David Frum on Why He's a Republican

David Frum is much more of a big government Republican than I am, and I strongly disagree with his critique of current GOP positions on the economy. But his article gives some good reasons to be a Republican. Here are his main points with my comments.

The Republicans are the party of American nationalism. ... The flag-and-country themes of the GOP can be kitschy. They also are the indispensable basis of any idea of social cohesion across the vast continent.

He could have thrown in unabashed patriotism and belief in American exceptionalism, as opposed to the fuzzy internationalism of many Democrats.

Republican policies of lower taxes, less regulation, and restrained social spending may be poor medicine for the immediate crisis. But they remain the best formula to support the longer-term growth of the economy – way better than the Democratic preference for high taxes and opportunistic economic interventions.

They aren't poor medicine for the current crisis, but otherwise he's correct. If you want higher taxes, more government bureaucracy, an ever-increasing maze of regulations, greater government interference with the economy, and more hand-outs of taxpayer money, vote Democrat. If you want less you vote Republican.

my preferred approach to federal budgeting starts with national defense. Defense and national security are the supreme priority of the state. Only after fully funding defense can you then worry about the appropriate level of spending for everything else, and the appropriate level and form of taxation to pay for that spending.

Exactly. When government cuts are under discussion Democrats look to cut the most important function of government first, while Republicans look to other less vital areas of government.

I intensely oppose any aid or subsidy to particular companies or firms except in cases of the most extreme national necessity, eg TARP. Solyndra is only the latest example of the zeal of Democratic administrations dating back to Jimmy Carter’s to solve America’s energy problems by inserting government into the business of “picking winners.”

Ok, but the GOP has its own issues in this regard. However, as in most cases, the GOP is the lesser of two evils.

he omnipresent system of racial preferences built since the late 1960s in hope of compensating for the effects of slavery and segregation is not only a moral inequity, but also a practical disaster. ... this system is one of the most basic political commitments of the modern Democratic party.

It also requires that the current effects of racism be exaggerated to justify the continuation of such policies, and creates a whole group of racialist agitators.

real progress on the environment almost always comes under Republican presidents.

I'd say rather that the GOP is a bulwark against radical environmental extremism, whereas significant elements of the Democratic party embrace it.

Public sector unions rank as one of the most important obstacles to the improvement of public services from education to transit. And the Democrats are the party of the public-sector unions.

Absolutely. Public sector unions are a blight on the U.S., and inextricably linked with the Democratic party.

Democrats were wrong on crime from the 1970s through the 1990s, and I’m still mad about it.

Republicans tend to be better on addressing crime, as opposed to making excuses for criminals, or blaming inanimate objects such as guns.

I believe that the elected Prime Minister of Israel is a better judge of Israel’s national security than the Assistant Secretary of State for Near East affairs. Democratic administrations typically seem guided by the opposite theory.

Pretty vague reason. I could come up with a much more substantive distinction between the parties on foreign policy.

the GOP is the party more sympathetic to business concerns and challenges.

Understatement of the year there. As I write this, there are already some Democrats embracing the imbeciles of the "Occupy Wall Street" protests, people who out of envy, stupidity and the desire for hand-outs rail against capitalism -- the greatest engine of wealth creation in human history. The GOP has its problems, but they pale in comparison to the fringes of the Democratic party.

The New Debit Card Fees

Today we got yet another example of the unintended consequences of poorly-thought out and unnecessary legislation. Bank of America is now charging $5 per month for its debit cards, with other banks sure to follow suit. Why is it doing so? Awhile back, Congress, then led by Democrats, passed new regulations restricting the fees banks could charge merchants for accepting debit cards. The new restrictions go into effect on Saturday. Naturally banks are not going to passively accept a huge cut in income, and are now looking for ways to make up the difference from customers.

This is the sort of thing that happens when you have clueless government officials, primarily Democrats, interfering in business operations, and passing unnecessary regulations. If, like me, you make regular use of debit cards, you know they are extremely useful. One of the things that makes them so useful is the lack of fees. If they start to come with a monthly charge or other restrictions, they become another expense which lessens their overall utility.

You might wonder why it is any business at all of the government what fees banks should charge merchants for using debit cards. Why can't banks just set whatever fees they want and merchants decide whether or not they want to pay them, pass them on the customers, or reject them entirely? Was there some sort of major problem with debit card use that even required government action? No, there wasn't. There was no need whatsoever for this sort of overbearing big government regulation. And now consumers are going to pay for it. Here's one of the sponsors of the regulation, one of the biggest idiots in Congress, Democrat Dick Durbin of Illinois,

"After years of raking in excess profits off an unfair and anticompetitive interchange system, Bank of America is trying to find new ways to pad their profits by sticking it to its customers. It's overt, unfair, and I hope their customers have the final say."

