Click here for higher resolution.

Click here for higher resolution.

Click here for a higher resolution version.

Click here for a higher resolution version.

There’s a disturbing hypocrisy emerging from within the “establishment” wing of the Republican Party lately – a belief that it’s okay to work against fiscal conservatives who garner the support of the vast majority of GOP voters, just not fiscal liberals.

On the one hand it is clearly permissible for establishment Republicans to endorse Democratic opponents – even work on their campaigns – in the event the GOP nominee is not to their liking.  Yet on the other hand fiscally conservative, pro-liberty Republicans who offer anything less than their full-throated support of liberal GOP candidates are routinely accused of “destroying the party.”  Also many of these fiscal conservatives – who happen to be advancing the very limited government ideals the GOP is supposed to stand for – are mocked by establishment Republican politicians and told that their movement will “die out.”

Frankly, the fiscal recklessness of Bush-era Republicans is what nearly killed the GOP – and it is only the socialist overreaching of Barack Obama and his Congressional allies that has afforded the Republican Party an opportunity to become relevant again.  But can America afford another aborted “Republican Revolution?” Particularly if the party’s default setting is to put its own political interests (i.e. Washington’s special interests) ahead of the core beliefs it is supposed to be fighting for?

Along with its abysmal fiscal record during the prior decade, this dangerous proclivity for protecting fiscal liberals (while ostracizing fiscal conservatives) is the latest evidence that the GOP – or at least its establishment wing – is still every bit as dangerous to our pocketbooks and personal liberties as Obama and his army of socialists.

Perhaps the most glaring example of this trend took place in New York’s special Congressional election last fall, when liberal Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava – a supporter of the failed Obama “stimulus” – saw the vast majority of GOP voters in the 23rd Congressional District defect to the ranks of conservative candidate Doug Hoffman.

With her support slipping into single digits, Scozzafava pulled out of the race – but rather than endorsing Hoffman, she chose to back Democratic candidate Bill Owens, who won the race by a narrow margin. Amazingly, in spite of his huge lead over Scozzafava, some Republicans still blamed Hoffman for “handing the seat to a Democrat,” a storyline that the national media eagerly lapped up.

In Utah last week, another “Republican” demonstrated his definition of loyalty to the party.

Jim Bennett, the son and campaign manager of soon-to-be-former U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett, announced recently that he was working for the campaign of Democrat Sam Granato.  In doing so, he declared that Granato’s beliefs were “more consistent with the values of mainstream Utah than Mike Lee,” the conservative Republican nominee who defeated his father for the GOP nomination.

Once again, these establishment Republicans apparently believe that anyone who takes the ideals of limited government, individual liberty and lower taxes seriously is some sort of fringe ideological kook – despite the fact that these values form the basis not only of the Republican Party, but of the American Republic itself. Fortunately, contrary to the wishes of GOP politicians like Dede Scozzafava and Jim Bennett – it is becoming increasingly clear that Republican voters prefer candidates who support these values.

The vision of government articulated by our Founding Fathers is not going to “die out.”  Nor is common sense fiscal policy that upholds a constitutional view of government’s role in our free market economy and our individual lives.  If the Republican Party wishes to regain the trust of the people it betrayed during the Bush years, then it should think long and hard about reversing its current “default setting” with respect to party purity.

Otherwise, its ideological impurity will continue to shine through.

The author is chairman of Americans for Limited Government.

Click here for a higher resolution version.

The more things “change,” the more they stay the same in Barack Obama’s Washington, D.C. – especially when it comes to government transparency.

After decrying his predecessor as the “most secretive” President in American history, then-candidate Obama promised in 2008 to usher in a new era of transparency in our nation’s capital.  Two years later however, this campaign rhetoric has proven every bit as hollow and hypocritical as Obama’s pledge to refrain from raising taxes on the middle class (which he violated at least a dozen times upon signing his new socialized medicine legislation).

Obama has talked a good game on transparency, but he has done far worse than fail to keep his promise and deliver a more open government – he has actually moved our country in the wrong direction.

On his first full day in office, Obama sent out a widely-publicized memo to government agencies regarding his views on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a collection of laws that exist to ensure public access to public documents.

“All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open government,” Obama wrote.

While Obama’s words were praised by both the legacy media and open government advocates, the truth is his administration’s actions have made it more difficult for citizens to access public documents.

In fact, according to a March 2010 Associated Press analysis of FOIA responses at 17 major agencies, 466,872 FOIA denials were issued during the Obama administration’s first year in office – a 50 percent increase over the previous year.  Also, a March 2010 study by George Washington University’s National Security Archive found that two-thirds of federal agencies ignored Obama’s memo and made no changes whatsoever to their FOIA policy.

In addition to denying more FOIA requests, Obama has refused to call for an audit of the secret Federal Reserve Bank and rescinded Bush-era disclosure requirements for labor union leaders –  the same union bosses who provided over $100 million (and nearly half a million volunteers) for Obama and Democratic Congressional candidates in 2008.

The hypocrisy on transparency doesn’t end there, though.

As part of the draconian new financial regulations Obama and his Congressional allies are imposing on the private sector, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is now virtually exempt from FOIA law.  Under a little-known provision of the new law, the SEC would not have to release any information derived from “surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities” – a purposefully broad definition that encompasses virtually everything the SEC does.

“It allows the SEC to block the public’s access to virtually all SEC records,” former agency attorney turned whistleblower Gary Aguirre told FOX News. “It permits the SEC to promulgate its own rules and regulations regarding the disclosure of records without getting the approval of the Office of Management and Budget, which typically applies to all federal agencies.”

In fact, within days of the new law being signed, the SEC was already turning down FOIA requests from media outlets citing the new exemption.

While Obama permits yet another government agency to hide its dealings from public view, he has repeatedly touted the “increased transparency” that the new legislation provides with respect to private sector financial transactions.  Once again, he is perpetuating a double standard by empowering a growing Washington bureaucracy that remains hell bent on assuming more influence over our individual freedoms and the free market economy.

While private sector firms face new fees and regulations, government agencies are given unlimited streams of taxpayer revenue and Orwellian power to play with – even though government lending policies (and a failure to reform government-backed mortgage behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) contributed mightily to the recent collapse of the sub-prime market.

If our free market and individual freedoms are to survive, we must reverse our current course – limiting regulation and demanding absolute transparency with respect to the few core functions government ought to provide.

The author is chairman of Americans for Limited Government.

Click here for a higher resolution version.

Click here for a higher resolution version.