Worcester County Freedom Trail

I’m appalled the House approved the sales tax increase. But apparently all is not lost in Worcester County. We have 18 rep districts. Nine voted for the increase, nine against.

Time for the nine who voted for the tax increase to go. Here are the details and where we need to field new candidates.

The nine who voted for the increase. These guys have got to go:
- Alicea, Charlton, 6th Worcester
- Binienda, Leicester, 17th Worcester
- DiNatale, Fitchburg, 3rd Worcester
- Fernandes, Milford, 10th Worcester
- Gobi, Spencer, 5th Worcester
- Naughton, Clinton, 12th Worcester
- O’Day, Worcester, 14th Worcester
- Pedone, Worcester, 15th Worcester
- Spellane, Worcester, 13th Worcester

Here are the nine who voted against:
- Callahan, Sutton, 18th Worcester
- Evangelidis, Holden, 1st Worcester
- Fresolo, Worcester, 16th Worcester
- Frost, Auburn, 7th Worcester
- Kujawski, Webster, 8th Worcester
- Peterson, Grafton, 9th Worcester
- Polito, Shrewsbury, 11th Worcester
- Rice, Gardner, 2nd Worcester
- Rosa, Leominster, 4th Worcester

UPDATE:
Had enough? Write a letter to the editor:
- The Boston Globe – letter@globe.com
- The Boston Herald – letterstoeditor@bostonherald.com
- The Worcester Telegram – letters@telegram.com
- The Patriot Ledger – editpage@ledger.com
- The Metrowest Daily News – mdnletters@cnc.com
- The Sentinel & Enterprise – Letters@SentinelAndEnterprise.com
- The Lowell Sun – backtalk@lowellsun.com
- The Eagle-Tribune – kjohnson@eagletribune.com
- The Springfield Republican – http://www.masslive.com/contactus/
- The Cape Cod Times – letters@capecodonline.com
- The Berkshire Eagle – letters@berkshireeagle.com

I told people we needed to send Bacon Hill a message with Question 1, repealing the sales tax. But no, we let the teachers’ unions intimidate us. And now we’re not only stuck with the old sales tax — which was supposed to go down and never did — but we’re on our way to an EVEN HIGHER sales tax. Was the legislature not listening when we told them we didn’t have enough money for a gas tax or a toll increase? There’s a recession going on. We don’t have enough money for an increased sales tax, either.

Well, you can bet that if this goes through, people will be buying less items that have a sales tax attached!

From the Boston Globe:

House lawmakers approved a sales tax hike last night by a veto-proof margin, capping a dramatic showdown with Governor Deval Patrick after he threatened to veto the broad-based tax increase.

House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo won his first political victory with the 108-to-51 vote, persuading lawmakers to sign onto his plan to increase the sales tax from 5 percent to 6.25 percent. The vote also heightens the tension among top Beacon Hill Democrats, who have had sharp disagreements over how to solve the state’s budget crisis.

It was a rare moment of open discord between party allies. It forced DeLeo and his leadership team to retreat behind closed doors through much of the day to muster 107 votes, the two-thirds required for an override.

Senate leaders, who also would need to sign onto the House’s tax increase, were conspicuously silent on the subject. Senate President Therese Murray declined to comment. Her spokesman repeated Murray’s previous comments that she has not ruled out any tax increase, except for a hike in the income tax.

We, the people, tell Bacon Hill to roll the sales tax back. Instead, they listen to the swarm of rat-like lobbyists that live on the Hill.

Patrick’s veto warning was part of an eventful day full of political intrigue, behind-the-scenes negotiations, and Democratic infighting. The chants of protax advocates thundered through the State House corridors, even as lobbyists, hoping to preserve funding for various causes, stood in the hallways hoping to catch a few minutes with lawmakers.

Heaven help us, I hope the State Senate has some better ideas than increasing the sales tax. Has anyone thought about CUTTING SPENDING?!?!?

