangelical Christians are better friends of Israel than most Jews. In the post so-called "Arab Spring" Middle East, America and Israel both need a U.S. President with a clear and unapologetic sense of right and wrong.

Sticking with the so-called 'social' issues, consider Governor Perry's approach and how it contrasts with the approach of many other Republicans. In case you forgot, Governor Perry's quite literally wrote the book on the Tenth Amendment. This is important because, by taking a lot of these issues out of Washington D.C. and returning them to the states, many of these issues (eg. Defending the Unborn and Marriage Redefinition) will simply disappear from National Politics.

In terms of reducing the power of Washington D.C., I think you DRAMATICALLY underestimate how revolutionary Uproot and Overhaul really is. Having spent just enough time in D.C. to see how it really works, I can assure you that you'll never meaningfully change things there until you fire a whole s**tload of congressional staffers and bureaucrats buried deep in Federal Departments. Rather than simply attacking symptoms, Uproot and Overhaul is the most specific proposal I've ever seen from any candidate to address the core pathologies in Washington D.C.

I could give a long, evidence-based, presentation of Governor Perry's positions on Economic Growth, Health Care, and Foreign Policy but most of those issues are covered elsewhere. Suffice to say, Governor Perry's views are well within the Conservative mainstream. What's different is that I think Governor Perry, for the reasons listed above, will actually DELIVER more as President than the other candidates.

Finally, I want to offer a contrast between Governor Perry and Rick Santorum. Right now, if you Looks at the Polls it appears Iowa is going to come down to Romney (barf), Paul (shudder), and either Perry or Santorum. While you might not be an Evangelical christian or particularly conservative socially, I strongly suggest that you will be far more comfortable with Governor Perry as the non-Romney, non-Paul candidate than you will be with Santorum. Consider the following aspects of Santorum's record:
-Santorum voted FOR No Child Left Behind

- Santorum voted FOR Medicare Part D

- Santorum didn't just vote FOR the Terri Schiavo intervention; HE CHEERLED FOR IT!!!

Furthermore, I guarantee you that, had he still been in Congress, Santorum would have voted for TARP. As The American Conservative noted earlier this week:
Today, Santorum remains the personification of Bush Republicanism. Heading into the 2012 campaign, the former senator sounds more like the ghost of Republicans past, invoking Bush’s name more often and favorably than any other candidate, while seeming to hope his beating of the culture and foreign war drums might drown out his big government record.

If, somehow, Rick Santorum, with all his big-government baggage, beats Governor Perry by some small vote total to become the non-Romney, non-Paul candidate, you won't be happy.

Isn't it worth a measly three hours of your life to do your part to help send someone who is Pro-Israel with a record, Has actually cut spending, backs down in the face of public opposition, takes a Tenth Amendment/Federalist approach to so-called "social" issues, advocates a DAMN NEAR REVOLUTIONARY plan (with specifics) to take power out of Washington D.C., and is well within the conservative mainstream on Economic Growth, Health Care, and Foreign Policy to Washington as the next President.

I know it would be for me.

That's my story and I'm sticking too it.

I hope this helps.

Adam Cahn
Austin, TX
December 31, 2011

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Franklin Roosevelt: A Monstrous Liar

Franklin Roosevelt: A Monstrous Liar

In a recent debate, when Governor Rick Perry described Social Security as “A Monstrous Lie,” he was right on a deeper level than he intended. Social Security’s financial difficulties are the logical consequence of its corrupt foundation. Social Security is a welfare transfer, not insurance, and Franklin Roosevelt lied when he said otherwise. Franklin Roosevelt also knew that government clients are reliable Democrats, so he deliberately designed Social Security to turn seniors into a dependent underclass. In order to solve this problem, it must first be properly defined, because different definitions lead to radically different solutions. Today, well-intentioned reformers, led by Congressman Paul Ryan, are boxing themselves in. Americans should not restructure Social Security until we justify its continued existence. Given Social Security’s morally bankrupt foundation, this is impossible. Americans should therefore dismantle Social Security, not save it.

In a January 1935 address, Franklin Roosevelt called on Congress to create “compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-sufficient system for those now young and for future generations.” When Franklin Roosevelt said that, he was consciously lying. Social Security has never been a “contributory annuity” to which an investor could stake a legal claim; the Supreme Court confirmed this in the 1960 case Nestor v. Fleming. Social Security has always been a welfare transfer from productive citizens to government clients. Franklin Roosevelt knew he was lying. Shortly before his January 1935 speech, Franklin Roosevelt confided to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins that Social Security was “the same old dole under another name. It [was] almost dishonest to build up an accumulated deficit for the Congress of the United States to meet in 1980.” Social Security first went bankrupt in 1983.

Franklin Roosevelt’s web of lies was never sustainable. Transfer payments are always welfare; they forcibly confiscate the property of one citizen and redistribute it to the politically favored. In so doing, they inevitably become vote-buying operations. Transfer payments create a structural imbalance where government clients vote into office politicians who ratchet up benefits while productive citizens are too busy to stop them. This misalignment of incentives is why Social Security’s financing so closely resembles a Ponzi scheme; eventually the Golden Goose always dies. Making matters worse, payroll taxes raise the cost of employing citizens by creating an artificial “wedge” between an employee’s take home pay and that employee’s cost to his employer. Social Security is worse than a Ponzi scheme; while the financing is identical and both destroy jobs, no one went to prison for refusing to participate in Bernie Madoff’s far less monstrous lie.

