“Lost, Lost, Lost…I’ve Lost My Marbles” Thelobbyist and Birtherism
Let me throw one thing out their for those of our readers who could not help but notice that our Editor-in-Chief seems to have lost his marbles (<- Must Watch Hook video): we do not condone “birther-ism”! I want to point out that I suffered through the video that was posted under the heading “Obama Admits He’s Not a Natural Born Citizen,” and it is overwhelmingly apparent that the opening scene of the video, which shows the President addressing an auditorium full of people, has been dubbed so that when the damning statements were made, his face was not shown on the movie clip. It has been doctored.
I want to apologize, for I fear our beloved Nick’s proximity in Georgia to the Georgia Guidestones seems to have affected his ability to differentiate between what he hears on Coast to Coast AM and what is the actual truth. I love a good conspiracy theory, but when they interfere in everyday life that could harm the safety of the United States, I get a bit apprehensive being associated with such accusations. The Birtherism is funny to a point; just like chemtrails or LaRouchian fueled Conspiracies involving Neocons, Leo Strauss and Freemasons. As long as we treat it as it is… a joke.
-rj (non-Birther)
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.
Who’s Selling Snake Oil?
In today’s “This Week” appearance, George Will hammers the president over his woeful attempts to turn the mid-term elections from being about his policies to being about the “snake oil” (the president’s words) of his opposition. Check out Jake Tapper’s introduction to the issue; the clip of the president speaking; and Will’s comments, from the beginning of the video through 1:34.
Interview with Bob Turner (R-CAND/NY-9)
The campaign of Bob Turner- who is running against Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) this year- was kind enough to schedule an interview with Mr. Turner. The interview was originally published at www.rightosphere.com, and is seen below.
Dustin Siggins: So I was reading National Review, the review you got, and I found it very interesting- especially because, on a personal level, I tried to interview Rep. Weiner some weeks ago
Bob Turner: *Chuckles*
DS: On his Politico piece about Social Security. I was going to do a bit of investigative journalism, getting his perspective; getting the perspective of someone else who disagrees with him; and his press secretary answered my phone calls, never responded to my e-mails, and blew me off. So it was very interesting how that worked, especially considering how much he’s on Fox, and how much he’s out there, that he wouldn’t want to talk to someone. I found that very interesting. So I will admit I have a bit of a personal vendetta in going to talk to you.
BT: *Chuckles* Okay.
DS: I have no shame in admitting that. Speaking of Politico, I’m sure you have an opinion on Social Security. Do you agree with the Congressman that Social Security is sound, and if not, how do you fix it?
BT: Weiner suggests that Social Security is sound. In reality, it is no more secure than any other U.S. debt obligations. Some people think the Social Security fund is like a secured savings account, but Social Security money has been spent. What’s left is an IOU, so this is no more secure than every one of our other debts, and all our debts are reliant on the state of the economy.
DS: Okay. How would you- what do you think are good policies to implement, to prevent this IOU from getting worse, which it’s only going to, at this rate?
BT: Well, to fix and to secure Social Security, we need to address the overall health of the economy. Obama’s economic policies- which Weiner supports- are a failure. The way to fix the economy is not through social stimulus spending, but we have to promote business growth. That is the tried-and-true way; it’s still tax cuts and tax credits for research and development; lower capital gains tax; incentives for venture capitalists; new business credits. These are the kind of programs and stimuli that create jobs and expand the economy.
We also have to keep an eye on prudent spending- spending cuts, reduction in government expansion, elimination of waste- you know, all of the tried-and-true methods to get this train back on track.
DS: Okay. I’ll take a little segue into social issues for just a moment.
BT: Okay.
DS: I didn’t see anything on your website regarding abortion. I was wondering what your opinion on it was.
BT: I’m an unabashed pro-lifer. I’m opposed to abortion on moral, religious, social grounds. Partial-birth abortion is particularly heinous, and Weiner has supported that. That would put me on the extreme other end of that position. This is not so much a legislative issue as judicial, except for federal fundings, which if- no, when I’m elected, I would certainly oppose all federal funding of abortion.
DS: You mentioned judicial issues. Can you explain that, just a little bit?
BT: Well, in Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court has said the states cannot legislate abortions as a personal right, so it would probably take a Constitutional amendment, and a major social issue I just don’t think is on the agenda for the next two or four years. The only practical opposition here will be funding- or defunding- of any abortion programs on the federal level.
DS: Fair enough. This has [inaudible] issue since Mitch Daniels- governor of Indiana- said we should have a truce, but obviously with President Obama in office we’re never gonna be able to get a pro-life-
BT: Well, exactly.
DS: – person on the Supreme Court. I guess my third question- I don’t know how much you’ve followed this- Rep. Weiner has targeted Goldline-
BT: Oh, yeah, I got a lot to say about this one.
