Hypocritical Republicans wimp out on free market when politics calls

By David McElroy · April 11, 2013

Republicans love the free market. They hate socialism and big government. Conservative southern Republicans are some of the most vocal about cutting the size of government and cutting federal subsidies. It’s a pity they don’t really mean their rhetoric.

On Wednesday, the Obama administration proposed one of the few things it’s ever proposed that I thought was a great idea. Included in the 2014 budget is a plan to sell the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) so it will be a private utility instead of a government monopoly. That would shrink the size of government and cut out subsidies for millions of people in the South who are getting electricity at cheap rates.

Republicans should have been cheering this great news. TVA is the country’s largest electric utility. Selling it would be a perfect demonstration of what Republicans have been talking about for years. GOP presidential candidate Barry Goldwater proposed in 1964 that TVA be privatized (and he lost Tennessee as a result). So how did modern Republican stalwarts against big government react?

In Alabama, U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby and U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks both reacted negatively. Shelby didn’t outright dismiss the plan, but anyone who can read through political language knows what his statement means.

“I intend to carefully study any proposals to restructure TVA to ensure that it continues to deliver affordable electricity throughout the region without continuing to add to our nation’s rapidly growing debt,” Shelby told the Huntsville Times.

Brooks told the times that he’s willing to study the proposal, but, “Quite frankly, I am skeptical the president can make that case.”

In Tennessee, Republican U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander warned that the sale of TVA to a “profit-making entity” could lead to higher power rates for the state’s taxpayers. He told Nashville’s Tennessean newspaper that selling TVA would probably cost taxpayers money, although he didn’t explain where he got this bizarre logic.

These politicians are afraid of selling TVA because their constituents would be afraid of a change. Even though TVA rates (using Tennessee as a proxy) are pretty comparable with those from Alabama Power and Georgia Power, voters would react with alarm, assuming their rates obviously would go up if a company had to make a profit. (TVA serves all of Tennessee, plus parts of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Kentucky, North Carolina and Virginia.)

Republicans in the affected areas have the opportunity to show the courage of their alleged convictions. It’s a chance for them to say to their conservative Republican voters, “We’ve been saying we want to shrink government and turn more over to the free market — and this is a step in that direction.” (It wouldn’t even be a real free-market reform, because other providers wouldn’t be allowed to compete. Still, it’s better than nothing.) But they’re not going to do that, because they’re afraid of politics. They’re hypocrites when push comes to shove.

If you’re still counting on the Republican Party to gain majorities in Congress and win the White House and then sweep the country with actions showing they mean their free market rhetoric, this should be a wake-up call to you to quit believing their nonsense. Republicans and Democrats are in this together. They both believe in big government.

Republicans don’t mean what they say about reducing the size of government. They just don’t want big government to be quite as big as what Democrats want. You’re not going to get dramatically smaller government by electing Republicans, now or ever.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts