What the President Should, But Won’t, Say in his State of the Union Address
When it comes down to it, there are really only five first-tier issues facing America:
1. We need jobs, and fast. The policies enacted by Presidents Bush and Obama have failed to stimulate the economy.
2. We need to eliminate the deficit in the next 2.5 years.
3. We have too many abortions committed every year.
4. We have two conflicts overseas being run ineffectively and inefficiently.
5. Corruption and transparency in government are at unacceptably high and low, respectively, levels. Additionally, Big Government and Big Business collusion is at a level that is entirely unethical.
President Obama should, but won’t, admit that the State of our Union is precarious, and should do the following:
1. He will push for a flat tax or a national sales tax, as well as the concurrent elimination of all other federal taxes in America on our citiWzens.
2. He will push to eliminate or lower the minimum wage.
3. The Federal Reserve will be audited annually, and will have less power.
4. He will follow through on his recent op-ed to eliminate some regulations.
5. He will repeal the Affordable Care Act, and push to institute tort reform and Dartmouth Atlas-style payment reform. He will also increase the size of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) so it can begin to cut down on the $100 billion, give or take, of fraud in Medicare and Medicaid.
6. He will convince his fellow Democrats to make the individual health insurance market less government-influenced.
7. He will try to raise the Social Security retirement age to 70 in the next two decades, and wall off Congress’ ability to take from the Social Security Administration (SSA) trust fund. Means-testing of Social Security will also take place.
8. He will eliminate or cut down the size of the Departments of Education and Agriculture, and eliminate all $90+ billion in private-sector subsidies to various energy, agriculture and other industries.
9. While the President should ban abortions, the fact is that he supports them. Given this reality, he should support H.R. 3, which bans all federal funding of abortions. He should also work to enact more welfare reforms and proper sexual education so that young people don’t think of abortion as a) necessary, and b) birth control.
10. He should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan by the end of this year, or at the latest by the end of 2012. We’ve spent more lives and dollars in those nations than ever expected, and there is no end in sight. Sending more troops to protect one’s political rear end does not count as a “strategy.”
11. He should push for term limits, and complete transparency for all Members of Congress. As an example: All donors to campaigns and Members will be recorded and posted on A Member’s wall and official website. The amount donated will be posted as well, and the issue(s) this person related their funding to. This will be done within 24 hours of the donations.)
12. Cap-and-trade should be off the table, and the lightbulb ban should be ditched.
13. Members should stop receiving pay the day they leave Congress. The idea of a lifetime pension is ridiculous for a public servant.
14. There should never be another TARP-style bailout ever again.
Obviously, I am a rather conservative individual, and President Obama is not. However, I think many of the above suggestions are not extreme, and in fact are things that could be supported on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, the event is more about political partisanship than actual results, which is symptomatic of why our nation is headed into deep, deep trouble in the next few years.
Update: Silly me- I forgot to mention in the “jobs” portion of this post that he should allow more opportunities for nuclear power, and in the budget section that he should push for reform of our defense contracting policies.
Comparing Bush Spending to Clinton Spending
Yesterday, Jed Lewison of Daily Kos put up a post comparing Clinton’s eight years of spending to Bush’s eight years of spending. The post- which cited the very reputable Tax Policy Center for its budget claims- showed just how badly Bush spent compared to Clinton. According to Lewison, Clinton saved over $100 billion in his final budget, Fiscal Year 2001.
I found the post interesting- not the least because Lewison cited the TPC, a partnership of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution- but also because TPC’s (and, thus, Lewison’s) claims are in direct contrast to what the Treasury itself shows in the 2000-2001 Fiscal Year, which is an increase in the federal debt of over $100 billion. I decided to contact Lewison about his claims. Below are the questions I sent, and his responses:
1. According to the Treasury, the debt increased from 9/30/2000 to 9/30/2001. What are the differences between the numbers you used and the numbers from the Treasury?
2. How much of the Bush debt you cited can be attributed to the growth in entitlements started pre-Clinton and pre-Bush years (i.e. not including the Medicare Drug Bill, etc. that added to the debt) and that obviously grew during both presidencies?
Lewison’s response:
1) The increase in total debt is basically an increase in the Social Security Trust Fund (i.e., intragovernmental debt, money that the government owes itself, which accounts for a bit over a third of all debt). I’m not an expert on all the accounting rules, but if you look at the non-intragovernmental debt, it decreased. But how Social Security is accounted for is a separate issue from the overall fiscal well being of the Federal government under Bush and Clinton.