President Obama has directed his staff to cut $100 million in spending to help make his spending policies look more reasonable. Well, the reality is that this PR stunt just makes his outrageous spending look even worse. Some comments:

AP: “Cut A Latte Or Two Out Of Your Annual Budget And You’ve Just Done As Much Belt-Tightening As President Barack Obama Asked Of His Cabinet On Monday. The thrifty measures Obama ordered for federal agencies are the equivalent of asking a family that spends $60,000 in a year to save $6. Obama made his push for frugality the subject of his first Cabinet meeting, ensuring it would command the capital’s attention. It also set off outbursts of mental math and scribbled calculations as political friend and foe tried to figure out its impact. The bottom line: Not much.” (“Spin Meter: Saving Federal Money The Easy Way,” AP, 4/20/09)
 
CBS: “Imagine You Were Shopping For A $50,000 Car, And The Dealer Offered To Slash The Price By A Dollar? Would You Be Bowled Over? Scramble For Your Checkbook? Leap To Sign The Sales Agreement? Probably Not. That’s why there’s cynicism as President Obama announced he directed the members of his Cabinet today to come up with $100-million in spending cuts in 90 days. Considering his budget this year calls for over $3.9-trillion in spending, $100-million is the same percentage of reduction as taking a buck off the price of a $50,000 car.” (“Is $100 M Much Of A Budget Cut? Ask Obama,” CBS News’ Political Hotsheet Blog, 4/20/09)
 
NEW YORK TIMES: “Budget Analysts Promptly Burst Out Laughing. A Reporter Declared At The White House Briefing That The Initiative Would Become Fodder For Late-Night Talk Show Hosts.” (“Obama Has His Cabinet Looking For Small Change,” The New York Times, 4/21/09)
 
CNN: “In Essence The President Has Asked Government Agencies To Trim The Equivalent of .003% Of The Federal Budget. Looked At Another Way, $100 Million Is .006% Of This Year’s Estimated Budget Deficit.” (“What Cutting $100 Million Really Means,” CNN, 4/20/09)
 
REUTERS On $100 Million: “The Government Spent That Amount In Just 13 Minutes.” “President Barack Obama challenged U.S. government departments on Monday to find $100 million in savings, but the move was mocked by critics who said the government spent that amount in just 13 minutes.”(“White House On Defensive Over Spending Cuts,” Reuters, 4/20/09)
 
WALL STREET JOURNAL: “$100 Million, A Largely Symbolic Effort.” (“Obama Tells Cabinet To Trim Spending,” The Wall Street Journal, 4/21/09)

Holy cow! Did someone forget to tell the Dems on Beacon Hill that we’re in a recession, that people are losing jobs all over the place, that “we the people” have no more to give?

Look at the mess of proposed amendments to the state budget that focus on increases taxes! Are these legislators insane?!?! These are just a few of the 978 amendments to the proposed House budget.

Kocot, Peter V. (D-Northampton) – Has filed an amendment to add a 3% local option meals tax (Amendment #26)

Kocot, Peter V. (D-Northampton) – Has filed an amendment to add a 5% sales tax to services including email, Internet sales, online banking (Amendment #28)

Clark, Katherine M. (D-Melrose) – Has filed an amendment to add the “beer tax” (Amendment #131)

Bowles, Bill (D-Attleboro) – Has filed an amendment increasing the state room occupancy tax rate 1% and increasing the state meals tax 1% (Amendment #201)

Scaccia, Angelo M. (D-Boston) – Has filed an amendment to add a 1% meals tax (Amendment #225)

Scaccia, Angelo M. (D-Boston) – Has filed an amendment to add a 2% meals tax (Amendment #226)

Sanchez, Jeffrey (D-Boston) – Has filed an amendment that levies a 10% sales tax on non-nutritious foods collected monthly by the Department Of Revenue, an $8 per gallon sold levy on wholesale dealers, and 80 cent levies on powdered soft drinks and liquid soft drinks sold (Amendment #348)

Moran, Michael J. (D-Boston) – Has filed an amendment to tax non-profit organizations at a rate of 25% of the commercial real property rate (Amendment #413)

Hecht, Jonathan (D-Watertown) – Has filed an amendment that expands the definition of smokeless tobacco products, increases taxes on smoking tobacco at 90% of the wholesale price of tobacco products, and increases the tax rate on smokeless tobacco from 25% to 45% (Amendment #499)

Atkins, Cory (D-Concord) – Has filed an amendment to increase the sales tax on candy, soft drinks, and alcoholic beverages (Amendment #521)

Khan, Kay (D-Newton) – Has filed an amendment to add a 5% tax on alcoholic beverages purchased from a liquor store (Amendment #534)

Wolf, Alice K. (D-Cambridge) – Has filed an amendment to increase the retail excise tax to 7% (Amendment # 561)

Malia, Elizabeth A. (D-Boston) – Has filed an amendment to eliminate the sales tax exemption on Alcohol (Amendment #584)