Focusing on the foundational corruption of Social Security, instead of myopically obsessing over financing, leads to radically different conclusions about what problem needs to be solved. Many similarities exist between the collapse of America's welfare state and the collapse of Soviet Communism; the differences are of degree, not kind. In this emerging debate, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, like former Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, wants to preserve a corrupt system that deserves to die. Like Gorbachev, Congressman Ryan also wants to add trillions of new debt doing it. Post-Wall Street Bailout America can no longer afford to mask progressivism's economic symptoms; we need to address the core philosophical pathology. Congressman Ryan’s glasnost approach does more to subsidize Wall St than promote freedom; instead of a heavily regulated personal account, Americans should have the option to free ourselves from the Social Security system. The overwhelming majority of Americans under 30, and a substantial number of older citizens, will gladly renounce Social Security benefits in exchange for freedom from payroll tax tyranny.

Before discussing solutions to Social Security, Americans must properly define the problem. Social Security is built on a foundation of lies; it masks welfare and vote-buying in the illusion of insurance. President Obama’s callous attitude towards Social Security benefits during the debt ceiling debate demonstrates the tenuous, politically driven, nature of the corrupt status quo. Social Security's financial bankruptcy is a symptom of its moral bankruptcy; why should productive citizens subsidize government clients?!? Dependence transforms citizens into subjects; in a free society prosperous citizens will care for themselves. Social Security should be dismantled, not saved. Until Americans understand and acknowledge that the monstrous lie behind Americas collapsing welfare state extends far deeper than its financing, we cannot make Washington D.C. truly inconsequential in our lives.

The Author is a 30 year old Tea Party Activist in Austin, TX; he voted for Governor Perry twice last year

Cahnman's Glenn Beck Audition

Why Glenn Beck Should Hire Me

Dear Mr. Beck,

  I’m writing to request on on-camera position with GBTV; together we will destroy Hollywood’s corrupt aristocracy.

  Electoral Politics and Legislative Process is a trap; entertainment is the key to America’s soul.  For at least fifty years, the conservative movement has fallen for a giant misdirection; we’ve bickered at the edges of bad legislation while abandoning the entertainment landscape to the secular-fascist left.  Entertainment competition, whether it’s in the form of original scripted programming, self-reliance instruction, or other formats that lay a foundation of truth will advance our cause more effectively than ANY politician.  Even when Ronald Reagan puts Leviathan on a temporary diet, Hollywood’s corrupt influence prevents us from addressing the core pathology.  Consider the following:

Without Hollywood, liberalism will collapse; I have the vision, you have the platform.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Let’s Roll,

Dear Mr. Beck,

Observing our culture and politics, within a context shaped by my personal and professional life, has convinced me destroying Hollywood is a necessary precondition to save America.  The day to day content of the jobs I’ve worked has been tangential to that process.  To help you understand how I have developed this vision and perspective, I have included this outline in the major influences in my life in lieu of a traditional CV.

Catalog of Influences:

2011 – Republican congress has delivered meager results
-          Primetime Propaganda documented what I’d long suspected about Hollywood.

Prime United Marketing (July 2010 – February 2011)
-        Mental Toughness – Achieved modest success doing something most people are afraid to try
-        Attitude Control – Had to Stay Positive Despite economic challenges and in-field setbacks
-        Prosperity Consciousness - Reawakened me to its business context

SxSW Slamdown (March 23, 2010)
-        Passing Obamacare on the last night of SxSW radicalized me; the people ruining our country are playing for keeps and they do not take Sundays off, neither can we.

Tea Party Activism (April 15, 2009 – Present)
-       TARP/HAMP/Obamacare Disgust Dramatically Deepened Commitment; failure to stop or roll back any has made limits of politics OBVIOUS
-       Philosophical Foundation - Listened to A LOT of talk radio (esp. Rush); watched you on Fox
-       Too many people I know are on Food Stamps

Rick Perry’s Texas (December 2007 – Present)
-       Daily examples of why conservatism works

2008 Presidential Politics (December 2005 – November 7, 2008)
-       Watched Hollywood create Barry’s cult of personality while giving a free pass about Ayres and Wright
-       American People unable to stop TARP despite overwhelming opposition

Rapid Realty NYC (September 2006 – November 2007)
-       First Exposure to Prosperity Consciousness in a business context

Seduction/”Pick-Up Artist” Community (January 2006 – Present)
-       Learned why the rules of social interaction exist; discovered just how far I could push them
-       People respect the unapologetic
-       First developed prosperity consciousness in Personal Context

Bob Novak Internship (August 2004 – December 2004)
-       Discovered how much I LOATHE Washington D.C. and news of the day punditry
-       Worked with Tim Carney, who taught me the difference between free market and crony capitalism
-       Observed how U.S. Government policymaking actually works, especially domestically

Pitzer College (August 1999 – May 2003)
-      Four Year Anthropological Observation of the far-left; including aftermath of 9/11
-      Read Cass Sunstein (Shudder)
-      Knew children of Obama’s Chicago Cronies

New York Film Academy (July 2000)
-      Learned Filmmaking Basics

Columbia Grammar and Prep School (September 1997 – May 1999)
-       Learned how to write
-       Learned U.S. History
-       Starred in School Plays

Rudy Giuliani’s New York City (January 1994 – August 1996; May 1997 – August 1999; Summer 2000/1)
-       Lived through transformation, need I say more?!?

Pre-Rudy New York City (June 1981 – December 1993)
-          Grew-up face to face with the failures of liberalism