2) Outside of new programs like the Medicare drug plan, the rate of growth in entitlements should be a wash; since they are proscribed by law, both administrations would have experienced growth in them. The underlying demographics would have had to have been huge to explain the difference in overall spending growth rates.
Regarding #1, Clinton almost balanced the annual budget, but never took care of the long-term entitlement issues America was (and still is) expected to face. So while he (and his Republican Congresses) should get credit for almost balancing the budget, they should also get blame for not touching the Third Rail of politics that is Social Security. I think Lewison is mostly right on this one, though I disagree with his last sentence. (Note: the 2000-2001 recession cut into the revenues in FY2001, which Clinton could not have accounted for in his FY2001 budget, since the recession started one month after the start of FY2001.)
Lewison is a bit more inaccurate in his second point. The rate of entitlements can’t be a wash, as they continue to annually increase as a percentage of the national budget. This in no way excuses Bush and the Republicans for their spending spree(s), nor the Democrats who were in charge for two fiscal years during the Bush presidency, but it does clarify things a bit, I think.
Lewison’s post does point out that a Democratic president spent much better than a Republican president, and rightly so. He did, however, miss that that Bush was opposed by most Republicans on TARP (which Democrats mostly supported, as well as much of the Republican leadership), and while he acknowledged the drop in revenues from the recession at one point in the post, he neglected to do the final math. Using Lewison’s numbers:
- The FY2009 deficit was $1.4 trillion;
- the stimulus accounted for $200 billion of that deficit;
- and the recession accounted for $400 billion losses in revenue for FY2009.
So, while the deficit was an atrocious $800 billion, what Bush was directly responsible for in FY2009 deficit was not nearly as bad as Lewison would like to think. It certainly was not as bad as the FY2010 or proposed FY2011 budgets under President Obama (who, admittedly, has to deal with a terrible recession and seven decades of entitlements and many years of war he is not responsible for).
Overall, as I have been saying for some time, both parties need to grow up. The Debt-Paying Generation is here, as a previous post pointed out, and unless we get a batch of politicians willing to reform how much we spend on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and defense, the situation is only going to get worse. (And no, the new health care law won’t help prevent that financial worsening.)
Full disclosure: I informed Lewison I would likely be using his comments in a post. I am not pulling a bait-and-switch by asking him for his thoughts without disclosing I would use them.
Leave Afghanistan
I know RJ will vehemently disagree with me, but here is an op-ed I wrote about leaving Afghanistan that Daily Caller was kind enough to publish:
On Monday, a former professor and I were chatting, and the war in Afghanistan came up. I have been supporting a 100% pull-out from that country- as well as Iraq- for some time now, and think that with the General McChrystal issue hitting the fan (for the record, I support the president’s acceptance of the general’s resignation), it’s as good a time as any to post about why we need to leave the country.
First, we should leave for humanitarian/ethical reasons. We are sending servicemembers to that country to die for an Afghan leader who is corrupt, and whose brother is a criminal. What is our goal over there? The Afghanistan people are, at best, a tribal people with no real central government and no willingness to even have a central government. Being there to have access to Pakistan is just not a good enough reason anymore. Secondly, to (admittedly, hesitantly) quote a front page poster at Daily Kos, the worse Afghanistan gets, the less likely we are to leave. Since when does a proper cost-benefit analysis include sending good money after bad, and since when does honoring those who have valiantly served, been injured and/or died in Afghanistan include sending more young people to die without cause?
Secondly, we should leave because the American people don’t support this war. Oh, they say they do. But as New York Times columnist Bob Herbert described in December of last year, our support is minimal. Some money or other means of assistance is sent by those affected directly or indirectly by the war (friends and family with military members overseas, etc.) and some truly patriotic Americans, but most of the nation is satisfied with rhetoric pulled from blogs, talking heads and Associated Press articles. (Oh, yeah, and they have yellow ribbons on their bumpers.) As Herbert put it,
The reason it is so easy for the U.S. to declare wars, and to continue fighting year after year after year, is because so few Americans feel the actual pain of those wars. We’ve been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan longer than we fought in World Wars I and II combined. If voters had to choose right now between instituting a draft or exiting Afghanistan and Iraq, the troops would be out of those two countries in a heartbeat.
