United Liberty

Jim DeMint’s abrupt depature from the United States Senate yesterday is opening a door for Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC), a member of the 2010 Tea Party class.

While there are other names being floated as a potential replacement, it’s thought that DeMint, who resigned from the Senate to head the Heritage Foundation, wants South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley to appoint Scott to succeed him:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has made it known in South Carolina that he wants Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) to replace him in the Senate, two state Republican sources tell The Hill.

The sources, requesting anonymity to speak candidly, say Scott is DeMint’s preference for the seat, though the final decision will be Gov. Nikki Haley’s (R). She will appoint someone to serve in DeMint’s place after he officially resigns from the Senate to take over the conservative Heritage Foundation in January. An election for the seat will then be held in 2014 for the remaining two years of the term.

Haley and Scott have a good relationship, according to sources, though it’s unclear how willing she would be to listen to DeMint, who officially stayed neutral during her gubernatorial primary but quietly supported then-Rep. Gresham Barrett (R-S.C.) in the race.

A spokesman for DeMint denied that the senator has pushed Scott.

With Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) leaving the Senate to lead the Heritage Foundation, the speculation on who South Gov. Nikki Haley will appoint to replace him is already churning.

The dynamics here are interesting. Because of his willingness to raise taxes, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is a likely target for primary challenge in 2014. Many names have already been tossed around, but a vacancy shakes that up a bit because Haley could appoint one of Graham’s strongest challengers to replace DeMint, taking a strong challenger out of the mix, or even pick a placeholder.

There was talk this morning that Haley could just appoint herself, but FitsNews has shot down that idea, explaining, “she would first have to resign the governor’s office, meaning that S.C. Lt. Gov. Glenn McConnell would technically have to make that appointment.” And because the two apparently have a contentious relationship, McConnell appointing her would be unlikely.

Over at National Review, Jim Geraghty has a good rundown of names being mentioned as potential candidates to replace DeMint:

Governor Nikki Haley is going to have a lot of options to choose from in the coming days or weeks:

There is a lot of hullabaloo today in the conservative movement. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), perhaps the most conservative member of the Senate, has resigned his seat this morning to succeed Ed Fuelner as President of the Heritage Foundation, the leading conservative think tank:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has resigned from the Senate to take over the conservative Heritage Foundation.

DeMint’s decision to leave the Senate after only eight years shocked Washington. DeMint had been seen as a future Senate leader for his party and was already a leader to a growing number of conservatives in the House and Senate.

“It’s been an honor to serve the people of South Carolina in the United States Senate for the past eight years, but now it’s time for me to pass the torch to someone else and take on a new role in the fight for America’s future,” DeMint said in a statement explaining his resignation.

“I’m leaving the Senate now, but I’m not leaving the fight. I’ve decided to join the Heritage Foundation at a time when the conservative movement needs strong leadership in the battle of ideas. No organization is better equipped to lead this fight and I believe my experience in public office as well as in the private sector as a business owner will help Heritage become even more effective in the years to come.”

House conservatives have found themselves in trouble over the last couple of days simply because they believe Republicans should govern on the principles on which they run during campaigns. As you may have read, Republican leadership is coming down hard on fiscal conservatives by removing them from committee assignments. However, it seems that they’re not bothering to tell them.

During today’s Bloggers Briefing at the Heritage Foundation, Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) explained (via Julie Borowski) that he learned of his removal from the important House Budget Committee from the newspaper.

“I had to read that I was removed from Budget Committee from the newspaper. No one in leadership contacted me” - @repjustinamash.

— Julie Borowski (@JulieBorowski) December 4, 2012

Keep in mind that these are duly elected members of the House of Representatives. Wow. Stay classy, John Boehner.

Jason has already blogged on how Boehner kicked several freshman conservatives off the Budget and Financial committees. Now, here their side of the story, as Representatives Justin Amash of Michigan and Tim Huelskamp of Kansas came to Heritage Foundation to note what they see as the failures of GOP leadership — namely, they’re not running on their advantage of sane fiscal policy, and they will do anything, even hike taxes, in order to avoid cuts in military spending.

Also on hand was David Williams, president of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, who talked about LEED certification, and how it’s a giant racket for the US Green Building Council. The Council is supposedly a nonprofit, but it’s dictated that federal building policy to mandate Gold LEED certification for all government buildings, which nets the Council some $50,000-$200,000 on average per building, on top of taxpayer monies they receive. Nonprofit? I hardly think so.

Since the rise of the Tea Party movement in 2009, free markets and capitalism have received renewed interest. But in a time where protectionism is being pushed by President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, it’s important to remember that free trade has helped the United States and its trading partners prosper.

Yesterday, the Heritage Foundation tweeted out this chart, produced using data from its Index of Economic Freedom, showing that nations that abandon protectionism and embrace free trade have stronger economies, less hunger, and stronger environments:

In the days after the attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which resulted in the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and other security personnel, the White House and administration officials vigorously claimed that the incident was related to the anti-Islamic video, “Innocence of Muslims.”

But before too long that narrative had crumbled as information came forward that the incident was indeed a terrorist attack. Even more concerning than the disinformation campaign waged by the White House was the news that the consulate had been targeted in the past and requested more security just days before the attack.

The Heritage Foundation has put out a new video going through the disinformation campaign waged in the days after the attack, showing some news reel highlights of how the narrative changed from what was initially a cover-up to the truth finally coming out:

Written by Michael F. Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. Posted with permission from Cato @ Liberty.

Sunday’s New York Times features an opinion piece by J.D. Kleinke of the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Kleinke’s thesis is that ObamaCare’s conservative opponents should stop complaining. “ObamaCare is based on conservative, not liberal, ideas.”

If one defines conservative ideas as those that emphasize free markets and personal responsibility, there is zero truth to this claim.

With Congress out of session, the party conventions going on and other issues coming to the forefront of the presidential race, the looming tax hikes seem to have fallen to the side, at least for now.

President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats have insisted that House Republicans go along with raising tax rates on the income earners making over $200,000 and families earning more than $250,000. House Republicans have balked at this over fears that raising taxes, particular during a time of slow job growth, would further hurt the economy. In response to this particular concern, Democrats and apologists of their policies often point to the economic boom during the late 1990s, which occured after then-President Bill Clinton’s tax hikes were passed.

Writing at the Heritage Foundation, Curtis Dubay dispels this myth of Clinton’s presidency, noting that the economy did not live up to its full potential after taxes were raised in the 1990s:

Clinton signed his tax hike into law in September 1993, the same year he took office. It included an increase of the top marginal tax rate from 31 percent to 39.6 percent; repeal of the cap on the 2.9 percent Medicare tax, applying it to every dollar of income instead of capping it to levels of income like the Social Security tax; a 4.3 cent increase in the gas tax; an increase in the taxable portion of Social Security benefits; and a hike of the corporate income tax rate from 34 percent to 35 percent, among other tax increases.