What are "excessive profits" and who are you to decide what businesses should make? Bank of America is not trying to pad their profits, they are attempting to preserve them from being cut by arbitrary regulation. It may be "overt," but there's nothing unfair about it. Banks are not obligated to provide free debit card use. They were doing so until you decided to interfere. It's an obvious reaction to your attempt to slash their profits, one which was abundantly clear to anyone with the slightest clue when this legislation was under discussion.

Obama's Latest Anti-Business Proposal

I wrote about the president's new massive government spending proposal, misnamed as a job's bill, a couple of weeks ago. Now we find that it includes an idea that would encourage frivolous lawsuits against employers.

Mr. Obama’s jobs bill would prohibit employers from discriminating against job applicants because they are unemployed.

Under the proposal, it would be “an unlawful employment practice” if a business with 15 or more employees refused to hire a person “because of the individual’s status as unemployed.”

Unsuccessful job applicants could sue and recover damages for violations, just as when an employer discriminates on the basis of a person’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

Naturally this idea also involves giving more power to the government to scrutinize business hiring practices.

Under Mr. Obama’s proposal, the employment commission would be given new power to enforce the proposed ban on discrimination against the jobless.

What a great idea. If unemployed people fail to get a particular job, why not give them the ability to allege that they were discriminated against because they are unemployed? I'm sure greater government involvement and the threat of lawsuits if they turn someone down will do wonders to make businesses more interested in hiring instead of just deciding to do without that extra worker. Businesses love attention from government agencies and the threat of lawsuits.

Laughing at the Left - Imaginary GOP Vote Suppression

There's an entirely predictable article in Rolling Stone called, "The GOP War on Voting." It's hard to read it without laughing out loud.

As the nation gears up for the 2012 presidential election, Republican officials have launched an unprecedented, centrally coordinated campaign to suppress the elements of the Democratic vote that elected Barack Obama in 2008. Just as Dixiecrats once used poll taxes and literacy tests to bar black Southerners from voting, a new crop of GOP governors and state legislators has passed a series of seemingly disconnected measures that could prevent millions of students, minorities, immigrants, ex-convicts and the elderly from casting ballots.

Naturally any good leftist conspiracy theory wouldn't be complete without false accusations of racism. When you read the article you find that the so-called war on voting is entirely imaginary. It consists of, wait for it, requirements that people have proper identification before voting. Isn't that horrifying? The rest of the article rests on the pretense that voter fraud doesn't exist. Since it doesn't exist, we don't need to bother with even the most minimal requirements for identification. Never mind that doing pretty much anything else involving the government requires proof of identity. You have to show an ID just to get into the federal building near where I work. Here in New Jersey, the ID requirements for a drivers license are ridiculously complicated and annoying. But it's just too much to ask that people show an ID before voting. It must be a racist GOP conspiracy to suppress the Democratic vote.

In actuality, the leftists at Rolling Stone want as much voter fraud as possible, because they expect criminals, illegal aliens and anyone else without valid ID to vote Democratic. Since they can't come right out and say that, they have to try and put a new spin on the same tired old propaganda about the GOP suppressing votes.

Good Advice From Fred Thompson

Former senator Fred Thompson has some good advice for the House GOP in the debt-limit situation. He's a little premature in declaring victory, since nothing has been agreed upon, but he believes that Republicans have forced a situation where Democrats will have no choice but to agree to some cuts, without tax increases, in order to raise the debt ceiling. Here's the key advice at the end of his open letter.

We will never achieve entitlement or tax reform with a doctrinaire liberal in the White House. Any agreements to do so in “out years” would probably be unenforceable even if agreement were achieved. And we can only do so much while controlling one half of one branch of government. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House Republicans, you have laid some great groundwork to rectify both of those situations. Now it is the time to accept a well-won victory and move on.

I think he's exactly right. Block tax increases, get some spending cuts, and raise the debt ceiling to avoid default and/or credit rating downgrade. With Obama in the White House, and Democrats controlling the Senate, grandiose reform plans that really address the deficit & the debt are just not feasible. Democrats do not want to cut spending. They want to spend more. Republican focus right now should be to block Obama from further increasing the size of government and its spending, and on the 2012 elections. Serious fiscal reform will require a Republican president and more Republicans in Congress.

Reality vs. Democratic Scare Tactics

In the past I've repeatedly laughed at those who accused the GOP of so-called "fearmongering," and pointed out that scaring voters with worst-case scenarios (and outright falsehoods) is a standard political tactic used by both sides. We've seen dishonest scare-tactics used repeatedly by Democrats in the struggle over the debt ceiling, with the most dramatic being President Obama's attempt to make seniors believe that might not get their social security checks because of those evil, irresponsible Republicans. Scaring seniors is a time-honored Democratic political move.

There's an excellent article at Reason.com by Veronique de Rugy called, "The Facts About the Debt Ceiling." It counteracts the myths being spread point by point. The bottom line is that the U.S. can use various fiscal maneuvering to stave off a default, even if an agreement isn't reached. The August 2 deadline is arbitrary. Eventually there has to be an agreement, the debt ceiling has to be raised, or spending has to be cut dramatically. I'd be willing to bet that despite the GOP's valiant stand, the last option is the least likely.

The Myth of Republican Intransigence on the Debt Ceiling

The Democratic narrative is that Republicans are being intransigent and unreasonable regarding the debt ceiling. This myth is debunked in a good article by Michael D. Tanner called, "The Intransigent Meet the Unserious."

Republicans have clearly drawn a line in the sand, opposing any tax increase. But Democrats have been even more unbending, resisting any serious structural reform of entitlements or deep spending cuts, while insisting on huge tax hikes as part of any deal.

There is no reason that a deal on raising the debt ceiling has to include tax hikes -- other than Democratic insistence. In addition, the planned cuts aren't even that significant, yet Democrats still demand tax hikes.

the deal that the Republicans are currently offering would actually allow federal revenue, federal spending, and the national debt all to increase over the next decade. They have abandoned structural changes to entitlement programs — anything like Paul Ryan's Medicare reform is off the table — and appear to have dropped calls for a balanced-budget amendment or a spending cap.

This is radical? This is intransigence? If only.

The whole article is worth reading as a contrast to Democratic propaganda.

Liberal Inadvertently Tells People to Vote Republican

E.J. Dionne, a liberal Washington Post columnist inadvertently explained why given the choice between Republicans and Democrats, people should vote Republican. In his article covering the GOP debate, Dionne writes disparagingly,

it was striking that the ideas on offer were largely conservative boilerplate: There is no problem, it seems, that can’t be solved by cutting taxes, slashing government and eviscerating regulations.

Dionne doesn't seem to realize that Republican mantras compare quite favorably with Democratic solutions to most problems: raising taxes, bigger government, and increased regulation & bureaucracy.

Why Republicans Oppose New Taxes

The front page of the Washington Post online leads with the headline story, "For GOP, no new taxes — and no compromise." The article is a thinly-disguised anti-Republican propaganda piece pretending to be analysis. It goes something like this. Back in the old days the GOP used to be fiscally responsible, but today's Republicans are unreasonable, blind ideologues who oppose all tax increases for no good reason that we can possibly imagine. How did this rigid orthodoxy on taxes come to be? And look, here are some "good" Republicans who agree with us.

Since it is not really any sort of objective analysis, the article fails to point out the main reasons Republican oppose tax increases, even ones that will supposedly help reduce the deficit.

1. There is no evidence that giving the government more money will help reduce the deficit, instead of just giving it more reasons not to cut spending. There is no political will to pass even the most modest spending cuts.

2. Democrats do not want to cut spending, with the exception of defense. In fact, most Democrats want to spend more money on social programs, government schemes that supposedly stimulate the economy, and all sorts of other things. When you are the party of big government, cutting government spending strikes at the heart of your political philosophy.

3. The large budget deficit and astronomical debt are the only reasons why much of the political class even gives lip service to ideas about fiscal responsibility. If they are provided with new tax revenues, there will then be no impetus to address our long-term fiscal situation. They will gladly pretend they are addressing the problems, while gleefully finding new ways to spend the increased taxes. In the absence of any serious resolve to cut government and limit spending, giving the government more money is clearly counterproductive.

In summary, since the political class as a whole, and the Democratic Party in particular, is still not serious about addressing the deficit, let alone the debt, there is simply no reason to increase the tax burden on Americans. All that will do is give the government more money to spend, which will preserve and strengthen big government. Far from being some sort of irrational, blind orthodoxy, Republican opposition to tax increases is based on reason, and an accurate assessment of political reality.

We Need Proven Sources of Energy

There's a good article at The Western Experience called, "The Reality Is, We Need Oil." While the title is true, I'd expand it to say that we need more energy production in general, from proven sources that actually work on a large scale. Along with more domestic oil, we need more nuclear power, more natural gas, and more refineries turning oil into gasoline. However, we aren't going to get any of those things with Democrats in charge.

Democrats continuously marginalize America’s potential for domestic energy production. Their law makers, with the help of Obama’s pen and rhetoric, have declared war on energy. They chose to tax “Big Oil”, limit oil production and exploration, revoke leases for inland production and rendering it financially backbreaking for businesses to drill on federally owned land. Democrats decry record profits made by the oil industries as evil and mislead the country to believe they are only leveling the playing field between consumer and producer. In actuality, the Earth-Democrats are engineering a sinister plan for blowback. A person who possesses even an elementary understanding of macroeconomics would know these added costs will simply be passed on to the consumer.

Unfortunately the Democratic Party has aligned itself with environmentalists who oppose most energy production. What we get from Democrats are pie in the sky schemes and wasted money on unproven alternative energy sources. When it comes to the sources that actually produce our energy, we get crippling regulation, taxation, and bureaucratic hindrances that drive up the costs and restrict new construction and exploration. Energy policy is just one of the many reasons to vote Republican.

Out of Liberalism

Over at the Weekly Standard there is a very interesting piece on playwright, screenwriter, essayist and director David Mamet, called "Converting Mamet." It traces Mamet's journey from garden variety liberal to something much rarer, an outspoken conservative in the entertainment industry.

“I never questioned my tribal assumption that Capitalism was bad,” he writes now, “although I, simultaneously, never acted upon these feelings.” He was always happy to cash a royalty check and made sure to insist on a licensing fee. “I supported myself, as do all those not on the government dole, through the operation of the Free Market.” ... Mamet confessed that many of his previous political beliefs now struck him as reflexive and unthinking: The country that existed in his once-fevered liberal imagination—a dystopia crippled by crises that required the immediate deployment of the federal government—bore little resemblance to the country in which he actually lived, where people interacted smoothly in the marketplace to their mutual benefit. He had come to realize that corporations were good for providing the necessities of life. The “Big Bad Military” of his youthful fancy was, he discovered, an organization built on courage and honor.

The whole thing is well-worth reading.

Why Are There Republican Atheists?

This is the subject of a post at Atheist Revolution. I have to laugh that anyone would even need to ask that question, but since I happen to be a Republican atheist, I'll answer it. First, I should point out that that vjack, the blogger in question, largely answers the question himself in the post. The question was raised by someone who e-mailed him, not he himself. But in the post he does ask a more specific question:

What is it about the Republican Party that appeals to you so much that you are willing to disregard their stance on church-state separation and other concerns common to atheists?

That's easy. In the spectrum of issues I care about regarding U.S. policy, that one comes in way down the list. On most more important issues, the GOP is either far superior, or at least the lesser of two evils. Although the Democratic party may favor my position on certain issues, taken as a whole, my policy ideas are far more aligned with the Republican party than they are to the Democratic.

In my opinion the supposed danger of the religious right is hysterically overblown on the left. The U.S. as a whole has gotten more secular over the years, not less, and the Christian majority has been diluted. The Christian right is a nuisance, not a serious threat. I view their influence in the GOP as nothing more than an annoyance -- sometimes a major annoyance to be sure -- but nothing that would make me even consider joining the Democratic party, which I oppose in principle on almost every issue other than some social ones. Both parties have their obnoxious fringe elements among their bases. But I'll take the religious right any day over the hardcore anti-American left that infests the fringe of the Democratic base.

Thank You President Obama

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank President Obama and the Congressional Democratic leadership for making this great GOP electoral success possible. We couldn't have done it without you. Remember back in 2008 when people were trying to write off the GOP? Things looked pretty bleak for Republicans after George Bush and Congressional Republicans had so damaged the GOP brand over eight years. But President Obama and his allies managed to reverse the tide in only two short years, giving us a "historic" Republican victory -- not only a solid majority in the house, but more control over state legislatures than at any time since World War 2 (according to NPR). These short-term gains will be amplified by the upcoming redistricting, with the GOP massively dominating the rewriting of districts, locking in advantages for years to come. I wonder if "historic," Obama's favorite word, will still automatically equal "good" in his eyes.

You'll no doubt hear people trying to pretend that this is all about the economy, and the natural cycle of an off-year election. Feel free to greet that argument with the raucous laughter it deserves. Such a sweeping turnaround in only two years is a devastating rejection of Democratic policies & leadership. The voters have loudly rejected the notion that more government, more spending and a digging a bigger debt hole should be our policy directions. No one is buying Obama's claim that he saved us from a depression, or his imaginary numbers about supposed jobs saved and created. This election was first and foremost about the lousy performance of our Democratic leadership. But given that this president takes no responsibility and looks first to blame others for everything, I don't expect him to get the message.

No Compromise for the GOP

According to The Hill, "GOP says compromise not on the agenda if they retake the House." I'm skeptical, but I hope they mean it. The vast majority of people voting Republican in this election are not voting to have people compromise with President Obama and the Congressional Democratic leadership. We are voting in an effort to roll-back their policies if possible, or to block anything worse if that's all that can be accomplished. 

Some have disparaged the GOP as the "Party of No," but that's exactly what they should be as long as Obama is in power. With a strong Democratic majority, the administration has been able to ram its policies down our throats. Whatever happens in November, it is almost a certainty that the Democratic majority will be reduced, whether or not Republicans take the House and/or Senate. Those of us voting Republican expect the GOP, whether in minority or majority capacity to do everything possible to obstruct the president's agenda. If the GOP miraculously takes control of Congress, it should attempt to force the president to compromise, and sign on to elements of a Republican-driven agenda. If he won't, they should send up bill after bill and force him to veto. We aren't voting for Republicans in order to have them compromise with Obama. The Republican leadership claims to understand that. Let's hope they've really gotten the message.

Democratic Promise to America - Top Ten Points

After House Republicans released their "Pledge to America," Democrats reacted quickly by drawing up their own "Promise to America." The Unreligious Right has obtained an exclusive preview of the top ten points.

1. Spend more money. Despite all the evidence that more spending has not produced job growth, more needs to be spent -- whether we have it available or not. That's why we have a mint & the federal reserve. No matter how much Republicans want to spend, we promise to always spend more.

2. Ignore the debt & the deficit. Focus on right now and the future will take care of itself.

3. Find new ways to raise taxes. We'll do everything possible to create new taxes, even if we have to call them something else.

4. Attack any significant tax cut as tax cuts for the "rich." Rich means whoever we say it means.

5. Equate tax cuts with spending. Even though tax cuts are reductions in revenue and are not spending of any kind, we will continue to call them costs so we can say they cost too much.

6. Create new government programs. America needs more and bigger government. There is no problem that can't be solved by the government. Greater government involvement in everything will be our first resort.

7. Increase funding regardless of returns. This means more spending on education and unproven alternative energy sources.

8. If we absolutely have to make any cuts in spending, look first to cutting defense. National security is our least important priority.

9. Increase regulation, red tape and bureaucracy. Small businesses don't need tax cuts. They need more rules, requirements, fees and government oversight. They can count on the Democratic Party to provide those things.

10. Find new ways to dismiss any and all criticism or counter-proposals from political opponents as based on racism, bigotry, fear, support for the rich, or as un-American.

Surprise! Obama Wants More Spending

The president is calling for "$50 billion to kick off a new infrastructure plan designed to expand and renew the nation’s roads, railways and runways." Where have we heard this before? Oh yeah, the so-called stimulus that was billed as an investment in infrastructure but turned out to be a gigantic pork giveaway. But this $50 billion will really be used to improve our infrastructure. No, really. And guess what, it even includes a new federal agency.

The measures include the “establishment of an Infrastructure Bank to leverage federal dollars and focus on investments of national and regional significance that often fall through the cracks

More spending, and more big government -- that's the Obama and Democratic answer to any question. In this case the question is: what can we do to pretend that we are helping the economy and creating jobs to avoid crushing defeat in November? GOP members of Congress should do everything possible to defeat or delay this latest waste of money, much of which will no doubt be funneled to Democratic special interests such as unions. 

Desperate Democrats Pretending to Be Republicans

That's a front-page story at the Washington Post, except they call it "Democrats add fiscal austerity as a campaign issue." It's pretty  hard not to laugh when members of the party of big government, taxes and spending claim to support "fiscal austerity." Even the Post writer seems to be struggling to keep from openly sneering.