Thirdly, we should leave Afghanistan because, despite the very good reasons for entering in 2001, Bush and Congress ignored Afghanistan for half a decade while focusing on Iraq. Whether or not we should have focused on Iraq is a different debate for a different time…but they failed to conduct the war in Afghanistan with efficiency, and President Obama is not improving things. Instead, as George Will pointed out this week, we have created a military for babysitting. Even with President Obama sending 30,000 troops over to the nation, we have a timetable. Since when has letting the foe know when it’s safe to come out become American policy? Obama’s mistakes are somewhat different than Bush’s…but they have the same consequences for our young people dying over there. Again, the cost-benefit analysis is not in favor of staying in Afghanistan.
Fourth, we just don’t have a clue as to what we’re doing, as pointed out by The Washington Examiner. Period. Is Karzai a good guy for us? It depends on the day. Are we trying to kill terrorists, or win the minds of the people? Um…the answer is unclear- ask again later. Is our enemy in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen or Afghanistan? I don’t think anyone really knows, despite what they may say. It could be all four. Are we going to invade Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen next, as a result?
After our conversation, my professor sent me an e-mail with the following title: “Until: 1) We decide to WIN wars again & 2) The Harvard kids also serve …this says it all.” He was referring to a recent Herbert column, in which Herbert talked about the courage to leave Afghanistan. The fact is that if we want to win wars, we should have a beginning, a middle and an end planned out. We should bring in enough troops. We should know the culture. We should not be convinced by elitists to enter a conflict- elitists whose their total involvement in war consists of debating on TV or making a profit off of the deaths of our countrymen. Pay the taxes to support the war, or do a USO tour, or encourage your child to join the military. Something. (On that note, great credit goes to people like Senator McCain and Vice-President Biden, whose children have served in post-9/11 conflicts, and especially to Senator McCain, who supports the war despite the risk to his family.)
I wasn’t alive in 1972, but my professor, my father and an increasing number of right-of-center individuals are saying the same thing- they’ve seen Afghanistan before. Of course- and it is now clichéd- it was called Vietnam, then. Since Bush took office, our debt has risen nearly 125%, with over 10% of that cost directly attributable to entering Iraq and Afghanistan. We’ve lost thousands of young men and women. As much as it pains me to say it, the honorable thing to do is tactically retreat, starting tomorrow, and conduct a full pull-out from Afghanistan and Iraq, and honor our fallen by swearing to never, ever forget our first duty to the troops is to use them to protect our nation, not appease the egos and wallets that have benefited over the last nine years from our involvement in the Middle East.
My friend Tom Qualtere, who works for The Heritage Foundation, wrote an op-ed for Daily Caller back in March, and in it he said that Millennial/Generation Y Americans “are the 9/11 generation.” I agree with him, if only because the specter of 9/11 has dominated this nation’s, and our young people’s, thinking and culture since the towers fell. According to Tom, however, our duty is as follows:
But for those of us who’ve chosen a vocation on the home front, our support for them and their mission must be unambiguous and unwavering. It is time for conservatism’s 9/11 generation to fully embrace and defend the role that history has bestowed upon us and wear our hawk feathers more proudly than ever.
Tom and I disagree on many policy issues, and Afghanistan is one of them. He will undoubtedly respond to this opinion by saying we are letting the terrorists win by leaving Afghanistan. This would be the case if we just left Afghanistan (and Iraq) and forgot about the Middle East. However, when we leave, we must do so with the following assertions to the rest of the world (and our own citizenry):
- We are going to get the government out of the way and drill for oil within our national borders, build wind farms and build nuclear power plants. No longer will we send tens of billions every year to nations that support terrorism and hate us. While I do believe we went into Afghanistan and Iraq for good and ethical reasons, the fact is that part of that reasoning was for the benefits of oil for America. Well, take away the need for overseas oil, and we can start minding our own business for a change. Moreover, many terrorist organizations will have less money with which to fund attacks against us. This will take years, of course- but better late than never, and the sooner we start the better off we will be.
- The international community has for too long relied on our military. We have over 700 bases worldwide, and given our budget issues, this is unsustainable. If other nations- the same ones who criticize and condemn us if we don’t get involved (see Rwanda), but also if we do (see Iraq), with world affairs- want to utilize our blood and treasure, they can sign treaties and trade deals that give America a slice of the economic pie we have not asked for during our six-plus decades of world protection. Protection of other nations should be handled on a case-by-case basis, not with the assumption we will help every nation without such agreements. Supporting Kuwait in 1991, for example, was done because a) it was in our national interest, and b) because we had the ability to strike and win without a prolonged, expensive endeavor. Essentially, the cost-benefit analysis was positive.
