Mount Vernon Statement @heritage

Conservatives from across America are signing their names to the Mount Vernon Statement.

Add your name today!

The Mount Vernon Statement

Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century

We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding.Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.

Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?

The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.

The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.

A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.

A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.

• It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.
• It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.
• It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
• It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.
• It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.

We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.

February 17, 2010

http://www.heritage.org

The REALITY of... "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act"

Obama Promised Unemployment Would Not Rise Above 8 Percent With $862 Billion Stimulus. (Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, "The Job Impact Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Plan," 1/9/09)

• REALITY: Unemployment Currently At 10 Percent. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 2/4/10)

Obama Promised His Stimulus Would Create 3.5 Million Jobs By End Of 2010. (President Barack Obama, Remarks At The Signing Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act, Denver, CO, 2/17/09)

• REALITY: Since Obama Signed Stimulus Last February, America Has Lost 2.8 Million Jobs. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,www.bls.gov, Accessed 2/4/10)

Biden Promised Stimulus Would Create Construction Jobs. "Road projects, energy projects and construction projects are being started as soon as they pass review, contracts are competitively bid and reporting systems are in place." (Joe Biden, "What You Might Not Know About The Recovery," The New York Times, 7/26/09)

• REALITY: Since Obama Signed The Stimulus Last February, 712,000 Construction Jobs Have Been Lost. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,www.bls.gov, Accessed 2/4/10)

Obama Claims Stimulus Created Manufacturing Jobs. "That's right -- the Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus bill. Economists on the left and the right say this bill has helped save jobs and avert disaster. But you don't have to take their word for it -- Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created." (President Barack Obama,Remarks In State Of The Union Address, Washington, DC, 1/27/10)

• REALITY: Since Obama Signed The Stimulus Last February, 847,000 Manufacturing Jobs Have Been Lost. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,www.bls.gov, Accessed 2/4/10)

Obama Claims Stimulus Created Teaching Jobs. "Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed -- 300,000 are teachers and other education workers." (President Barack Obama, Remarks In State Of The Union Address, Washington, DC, 1/27/10)

• REALITY: Since Obama Signed The Stimulus Last February, 55,000 Education Jobs Have Been Lost. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,www.bls.gov, Accessed 2/4/10)

Obama Promised Recovery Act "Will Create Good Jobs That Pay Well And Can't Be Shipped Overseas." (The White House, "Remarks By The President And The Vice President On The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act," 4/13/09)

• REALITY: Recently Distributed Stimulus Funds Going To Foreign Corporations Creating Jobs Overseas. "Nearly half of the $2.4 billion in federal grant money awarded Wednesday to stimulate the U.S. economy and boost the production of hybrid and electric vehicles went to six companies with ties to places as far away as Russia, China, South Korea and France. ... But because so few American companies have the necessary technology, much of the money will initially go toward manufacturing electric vehicle batteries overseas." (Jerry Seper, "Obama Sends Stimulus Aid To Foreign Firms," The Washington Times, 8/6/09)

Obama Promised Stimulus Would Have "Responsibility and Accountability." "'What I will need from [U.S. Mayors] is unprecedented responsibility and accountability on all of our parts,' Obama said. 'The American people are watching.'" (Michael D. Shear, "Obama To Watch Cities' Stimulus Spending," The Washington Post, 2/21/09)

• REALITY: GAO Says Transparency, Oversight Lacking When Keeping Track of Stimulus' Effectiveness. "The Government Accountability Office said in a report that increased transparency and better oversight is needed to track stimulus money being sent to state and local governments. -- 'Questions remained about how to count jobs and measure performance under Recovery Act-funded programs,' the report said." (Rich Edson and Joanna Ossinger, "GAO: More Transparency Needed To Track Stimulus Money," Fox Business, 7/7/09)

Republican National Committee

DEM-O-CRAP blurrs the fiscal true...

February 11, 2010

Deception as a Principle of Governance

By James Long | americanthinker

The Democrats all agree that President GeorgeBush received a surplus when he took office after President Clinton's term, and then he passed a deficit to President Obama. Democrats are outrageous prevaricators.

David Axelrod in the Washington Post, 15 January 2010:

The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus -- with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion.

Hillary said much the same thing on "Meet the Press," 15 November 2009:

It, it breaks my heart, David (Gregory), that in 2001 we had a balanced budget and a surplus; and if we'd stayed on that path, we were heading toward eliminating our debt.

Similarly, Senator Robert Menendez on "This Week," 24 January 2010:

And, you know, I love my dear friend (Jim DeMint) talking about, you know, fiscal responsibility, but when George Bush came to office, he had a $236 billion surplus. Barack Obama was handed a $1.3 trillion deficit.