Patrick, Matthew (D-Falmouth) – Has filed an amendment to increase the income tax from 5.3% to 6.3% (Amendment #635)

Patrick, Matthew (D-Falmouth) – Has filed an amendment to increase the state sales tax to 6% (Amendment #639)

Brownsberger, William N. (D-Belmont) and Peisch, Alice H. (D-Wellesley) – Have filed amendments eliminating the exemption for gasoline and special fuels from the tax on sales of certain tangible and personal property (Amendment #659 and #835)

Khan, Kay (D-Newton) – Has filed an amendment to increase the gas tax by 29 cents to 50 cents per gallon (Amendment #676)

Balser, Ruth B. (D-Newton) – Has filed an amendment to allow local option 3% meals tax and up to a 6% rooms tax (Amendment #698)

Balser, Ruth B. (D-Newton) – Has filed an amendment to increase the state sales tax from 5% to 6% (Amendment #699)

Sciortino, Carl M., Jr. (D-Somerville) – Has filed an amendment to removes exemptions on classifications of corporations that will effectively require more businesses to be subject to the corporate excise tax of 10.5% (Amendment #712)

Sciortino, Carl M., Jr. (D-Somerville) – Has filed an amendment to increase the state sales tax by 2% (Amendment #717)

Walz, Martha M. (D-Boston) – Has filed an amendment that increases the state gas tax by 25 cents to 46 cents per gallon effective July 1, 2009. Pegs future increases to inflation. (Amendment #892)

I’m still trying to figure out why the White House issued no warnings to Cuba this week about cleaning up their act when it came to human rights. President Obama has now made travel between the US and Cuba easier. With that financial path now open, shouldn’t we have taken a moment to remind them that freedom is a right given to all of God’s people?

From the Boston Globe:

Somewhere along the way, Democratic priorities seem to have changed.

For example: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could have used her recent trip to China to vigorously defend human rights – to make it clear to those who rule the world’s largest dictatorship that the new administration in Washington cares about the liberty and dignity of China’s people. Instead, she more or less announced in advance that talking to Beijing about human rights was pointless, since “we pretty much know what they’re going to say.” Besides, she told reporters, human rights must not “interfere” with more important issues, such as the economic crisis or climate change.

China got the message. As Clinton arrived in Beijing, dozens of pro-democracy dissidents were placed under virtual house arrest. True to her word, the secretary of state made no fuss about the regime’s brutality.

Not long thereafter, the White House picked Charles Freeman to head the National Intelligence Council. A longtime Beijing sycophant, Freeman had defended the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, publicly regretting only that Chinese authorities didn’t crack down even sooner. (He later withdrew his name from consideration.)

To be sure, the US-Chinese relationship has never turned solely on human rights. But Democrats have certainly traveled quite a distance since the days when Bill Clinton was blasting the first President Bush for “coddling aging rulers with undisguised contempt for democracy and human rights.”

Closer to home, President Obama last week relaxed US policy toward Cuba, making it easier for Cuban-Americans to travel and send money to relatives living there. The president’s order was titled “Promoting Democracy and Human Rights in Cuba,” but in fact it said nothing at all about democracy and human rights in Cuba. Nowhere did it mention the Communist tyranny of the last 50 years – there was nothing about the denial of free speech; the abuse and murder of political dissidents; the persecution of journalists, librarians, and human-rights activists; the relentless surveillance and secret police; the regime’s stranglehold on property and employment.

It’s not like we don’t know about the atrocities. Human Rights Watch has issued an extensive analysis of the human rights violations within Cuba:

Over the past forty years, Cuba has developed a highly effective machinery of repression. The denial of basic civil and political rights is written into Cuban law. In the name of legality, armed security forces, aided by state-controlled mass organizations, silence dissent with heavy prison terms, threats of prosecution, harassment, or exile. Cuba uses these tools to restrict severely the exercise of fundamental human rights of expression, association, and assembly. The conditions in Cuba’s prisons are inhuman, and political prisoners suffer additional degrading treatment and torture. In recent years, Cuba has added new repressive laws and continued prosecuting nonviolent dissidents while shrugging off international appeals for reform and placating visiting dignitaries with occasional releases of political prisoners.

Here’s an interesting look beyond Cuba’s cute, old shops for tourists from the Times Online:

In Cuba they seem to have Castro cycles like the West has trade cycles. When times are good there is minor liberalisation, maybe a reform or two, the police presence is reduced, life seems tolerable. Then the country runs out of money, there are shortages, the tolerance stops and the space for people to exist seems to constrict.