- Protect our borders with some of the troops we bring home, among other good immigration policies (allowing border guards to shoot; encouraging legal immigration through incentives, etc.). Terrorists will have a hard time hurting us without being able to get in. Good, effective border policy will also give us the time to better our energy policies, as mentioned above.
- The jihadists will probably claim victory; after all, they drove out the “Great Satan,” much as they did with the Russians in the 1980s. This is a major concern, as 9/11 was the culmination of a nearly a decade’s worth of minor attacks that went unanswered by President Clinton. However, that’s where minding our own business and providing them with less money come into play, as well as the treaties I mentioned above. By minding our own business, we will blunt some of the jihadist propaganda. Secondly, without money they will have less success in attacking us in our own nation. Thirdly, should our intelligence see a threat, they can work with intelligence agencies in other nations and sign treaties and work together to deal with threats both before and as they arise. Lastly, should all else fail, we will have our own border control forces.
A clarification: I do not support an isolationist foreign policy platform, nor do I believe we have caused all of the world’s problems. The Middle East would have been a pit of peoples fighting among themselves even if America had never even sent a single dollar or troop there. However, other than supporting Israel and other allies with which we have treaties, or responding as we did after 9/11 to a direct threat on our nation, we should not be in that part of the world. The difficulty, of course- and this is why we have experts in government and the private sector- is striking the correct balance between leaving with our tail between our legs, thereby encouraging boldness by our enemies, and leaving with our heads held high without showing weakness. I think it is possible to do the latter by leaving now, though I admit the idea is balanced on a blade’s edge, and would require much delicate work.
It is difficult to say something is not worth vast amounts of effort- in this case, money and blood- put into it. It’s especially difficult when we have not won a major military conflict (except in 1991) since World War II. However, pride is only useful if those with the pride (i.e. politicians, think tank observers, etc.) are in the conflicts or are otherwise directly affected. Otherwise, the consequences of the pride are simply foisted onto those patriotic Americans who die or are maimed as a direct result of the pride. The delicate balance necessary to leave Afghanistan without handing a public relations boon to our terrorist enemies is an important step in owning up to the mistakes pride have bought us in the War on Terror.
*Originally published at DailyCaller.com.
Interview With Representative Phil Gingrey, M.D. (R-GA)
Yesterday morning, I had the opportunity to interview Representative Phil Gingrey (R-GA) about the new Republican initiative, “America Speaking Out” (ASO). The initiative, designed to encourage Americans to speak out about the issues important to them- similar to the program launched by House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), YouCut- was launched Tuesday morning.
Unfortunately, I neglected to hit the “record” button for the interview, and because I expected to record the interview, I did not have a notepad and pen available. As such, the below summary of the interview is from memory. So I do apologize ahead of time.
I opened up by asking Gingrey to compare and contrast the Contract With America with America Speaking Out. Gingrey said ASO is a forum for the American people to describe what they believe the issues are that Republicans should take on but, unlike the Contract (which, according to Gingrey, was launched sometime around Labor Day, 1993) ASO is designed for action before the midterm elections. The Contract, of course, was to be utilized after the elections.
I followed up with a question about YouCut which, according to Steve Benen of Political Animal, would only cut $1.1 billion a year if all cuts from the first week’s programs were introduced, never mind just one of them. I asked him what he thought of the program’s probable effectiveness, especially since Americans want to see good leadership on the major issues as opposed to the relatively meager cuts proposed in the YouCut program. Gingrey said the program was designed to see what Americans want to cut, including a program he thought should be targeted that related to limiting government unions. Gingrey said this would save hundreds of millions from the budget. Unfortunately, we never got around to answering my entire question due to time constraints.
Moving on, I asked Gingrey what he thought of the $1.3 trillion in cuts currently being proposed by House Republicans on the House Budget Committee. He said he was not directly involved with that- he is not on the Budget Committee- but that it was a good place for young (I assume he meant newly-elected, as well) Republicans to get involved with the budget process and seeing how Congress worked. He was very supportive of the proposals by Reps. R with the budget process and seeing how Congress worked. He was very supportive of the proposals by Reps. Ryan (R-WI), Price (R-GA) and others.
My last question to the Congressman related to trust. I asked him what, besides voting, the public can do to hold Republicans responsible in the future, to prevent the fiscal and other disasters that happened under the Republican watch between 2001 and 2006. Gingrey said he was not asking the American public for a leap of faith…but that he was asking for a couple of giant steps. He said he believed part of the problem was many newly-elected Congressman tend to follow the crowd, trying not to make waves. Gingrey said this would not be the case if Americans gave Republicans a second chance, and he thought Republicans would do a better, more trustworthy job if given that second chance.
Unfortunately, I was only allotted ten minutes with the Congressman, so I was unable to follow up with some of the questions that did not receive complete answers. The Congressman did admit to an error during the Bush years without provocation, saying that he voted for Medicare Part D (something he highlighted when admitting past fault by Republicans on spending), but was disappointed “we” (Republicans) never paid for it.
Note: Thanks to Ericka Andersen of the House Republican Conference for setting this interview up, and thanks to Rep. Gingrey for his time.
*Cross-posted at www.rightosphere.com.
Wanted: A Mainstream Media That’s Actually Mainstream
Yesterday, an interesting series of articles came out that say a lot about the national media and the Tea Party movement.
First, allow me to introduce a Washington Post article describing the anti-racism battle the Tea Party movement is fighting in the public arena. I found the article on the Huffington Post political page (since updated). According to the article,
The challenge is made tougher by one of the defining elements of the tea party movement: No one person controls it. There is no national communications strategy. And incidents of racist slogans and derisive depictions of President Obama continue to crop up, providing fuel for critics who say the president’s skin color is a powerful reason behind the movement’s existence.
In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, most Americans see the movement as motivated by distrust of government, opposition to the policies of Obama and the Democratic Party, and broad concern about the economy. But nearly three in 10 see racial prejudice as underlying the tea party.
Supporters and opponents alike say the movement draws its strength from opposition to Obama’s policies, but they split deeply on the race question, according to the poll: About 61 percent of tea party opponents say racism has a lot to do with the movement, a view held by just 7 percent of tea party supporters.
A matter of perception
That indicates that the issue of race and the tea party is largely about differing perceptions, reflected in how people view the well-known illustration of Obama made up like the Joker from the Batman movie “The Dark Knight.” Some see the image, with its exaggerated lips, as an offensive reference to minstrelsy. Obama’s critics, however, say President George W. Bush was also portrayed as the Joker, as well as Dracula.
Now, there are multiple errors in this article, including the fact that neither of these Post sources regarding the poll cite the demographics in the poll- such as how many Democrats were polled, etc. Secondly, the article fails to note that the Joker picture was made by a liberal college student, not a conservative activist or conservative racist. Lastly, the racist slogans referred to could easily be the ones held by the liberal LaRouche supporters…but the Post simply sticks to the unprofessional and politically hackish general statement of “incidents,” without a single source or citation of the alleged incidents.
Next up on the “interesting article” stage is a Politico article describing the Post’s leftward tilt towards liberal bloggers. To be fair, the Post does have the tremendous writings of Charles Krauthammer and George Will, among other conservative columnists, but the article makes a great case that the Post is clearly heading towards a particular demographic- the young, Internet-savvy liberal. Given the initial article I quoted above, I think Politico was quite timely in its publication of the article.
Last, but not least, on stage we have The New York Times, which as of late has been acting strangely neutral/non-liberal in some of its articles. This latest betrayal of “mainstream” media values is a pretty interesting article about how a record number of black Republicans are running for Congress- a full 32. In the article, accusations of racism within the Tea Party are shot down by the candidates:
The black candidates interviewed overwhelmingly called the racist narrative a news media fiction. “I have been to these rallies, and there are hot dogs and banjos,” said Mr. West, the candidate in Florida, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Army. “There is no violence or racism there.”
As Ed Morrissey noted (emphasis mine),
There was more violence at May Day rallies this past weekend than there have been in over a year of Tea Party rallies. Did the New York Times [sic] cover those and assign them to the entire liberal politisphere in the manner they do here with conservatives? Did they link that violence to the immigration-reform movement in the same way they have with no violence at all at Tea Parties with its attendees?