And a 07 February 2010 NYT editorial put it this way:

When President Bush took office in 2001, the federal budget had been in the black for three (four, actually) years, and continued surpluses were projected for a decade to come.

President Obama in his first State of the Union address also mentioned the large surplus that President Bush inherited in contrast to the deficit that Obama himself inherited.

Every one of the above statements is patently and provably false. The dot-com bubble crashed almost exactly one year before Clinton left office, and the value of the NASDAQ (symbol ^IXIC available on YAHOO!) fell by $2.5 trillion dollars (half its total value) before the end of the Clinton administration. When the dot-com bubble popped, as all economic bubbles do, the NASDAQ fell sharply. Every economic indicator during Clinton's last year in office turned decisively downward -- the surplus, government revenues, and the markets included. Economic projections made at the very top of an economic bubble are foolish, but the dot-com bubble had long since popped, and everything was going south by the time Clinton left office. Consequently, the Democrats' projections of surpluses years into the future at a time when all indices were falling are not just foolish, but dishonest.

A lot of things happened in the economy during Clinton's last year, all of them bad. Besides the dot-com bubble crash in January 2000, the DOW also peaked and started down shortly before Clinton left office, and the S&P started down shortly after that. The NASDAQ continued to fall for an eventual loss of $4 trillion, and the collapse of the DOW and the S&P also resulted in more trillions of dollars lost in the markets.

With the markets crashing, federal revenues were reduced, and GDP growth slowed as President Clinton left office. The vaunted Clinton surplus fell from $236 billion in FY 1999 (ending 30 September 1999) to $128 billion in FY 2000 (ending 30 September 2000), Clinton's last year. Axelrod's and Menendez's claims that the surplus was $236 billion on "[t]he day the Bush administration took over" were off by just sixteen months, during which time markets, government revenues, and the "Clinton surplus" were falling like rocks. At the end of the first FY of President Bush's term (2001), the budget had a deficit of over $157 billion. The "Clinton surplus" fell $393 billion in twenty-four months (FY 1999 to FY 2001) following the dot-com crash, and Clinton was still in office for sixteen of those months.

Empirically, if the American voters in late 2000 believed that the Clinton surplus was as high as the Democrats now claim, and if the long-term projection for the surplus was accepted as valid by those voters, Al Gore would have won the 2000 election in a landslide that would have rivaled President Reagan's victories. In reality, the voters in 2000 were nervous about the economy, having just witnessed trillions of dollars lost in the dot-com fiasco, and Bush won.

Not only did Bush inherit a plunging economy, but given the magnitude of the dot-com crash, this was an extremely perilous time for the American economic outlook. In the event, President Bush applied the proper corrective measures and the damage was minimized, with unemployment limited to a relatively benign 6.1%. The economy went on to register solid jobs, growth, and productivity from 2003 to 2007 until the next Democratic disaster hit: the unaffordable housing bubble.

Sandwiched between the stupid Clinton dot-com bubble and the deliberate Democratic housing bubble, the Bush economy did quite well from 2003 to 2007, with deficits steadily being reduced and government growing at a slower relative rate than the economy. But President Bush had to pay for the considerable costs of Clinton's dot-com bubble (unemployment compensation, job training, lost tax revenues, etc.) until the economy began to recover in 2003, and then, at the end of his term, Bush had to stop the economic collapse that was triggered by the Democrats' mortgage follies. Democrats have hung a bad rap on President Bush because they want to achieve power, and dishonesty is one of the tools they have used successfully (and frequently) in their quest to tell us how to live.

Every economic crisis we have suffered since WWII has been the result of Democratic Party malfeasance or misfeasance. LBJ's wasteful and corrupt War on Poverty did almost nothing to lessen poverty, cost $6.6 trillion over a thirty-year period, and ended when President Clinton signed off on a Republican initiative to end it. In comparison, the total national debt was $5.2 trillion at the point when the fraud-ridden, $6.6-trillion War on Poverty was mercifully ended. President Obama has now substantially reinstituted the War on Poverty with his non-stimulating stimulus package.

President Reagan and President Bush pulled us out of the first two Democratic disasters described above, but Obama's disaster is much worse. Obama is adding fuel to the raging inferno as the economy melts down, rather than taking known corrective actions similar to what Reagan and Bush (and Kennedy, in a similar scenario) did.

If Hillary is really interested in "heading toward eliminating our debt," then she could tell the Democrats to quit spending our money foolishly.

In the Soviet era, Pravda was the major official Soviet newspaper. The term "pravda" is usually translated as "truth," but as Russians use the term, pravda would be more accurately translated as "the official word." The official Democratic word and the official words of all declining mainstreamPravdas is that everything is President Bush's fault, even if the disastrous dot-com bubble and its inevitable crash happened during the Clinton administration.

James Long is a professional engineer and manager.