DS: I was wondering two different questions (related). One, whether or not Goldline has done good or bad things, is this what a Congressman should be involved in? Should a Congressman be involved in targeting a company like this? And second of all- and related to that- if not, why do you think not? If so, why do you think so?
BT: There’s far more to this than meets the eye, and I’d like to give you a bit of my personal experience on this. I believe Representative Weiner is carrying the water for the Obama administration in his fight against Glenn Beck. In reality, it’s a diversion and a sideshow from many of the real issues that Beck is speaking about. You know, we have serious issues, and this ordinarily wouldn’t be worth too much attention, but what they- they: Weiner, Pelosi, Obama, and Company- are really doing is targeting this advertiser to chase the advertiser off the air. By so doing, they harm Beck. Get enough advertisers to do that, and he’s off the air.
Now, some years ago, I did a program, the TV program, with Rush Limbaugh. It lasted three or four years on the air. It was a half-hour television show. I don’t know if you remember it. It was in the mid-90s.
DS: Um, I was 10 at that time, so probably not.
BT: [Laughs} Oh, okay- so you don’t. You were not the target audience.
DS: No, I was not. [Laughs]
BT: At that time, it was a syndicated program, that means the company I was running produced, financed it, distributed it to the stations, and then sold the advertising time to recoup its investment. We found ourselves scrounging for advertisers because a lot of mainline advertisers had received letters. It didn’t take many, and through a little investigation we were reasonably sure those letters were generated by surrogates of the DNC. Most of the letters were from GLAAD, or NOW, accusing Rush of being homophobic, misogynistic, etc. What it did was make the advertisers hesitant. What ultimately happened is the rates we were charging were about half of what we would ordinarily get- which hindered the program. The program was still profitable, but instead of the ratings- which were a little under a 3, which might have generated $25 million a year- we were doing $15, $14 million per year, not making it that attractive for Rush to continue, or his executive producer- brilliant young guy names Roger Ailes.
DS: Roger Ailes? I’ve never heard that term applied to him, but maybe it’s all relative.
BT: That was in the mid-90s. [Laughs]
DS: [Laughs] I’m 24 years old, so I may be a little-
BT: So after that number of years we said, “This is not-“ It was profitable, but it was not profitable enough to be worth the effort, particularly when Rush was doing 10 times better or more in radio. So that effort against the advertisers turned out to be decisive. I see the same thing here, and I can tell you that from personal experience this is not about attacking Goldline- this is about attacking Beck’s advertisers to hinder or cripple the program.
DS: I think it’s a sign of success when he has-
BT: Oh, indeed. He has them scared.
DS: He’s got them scared. You know, they keep talking about all these advertisers that have dropped him, but the evidence just isn’t there that- I just read the most recent numbers; he got something like 2.54 million viewers on his Fox show. [DS: The actual ratings, according to Huffington Post(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/30/cable-news-ratings-top-30_n_630984.html#s108334) have Beck at 2.057 million viewers per day- third in cable behind O’Reilly and Hannity, respectively.] It’s something along those lines. I mean, he’s smoking everybody, except for Hannity and O’Reilly. So it’s really not working.
So I guess- one of my last questions- I looked at Real Clear Politics to see what they judge the race as, and they don’t even judge the race as competitive. According to the National Review piece, you got in because there was no one to write a check to.
BT: That is true.
DS: So how do you- I don’t know how long Rep. Weiner’s been in office for, but it’s been quite some time-
BT: He’s going for his seventh term.
DS: He’s articulate- I’ve seen him on TV- he’s articulate-
BT: Slick.
DS: Slick, okay. He has a lot of alleged facts at his control- how do you overcome this? I guess it’s an anti-incumbent year, but-
BT: True. I’m not sure how others may judge the competitiveness of this race, but I know something about the people of the 9th District and what they’re concerned about. This is a district of working middle-class homeowners, small business operators- these people work, they pay taxes, these are (dare I say) typical Americans in a very ethnically-diverse area. But these are the things they have in common, and they are worried. They are worried about jobs, about the economy, and they are extremely dissatisfied with the current administration and, I believe, they tie in the Democrats Pelosi and Weiner with as being architects of this problem. Now, the fact that Anthony Weiner has not run against anyone in the last few elections, to me, does not mean he is unbeatable. In the grassroots support, I just feel it. We have just begun, and my political career is three months old. We had our first meeting with volunteers, and we had about 70 people show up.
DS: Wow.
BT: The goal is to get a thousand to cover every one of the 512 EDs in this district, but it’s growing exponentially. I asked, with a show of hands, “How many of you have [n]ever been involved in a political campaign before?” [DS: The audio did not catch the “n” in “never”- which Mr. Turner did say.] And my hand was the first one up. But after that, about 90% of the people in that room have never been involved, and they cut across multiple ages and areas of this district. I found that a very encouraging sign.