The same media double standard is true with the supposed racism they keep reporting at Tea Parties. These rallies back candidates like West, Princella Smith, Vernon Parker, Ryan Frazier, and others. They support these candidates for the simple reason that these candidates best represent their views on governance, fiscal policy, and national security. Will they all win? Probably not, although this year looks better than most, but it shows that conservatives have no barriers to entry except on policy and philosophy — just like any other political movement. The media spin on Tea Parties and conservatives has gotten very, very threadbare — and increasingly desperate.
Morrissey is absolutely correct. Poll after poll, as well as outright statements, show just how much liberal power players and media members are missing the mainstream-America nature of the Tea Party, and in doing so, are alienating themselves and their influence in providing real news. When you lose the Times, though…maybe it’s time to admit you have a problem.
Corpse: only the E is Silent.
I don’t mean to dwell on such minutiae, really. However, considering the amount of flack that Former President Bush (43) received over how he pronounced “nuclear,” in what can be considered journalistic fairness, we will look into the same matter with current President Obama.
Some people have difficulties framing certain words a certain way (which tends to be the way others may pronounce them). Sometimes we just can’t seem to get a word right because of our speaking abilities, our accents, or perhaps a good old fat tongue. This can lead to real problems for some people, just ask the Ephraimites in the Book of Judges:
In the story, two Semitic tribes, the Ephraimites and the Gileadites, have a great battle. The Gileadites defeat the Ephraimites, and set up a blockade across the Jordan River to catch the fleeing Ephraimites who were trying to get back to their territory. The sentries asked each person who wanted to cross the river to say the word shibboleth. The Ephraimites, who had no sh sound in their language, pronounced the word with an s and were thereby unmasked as the enemy and slaughtered. (The Story of Shibboleth)
I would recommend that you go to a number of your friends, and hear which ones properly pronounce the month Fe-brew-air-ee instead if Fe-byou-air-ee. So picking on people for pronouncing words is a bit childish, but the left made it a part time occupation during Bush’s eight years, as did popular shows like my two personal favorites The Simpsons and Family Guy. This all tied into the “Bush is Stupid” mantra, and Bush supporters gritted their teeth and said “back off” or perhaps even joined in on the linguistic fun.
Slate.com’s Kate Taylor wrote an article entitled “Why Does Bush Go Nucular?” in which she gives a half-hearted defense of the President’s pronunciation of the word:
When speaking about nuclear weapons, George W. Bush invariably pronounces the word “nucular.” Is this an acceptable pronunciation?
Not really. Changing “nu-clee-ar” into “nu-cu-lar” is an example of what linguists call metathesis, which is the switching of two adjacent sounds. (Think of it this way: “nook le yer” becomes “nook ye ler.”) This switching is common in English pronunciation; you might pronounce “iron” as “eye yern” rather than “eye ron.”
To Fox News: Job Well Done
Since November 5, 2008, I have criticized Fox News for jumping off the deep end in its criticisms of the Obama administration and for going from relatively “Fair & Balanced” to unprofessional, over-the-top and reactionary. However, I must now applaud Fox for nailing the Obama administration on its recent no-bid contract with a Democratic campaign contributor. Why? Because the administration has decided to cancel its contract with the donor’s company, and put the contract out to bid. Kudos to Fox for being the first major news network to call out the administration on this- after all, President Obama criticized no-bid contracts on the campaign trail and after being elected as President- but also, most importantly, because such contracts are another symbol of the collusion between government and business that happens far too much in Washington. It was wrong under President Bush, and it is wrong under Obama. As a news source, Fox did its job. Furthermore, as a watchdog of the government (which all press should be), Fox also did its job.
Regarding the cancellation of the contract, though, I have a couple of questions. First, should the administration have canceled this particular contract after signing it? Whether it’s good, ethical business or not, conservatives have rightly gone after the Obama administration for not honoring the rule of law and contracts with General Motors investors. In this case, the contract was already signed. It was unethical for the administration to assign a no-bid contract to this contractor, but it wasn’t illegal. Additionally, the donor and company owner, Vincent V. Checch, told Fox that he did now know it was a no-bid contract until after it was awarded to his company. Since we have no evidence to corroborate or contradict Checch’s statement on the matter, can we assume he did nothing wrong? Or is that naive, considering that sweetheart deals are given as easily as candy in Washington, DC?