Underlying these cycles is the central fact that Cuba runs an economic system – almost total state ownership and central planning – that has been judged a failure in just about every other country in which it has been tried, and yet it persists.

At the street level, Cuba is famously quaint. It is full of old buildings, often in an advanced state of dilapidation, its few cars are ancient and picturesque, there is little neon, the schoolchildren are smart and neat in their identical uniforms. For spoilt Westerners this decaying simplicity can seem a relief from our consumerist cornucopia, with its attendant anxieties and fantastic waste.

To peer through a factory window in a Cuban town is to experience a camera obscura of the 1940s or 1950s. In the city of Santa Clara, not far from the centre, is a famous cigar-making plant. Inside a large room, sitting in rows behind wooden worktops, rolling cigars by hand – political posters on the wall and Seventies pop music on the radio – sit nearly 150 people, mostly women.

Away from the tourist areas the shops that Cubans can afford to use are a mix of the primitive and the understocked. A real supermarket will boast an eclectic mix of almost random products, with one brand of each: inner tubes, buckets, crude ladles, the one type of crash helmet, a small range of poorly made clothes. One large, modern food store in Santa Clara was full of cooking oil, and just about nothing else. At any time of day people were sitting around on the pavements or outside their houses.

On the autopista, the unlined, largely unused main highway, men cleared the endless grass verges with sickles. These are the sure signs of that malaise of the planned economy: chronic underemployment. Or, as the old Soviet joke went: “We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.” The average wage for a Cuban is about 340 pesos a month, or £10, with pensions set at 205 pesos. The purchasing power of this pitifully small amount is boosted by the provision of free education and healthcare, subsidised electricity, and by the supply of staple food rations at subsidised prices.

However, just how little Cubans can buy is brought home to them every day by the operation of a dual monetary system. The Cuban convertible peso (or CUC, pronounced “cook”), pegged to the dollar, is worth 24 times more than the “national money”, and is the unit of exchange for tourists and Cubans wishing to buy certain products. William, a middle-aged quality-control manager in the local rum factory, was on a higher wage of 700 ordinary pesos, but with three children in Cuba (another had gone to work in Spain), he was continually calculating the mathematics of shortage. “A T-shirt, that is 10 CUC, jeans 25 CUC, shoes…” he shook his head “…shoes 60 CUC. Half my money for one month, gone! My children, they want to make something! They can’t make something here.”

Although there are restrictions on foreign travel, it is possible to leave Cuba – every year thousands of citizens take that option, adding to the numbers who have fled over the decades. More than a million Cubans now live in the US and Europe, many of them sending remittances back to their families at home.

Since there is a commitment to egalitarianism, wages for skilled occupations are not that much greater than for unskilled ones. I met one agronomist who had been bringing in 350 pesos a month. She told me how she had given up work to grow her own vegetables and sell them from a street stall – in the process nearly doubling her earnings. The Government recently admitted to a shortage of 8,000 teachers, many of whom had simply changed occupations to try to find something vaguely lucrative.

The main way, however, that Cubans manage to make life tolerable is on the black market. Since the State runs and owns almost everything, the market largely exists by stealing from a government enterprise and reselling. “We make the mercado negro, or we don’t have anything,” said one middle-class Santa Clareno. “Mostly we steal from work. If it’s a shoe factory, then we take something to make shoes at home and sell them. If it’s building, then we steal cement. We carry what we can; the poor man on his back, the rich man in his truck.”

He had been involved in renovating public buildings, only to discover that a third of the materials he was supplied with were being pilfered from the sites. In Havana I bought cigars on the street (near the Museum of the Revolution, ironically) from a middle manager at a cigar factory who had stolen them that morning from the store. And there’s bribery. At the famous Coppelia ice-cream parlour in the Vedado district of Havana, a policeman hoicked us off the Cuban queue and walked us over to the tourist section, where the ice-cream costs 20 times as much. There was a quick flash of silver as the man behind the counter paid the policeman off.

The big question is, what happened to the Democratic platform of pushing back on human rights violators. Will Presidents Clinton and Bush be the ones to hold onto that legacy?

Pictures of the Worcester Tea Party keep flowing in from all over the county. Thanks to all who contributed. See if you can find yourself in these pictures!

Btw, did you hear about the horrendous pork being piled on to Gov Patrick’s budget?

House lawmakers have already larded a $27.4 billion state budget with dozens of pork-barrel amendments totaling millions of dollars despite a crippling economy – including one $150,000 request to study the winter moth.