The candidate was outraged - just outraged - at the country's sorry fiscal state. ... that was a Democrat, Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado, who voted "yes" on the stimulus, the health-care overhaul, increased education funding and other costly bills Congress approved under his party's control.

If there's one rule in American politics, it's that no matter how much taxpayer money Republicans waste, Democrats always want to waste even more. As the Bush administration along with Congress was spending like there was money to burn, there were plenty of Democrats attacking him for "cutting" programs, because they were upset that the rate of increase in spending on them wasn't as great as they thought it should be.  I seriously doubt that most voters are going to be fooled by Democrats pretending to be in favor of fiscal austerity. 

Taxing Gold Coins Equals Healthcare Reform

It does if you are a tax and spend Democrat. Yet another feature of the health care law monstrosity hit the news today -- the bill no one bothered to actually read all the way through before it became law.

every time a member of the public sells more than $600 worth of gold to a dealer, Piret said, the transaction will have to be reported to the government by the buyer.

Throughout the debate, opponents repeatedly argued that the bill was not about health care reform, but about extending big government control over a large portion of the U.S. economy. The more we know about the new law, the more they are proven correct. What do taxes on the sale of gold coins, or new 1099 requirements have to do with health care? Nothing. 

This provision, intended to mine what the IRS deems a vast reservoir of uncollected income tax, was included in the health care legislation ostensibly as a way to pay for it. The tax code tweak is expected to raise $17 billion over the next 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

More taxes and more spending. That's what the Democratic party is all about, their lies to the contrary not withstanding. Knowing that the public in general strongly opposes most new taxes, Democrats can't admit their love of tax hikes. Instead they must find ways to create new ones by burying them in gigantic bills that are rammed through on party-line votes. Yet another reason to vote Republican.

Democrats Finally Facing Fiscal Reality?

That's a lead story at the LA Times. According to the Times, Democrats are finally beginning to think that just maybe the deficit could be a slight problem. It's not that they don't still want to spend taxpayer money like drunken sailors, shoveling it to every Democratic-supporting special interest in sight; they do. But they are beginning to feel like it might hurt their reelection chances.

"There's no question that people are almost as concerned about the deficit and government spending as about jobs," said Mark Mellman, a pollster who works closely with congressional Democrats. "It is not just about the actual dollars — it is a metaphor for wasted money and lack of discipline and long-term economic decline."

Here's a small piece of advice for anyone concerned about deficits and government spending. Stop voting for Democrats. The standard response to that is for a Democrat or independent to point to the Bush administration and the last time the GOP controlled Congress and say, look how much Republicans spent under Bush. And it's certainly true that there are big government, big spending Republicans, and that the GOP went on a spending spree during the Bush years. But while they were doing so, Democrats were howling for even more spending, accusing Bush of cutting programs even as he increased expenditures. No matter how much money Republicans want to spend, Democrats always want to spend more -- except maybe on defense and national security, the one area where government spending is most justifiable. It's a law of U.S. politics. So if you are an independent whose number one issue is cutting government spending, vote Republican. No matter how bad Republicans might be on spending, Democrats are going to be worse -- usually much worse. You can bank on it. 

Republican Nanny-Statism

Many nanny-state efforts come from the left, and tend to be supported by Democrats. But unfortunately the GOP is also complicit in efforts to restrict personal freedom and undermine the notion of individual responsibility. A prime example was a law restricting online gambling, passed by a Republican-controlled Congress in 2006, and set to go in effect on June 1. Congressman Barney Frank (D) is sponsoring a bill to block the law by legalizing online gaming. Here's the response from Republican Spencer Bachus of Alabama.

he would do everything in his power to stop the legalization of Internet gambling, specifically singling out online poker. 

"Internet poker is the crack cocaine of gambling," Bachus told ABCNews.com. "Young people are particularly vulnerable – we don't want to put a casino in every dorm room in the country. Compulsive gambling, by many accounts, is a very serious, growing problem."

We have to ban it for the children! -- actually college-age adults in this case. Bachus sounds like a typical nanny-state Democrat. He thinks we need big government to protect people from themselves. No one can possibly take responsibility for whether or not they want to do some online gambling. We need people like Congressman Bachus to ban it for our own good.

It's very difficult to present the GOP as the party of smaller government, personal responsibility, and individual freedom -- even though it usually is in contrast to Democrats -- when we have Republican idiots like Bachus and his cohorts acting just like typical big government Democrats.