Longer-term, what solutions should conservatives offer to prevent no-bid contracts, especially as tit-for-tat campaign and donor trade-offs? Should we allow this breach of ethics this one time, and then try to pass a law limiting how contracts can be handled? Or, better yet, pass a constitutional amendment banning no-bid government contracts? Or, perhaps, shrink the size of government (by getting out of Iraq, for one) so that fewer contracts are signed while passing a constitutional amendment or law banning no-bid government contracts? After all, laws are well and good, but taking away the opportunity for corruption and ethics violations- through transparency and lessening the size and scope of government- would be even more effective.
Who Pays More Taxes?
Why, it’s the wealthy.
As a point of clarification, yes, I do think the tanking of the economy also affects how many taxes come out of the bottom 95% of earners. However, the point is still solidly accurate- the Bush tax cuts weren’t for the rich.
?Listen? Stop Calling me a Crypto-Nazi??
I have always found it interesting that we like to believe in the unparalleled importance of the historical window of time and space we currently occupy.? Apparently, for many people progress is two-fold: it is the manifest movement of the zeitgeist forward, meaning for the better.? Secondly, as technology becomes more sophisticated (ie. ?better? as many people would have you think) so do the problems faced by people.? I like to think that this idea is articulated best by Biggie Smalls, when Puff Daddy (at the time), Ma$e and Notorious BIG performed the song Mo Money Mo Problems.? Since we do not have ?mo? Money? we have to settle with the belief that we have more problems because we general tend to have ?mo?? of everything else (including elapsed time).? What kills me is when people make comments like ?I just think it?s so hard for kids today,? because having to take buses across town to co-mingle races was not hard.? In the political spectrum, people tend to quip that ?political attacks have gotten to personal and ugly;? because meeting a man for the purpose of dueling and shooting a former Secretary of the Treasury dead just wasn?t personal enough (see Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton).? We have a tendency for generational narcissism.?
The latest personal smear being employed in today?s debate regarding Health Care is calling someone a ?Nazi? or comparing another to Hitler or the likes.? I say this in jest, because any Conservative knows that this technique has been used against Conservatives for years and years.? Just to throw in a personal anecdote: I was once caught up in a friendly debate with the ?College Democrats? table at my respective University, when my opposition to some of the ideas espoused by the young lady I was engaging warranted me being called a ?Klansmen? (to which I told her I was unaware they had changed their membership guidelines to allow Catholics in now) and then I was called anti-Semitic a mere five minutes later.? No name calling exchange is quite as infamous as the 1968 exchange between Messrs William Buckley Jr. and Gore Vidal.? A cult classic.
Now we are seeing both sides using the old Nazi name-calling with a tenacious fervor.? Both sides are invoking the images of a regime none of them know much more about than what they have seen in the movies or read in books (I would likely place my bets on the former).? Interestingly enough, nobody dares bring what Nazism entailed; the slaughter of 12 million people.? It?s like we don?t have the gonads to actually say what we mean, leaving those in the audience to deduce this on their own.? Nazis equal Holocaust.? Obama equals a Nazi.? Therefore, Obama will lead to the Holocaust.? What is the point of invoking the memory of one of the most heinous regimes known to mankind if you are not going to invoke the outcome of that regime and what made them so Notorious?? Because your comparison is disingenuous and loathsome; any intellectual nincompoop can call another person a Nazi, and each time that happens, the memory of those who actually knew the Nazis diminishes little by little.? David Frum has a decent article which expresses this sentiment at NewMajority.?
Unfortunately for Conservatives, there is a populist uprising that is including many average Americans as well as ?below-average? Americans.? I don?t say this from the point of view as though I am ?better? than them or an elitist.? I mean this as Americans who know little about their own country, history, or even politics.? The good thing: they are getting involved in politics.? This is the point of a liberal democracy, no?? The bad thing: they are getting involved in politics, and they are tending to be the more boisterous and in the end, the ones on the news.? Funny how short-lived our memory span is however, when not but years before people had signs of President Bush as Hitler, and Republicans as Nazis, and accused us of killing babies for oil and the likes.? Obviously that is proper discourse when utilized by the fringe left because we expect that from them; perhaps we should be proud of the fact that the Right is held to a higher standard, even by the left.? I believe that we should do a better job living up to that standard.? I do not think that the people protesting should stop, they are doing their country a service, they ARE making a difference in politics and their regime, they should be damn proud!? Using the terms ?Nazi? and ?Hitler? loosely is disingenuous and abominable in the end (Leo Strauss use to refer to reducto ad Hitlerum), but it is selfish of us to pretend like we are bearing witness to a hostile politics like none that has ever been seen before.
-rj