I’m thinking we need a pork roast next, eh?!?!

Thanks to everyone for a phenomenal Worcester Tea Party. I am honored to have been part of such a stupendous protest. Everyone had a great time. The speakers were tremendous. Best of all, we had an enormous turnout: over 2000. Even more than Boston or Washington DC!!

Here’s the slideshow of pictures from Desiree Awiszio. Thanks, Des.

Worcester Tea Party 4/15/09

A superb letter from Shelley Hall, one of the Worcester Tea Party planners:

Just words?

That rumbling sound you hear is America convulsing in the iron jaws of behemoth government, unleashed by this nation’s tyrants in the imperial ruling class. The beast is no respecter of persons – the working man, the elderly, the unborn – it roars about seeking whom it may devour, filling our waking hours with the terrors of the night and establishing itself in the congregations of the wicked and the foolish. Assisted by its venal keepers in congress, it stalks the outspoken and the strong. The sinister friend of the cowardly and the corrupt, it lays a snare for hard working men and women and their families, offering fabulous promises it will never keep, subverting and demoralizing young and old alike, and ripping away the legitimate fruit of honest work. This government makes no distinction between the left or the right, the free market entrepreneur or the civil servant. It is a destroyer of dreams and initiative. Commerce flees before it. Individual liberties are crushed by it. The common wealth is its meat and our children are left to its sadistic pleasure. It guzzles the life blood of patriots and is always among us, a sometimes repository of the public trust gone suddenly chimpanzee mad, ripping the face off a terrified electorate. The nation reels and who will answer?

Will you imagine your deepest fears are just words? Will you cover your eyes and refuse to read the signs of our times? Cover your ears and pray to grow deaf to the sounds in the streets? Stifle your misgivings and join the jackals who prey on the carcasses of the mighty? You will not starve.

Or will you make your stand? The words I write are plucked out of the very air we breathe. It is the same air of the patriots, of our founders, of our fathers. It is the air of bravery and not of cowardice. It is the air of integrity and promise. It is not the suffocating stench of repression. You and I carry the vocabulary of freedom with us wherever we go and we have generously offered the lexicon of liberty to people everywhere who recognize its possibilities and power. Will we demonstrate anew that we are the righteous heirs of the spirit of freedom, and that we understand the distinction between “just words” meaning “mere words” and “just” words meaning “right and fair?”

Make no mistake about it. There is no one coming to help us. There is no battalion of Constitutional attorneys, no national organization of citizens’ rights, no military power, no external entity to save us. There is only you and me and the person standing next to you and the one next to him and her. What will you do? How shall we then live?

I say nurture the flame of defiance in your breast and refuse to be cowed by those who claim title to you and your children, to your labor and your opinions. We are all free men and women here. We are equal before the law. We do not sort ourselves out as more or less equal or more or less precious in the sight of God. We have not voted to place ourselves and our children in obscene economic bondage under staggering debt. We will not accept the chains of economic slavery forged by the ubermensch who have turned the sacred chambers of our Republic into a den of thieves.

It has not escaped us that there are some who would rob us of our life and liberty, who would hobble our labor with their obstructions, abridge our freedoms and oppress us. For years, we have asked only to be left alone to live and work in peace. We have been polite and respectful and we have received the back of the hand from our arrogant ruling class. They tax and legislate us into paralysis, smirk at our injury, continue to do exactly as they please at our collective expense, and endlessly transfer or ignore our calls, lose our petitions, and puke doubletalk in our general direction as a substitute for respect. We must get up off our knees and remember that it is they who have unleashed the beast and that all their promises are just words. But what I say is truth, just and fair, words of encouragement and persuasion offered openly to you, plucked out of the air around you for your strengthening and deliverance.

We wait for no one to grant us permission to be who we already are by birthright. We are the free men and women of America and we will make our decisions as such. Let the freedom which rests in your hearts proceed from your mouths in tongues of fire that all might be infected with this passion for liberty, self determination and equality before the rule of law. God bless America and restore the blessings of liberty to her just people.

I find the following survey data quite shocking. From Rasmussen:

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.

Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.

I was sure everyone knew that socialism (and communism) has been proven unsustainable. Sweden, the long touted paragon of socialism, recently threw out the spendthrift Social Democrats in favor of economic reform. And at the 2009 G20 Summit, Germany, France, and the UK were appalled at the reckless spending of President Obama’s “stimulus” plan.  But apparently not everyone is aware of these latest events. So  I’m thinking of running a series of posts on the topic of economic freedom and what that means to Americans and the rest of the world.

