Presidents' Day Musings

Let me begin with Presidents' Day. It's a nice long weekend. But it says nothing about the greatness of certain American presidents. Whatever happened to Washington's Birthday? Or Lincoln's Birthday? Of course, I could go for Reagan's Birthday. And I'll bet my pal Amity Shlaes would pull for Coolidge's Birthday.

Whatever your favorite president's birthday might be, you must admit that not all presidents were made the same. I still believe Founding Father George Washington was our greatest president, with Lincoln a close second. But Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, James Garfield and Jimmy Carter aren't in the running.

But seriously, why can't we celebrate true American greatness? This stuff about all Little Leaguers getting trophies is nonsense. Not every president gets a trophy either.

Last week I had a wonderful talk with Glenn Beck on TheBlaze. He asked me if I was a "classical liberal." I said, "Absolutely." I named Friedrich Hayek and could have mentioned Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, or Arthur Laffer.

But I got to thinking about four-time 19th century British prime minister William Gladstone. I told Beck that if I had lived back then, I would have been a Gladstonian. His classical liberalism included smaller government, lower taxes, free trade and individual liberty. I told him that's the direction I want today's GOP to go.

But something was scratching my aging brain when I got home from the Beck interview. So I Googled "Gladstonian Republicans." Sure enough, I found a Wall Street Journal op-ed by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge. They described how Gladstone cut the size of government by a quarter over three decades, while Britain was the world's superpower and the British population jumped by 50 percent.

Gladstone believed in tax cuts "so that money could 'fructify in the pockets of the people.'" He was a true liberal.

From Micklethwait and Wooldridge: "The Victorians believed in a 'night-watchman state' -- one that left citizens as free as possible to pursue their own ends, provided that they did no harm to anyone else."

My friends in the reformicon movement could use a dose of Gladstonian liberalism. While we agree on some matters, I do not agree with their activist vision of government, which somehow will more efficiently help the middle and lower classes.

Nor do I believe targeted tax credits for kids are a middle-class panacea. Ronald Reagan wanted to lift America the way a rising tide lifts all boats. He did not distinguish among income groups.

And speaking of tax breaks, what about people without kids? Or women without kids? Or kids born out of wedlock? Are we providing incentives here?

One reformicon writes that traditional GOP economics is about lowering the top tax rate (for the rich). Wrong. Supply-siders have argued for marginal rate reduction across-the-board for everyone. Flatten rates; broaden the base by dumping cronyist deductions and loopholes; and simplify the code.

Fortunately, reformicon Ramesh Ponnuru and I will sit down at CPAC to try to work through these differences. Ramesh is a dear friend. None of this debate should ever be personal. But the policy differences are important.

An excellent WSJ article from economist Ruchir Sharma argues that a middle-class comeback is underway thanks to a strong dollar, low oil prices and the end of the Fed's easy-money QE. Sound familiar? I've said it a million times.

Lower energy and food prices are helping middle- and lower-income groups. Real incomes are starting to rise. A consumer boom is in the offing. Sharma notes that in 2013 the fastest-growing consumer category was private jets. By 2014, it was used cars and trucks.

I favor pro-growth immigration reform. But the Republicans must stop Obama's extra-legal immigration edicts.

We are now learning that Obama's plan will give away millions of driver's licenses, car registrations and Social Security numbers. Governors worry that some illegals will use these to vote. The sheer numbers say state authorities can't prevent it.

And IRS commissioner John Koskinen told Congress that the newly legalized workers can apply for back-tax refunds, even for years they didn't file. Meanwhile, the Tax Foundation reports that undocumented workers have been illegally receiving earned-income and child tax credits. Presumably, phony Social Security cards are involved.

I don't want to shut down the government over the Homeland Security budget. But these Obama mandates must not be permitted without congressional approval.

A final Presidents' Day thought: No good American chief executive would ever allow stuff like this to go on. Let's hope the new GOP Congress has some backbone.

While I agree that Lincoln had some very good points he was the first President, in my opinion, that started the trend of ignoring the Constitution for reasons some might not agree with. IE: Habeaus Corpus for southerners. There was a war on I agree. But he started a trend of going around the rights protected in the document. Since then there has been a seemingly never ending assault on its protections until now, when it may in reality have become only a clouded memory or a hermetically sealed exhibit at the National Archives.

you must admit that not all presidents were made the same

That is precisely right, and America might soon have a woman president based primarily on the female vote going predominantly to Hillary Clinton.

Given that, the very best Republican female candidate is with us today.

That woman is Sarah Palin.

Go Sarah !!!

FROM THE MOUTHS OF BABES

I was eating breakfast with my 8-year-old granddaughter and I asked her “What day is tomorrow?”
Without skipping a beat she said, “It’s President’s Day.”
She’s so smart, so I asked her, “What does ‘President’s Day’ mean?”
I was waiting for something about Obama, Bush or Clinton, etc., but she replied, It’s when the President steps out of the White House, and if he sees his shadow, we have another year of bullshit.”
You know, it hurts when hot coffee spurts out your nose.

"...[Lincoln] was the first President, in my opinion, that started the trend of ignoring the Constitution for reasons some might not agree with. IE: Habeaus Corpus for southerners. There was a war on I agree. But he started a trend of going around the rights protected in the document.

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

That is one of the reasons Lincoln is far down on my list and one reason I feel he is vastly over rated.

The same "the end justifies the means and the Constitution be damned" attitude has been the policy of most modern presidents at various times, and over the years has become the operational standard throughout the federal government.

Presidents have pushed the envelope to see what they can get away with and the Supreme Court has gradually acquiesced more and more, leading to erosion of bedrock constitutional principles.

And that has set the stage for a dishonorable man like Barrack Obama to test the absolute limits of the peoples tolerance and the Supreme Courts willingness to abandon principle.

While Barack Obama isn't the only president in the last 150 years to ignore the Constitution he is by far the most egregious.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.