Let’s start with some insightful thinking from Walter E Williams, a well-known conservative economist. Thanks to Mark for this info.

Most of our nation’s great problems, including our economic problems, have as their root decaying moral values. Whether we have the stomach to own up to it or not, we have become an immoral people left with little more than the pretense of morality. You say, “That’s a pretty heavy charge, Williams. You’d better be prepared to back it up with evidence!” I’ll try with a few questions for you to answer.

Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him? Neither question is complex and can be answered by either a yes or no. For me the answer is no to both questions but I bet that your average college professor, politician or minister would not give a simple yes or no response. They would be evasive and probably say that it all depends.

In thinking about questions of morality, my initial premise is that I am my private property and you are your private property. That’s simple. What’s complex is what percentage of me belongs to someone else. If we accept the idea of self-ownership, then certain acts are readily revealed as moral or immoral. Acts such as rape and murder are immoral because they violate one’s private property rights. Theft of the physical things that we own, such as cars, jewelry and money, also violates our ownership rights.

The reason why your college professor, politician or minister cannot give a simple yes or no answer to the question of whether one person should be used to serve the purposes of another is because they are sly enough to know that either answer would be troublesome for their agenda. A yes answer would put them firmly in the position of supporting some of mankind’s most horrible injustices such as slavery. After all, what is slavery but the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another? A no answer would put them on the spot as well because that would mean they would have to come out against taking the earnings of one American to give to another in the forms of farm and business handouts, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and thousands of similar programs that account for more than two-thirds of the federal budget. There is neither moral justification nor constitutional authority for what amounts to legalized theft. This is not an argument against paying taxes. We all have a moral obligation to pay our share of the constitutionally mandated and enumerated functions of the federal government.

Unfortunately, there is no way out of our immoral quagmire. The reason is that now that the U.S. Congress has established the principle that one American has a right to live at the expense of another American, it no longer pays to be moral. People who choose to be moral and refuse congressional handouts will find themselves losers. They’ll be paying higher and higher taxes to support increasing numbers of those paying lower and lower taxes. As it stands now, close to 50 percent of income earners have no federal income tax liability and as such, what do they care about rising income taxes? In other words, once legalized theft begins, it becomes too costly to remain moral and self-sufficient. You might as well join in the looting, including the current looting in the name of stimulating the economy.

I am all too afraid that a historian, a hundred years from now, will footnote America as a historical curiosity where people once enjoyed private property rights and limited government but it all returned to mankind’s normal state of affairs — arbitrary abuse and control by the powerful elite.

A short while ago, I posted about a small turnaround we’re seeing in the spendthrift ways of the British government. While that’s certainly good news, let’s not be fooled. I doubt today’s typical British conservative would be classified a conservative here in America.

A tip of the hat to Mark for pointing us to this interesting opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal:

British conservatives are once again on the rise. American conservatives: Don’t be fooled.

Since last year’s electoral wipeout, the Republican Party has been in a debate over how to remake itself. Some have pointed to Britain’s Conservative Party, which is today poised — after 12 long years — to regain power.

Conservative Party leader David Cameron, we are told, has crafted a “modern conservatism” which is well past all that Thatcherite talk of free markets, tax cuts and individual freedom. This conservatism is caring and recognizes the role of government; it connects with citizens and worries about day care and global warming. If only the GOP would emulate its British cousins, so the argument goes, it might forge that lasting conservative majority.

It’s true the Cameroons (as they are referred to by disaffected Tories) are on track to win next year’s general election. It is also true that this has little to do with the non-philosophy the Cameroons have been spinning to the public. The next election will instead be a referendum on a worn-out Labour movement. If Conservatives win, it will be because the party has made itself less offensive to the electorate than those currently in charge. And that, American friends, is no way to rebuild a party.

As for political philosophy, the Cameroons describe their new agenda as one of promoting “social revival,” the idea that government should attend to people’s general well-being rather than their wealth. This has required them to embrace government — and anything else they think the public might like.

Much of the Tories’ ”modern conservatism” consists of reassuring voters about what it won’t do. It won’t dismantle a failing national health-care system. It won’t disavow failing public schools. It won’t resist higher tax rates on the “rich.” Beyond this bold agreement with the status quo, the party has refused to articulate its own agenda, lest any part go down badly with voters.