If you talk to Karl Rove or Dick Morris, they’ll tell you you need a photogenic candidate. You need Slick slogans and political tricks, and you need a ton of campaign money. Well, how are we doing? Well, I’ve got a face for radio-
DS: [Laughs] I’m in the same boat you are.
BT: And as far as slick political slogans and all, we’re gonna run on principles. That should be unique.
DS: [Laughs]
BT: And for a ton of money, we got volunteers, and we have a lot of them. I can feel the ground moving, and the grass is swaying in our direction. I think this will be under the radar until September. We’re getting a reasonable response to the contribution effort, but a lot of this won’t be seen until later in the campaign, but I think people will kind of wake up around the beginning of September, and they’ll realize this will be a very competitive race.
There are a lot of things going on- a lot of changes in this district that are not apparent on the face of it, but I think this is going to be a very competitive race.
DS: Well, then, I guess I have one more question for you, before I let you go. You mentioned earlier the Obama social spending, and you just said you are going to run on principle. For me personally, I believe the biggest issue facing this nation is our debt- the debt crisis coming down the pike. According to the CBO it’s 2020, according to the IMF it’s 2015, that we hit 100% of debt-to-GDP ratio.
BT: Yes.
DS: So I was wondering two things: How do you think Americans (I don’t know if you will be able to answer this), how do you think Americans can trust Republicans, considering it was Bush who really started this spending, and Obama, who’s just made it worse. How can Americans trust Republicans, and secondly, as a Member of Congress, would you be willing to cut defense spending- which has at least doubled in the last decade- as a part of reigning in that spending?
BT: I’d be looking to cut spending. I’d be less inclined to cut defense spending when we’re in the midst of the long war, and in a very uncertain world. I believe America’s strength is in its strong military, and secondly, in its strong defense of the right and principles and human freedom, and not some wishy-washy diplomatic tactician’s-
DS: But it’s worked out so well.
BT: [Chuckles] Yeah. The money that can be cut- and there’s only so much real cutting that can be done- is in the redundancies and the wasteful government spending and a cap on spending. And digging into the administrative programs to cut out billions- hundreds of billions- in waste and unneeded programs. But the real way to manage the deficit is to increase the productivity of the nation as a whole. It may even have to be- and it will be- tax decreases in particular areas, particularly against business, that will help grow the economy, and bring that ratio of GDP to deficit down to what we can have manageable levels. It will take a long time before we can really attack this, and I think what we need is appropriations reform in the House- how bills are put together- how earmarks and riders can be attached to bills. We can change all that within the House rules, and a majority of Republicans can do that. Whether they have the political will, I think, in January, we’re gonna find out. We’ll be the majority, and we have [to] them to the test. I am more committed to the principles than to the party, and I hope there are enough others like that, but that remains to be seen. But you’ll get a fight from me, I can tell you that.
DS: Well, you got in because, as you said earlier, there was nobody to write a check to, so I doubt you’re going to be in for a 25-year career in the House.
BT: [Laughs] That would be most unlikely. I think an actuary would put my life expectancy at a little under that anyway, but-
DS: Well, I don’t know how old you are- 66?
BT: 69.
DS: Wow. Geez.
BT: [Laughs] Yeah, we don’t have to dwell on that-
DS: [Laughs] No, no, no- you have the experience, you have the…all the things Rep. Weiner does not, that’s your advantage, right?
BT: Well, yeah, that’s true to a degree. I’ve actually started businesses, and run them, and had real jobs, yes. Mr. Weiner, Mr. Obama, have never had a real job, have never in a business environment, never been at risk.
DS: Well, we definitely agree on this last point.
Interview With Rep. Michele Bachmann
(You can grab the audio of the interview here via “Right-click… Save as…”. Or hover your mouse over the speaker icon to listen to the interview as streaming audio. -nick)
Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) was kind enough to give thelobbyist.net a few minutes of her time last week to ta
lk about the national debt and how if Congress trusts the American people, the so-called Debt-Paying Generation (those young Americans whose futures will be crushed by the tsunami of debt the nation faces) will be able to live the American Dream and not be forced to live a life of less quality than their parents.
Representative Bachmann is the Republican representative of the 6th District of Minnesota. She has represented her constituents since 2007, and has been a conservative leader in everything from government transparency to health care reform to reversing course on the size and scope of the federal government.
Dustin Siggins: So you and I met, briefly, Representative, when you were on the Laura Ingraham Show back in March…
Michele Bachmann: Mm-hm, isn’t she great?
DS: Oh she’s awesome; she’s a riot.
MB: She is such a talent.
DS: I really liked when she was on Bill O’Reilly a couple of weeks ago, and they were talking about blaming Napolitano- I don’t know if you saw it?
MB: I didn’t.
DS: They were debating and Bill O’Reilly decided that he wasn’t going to blame Napolitano for the BP response for the oil spill. And he was trying to play the middle road, and so Ingraham just went crazy on him and then picked up his cup of water from behind where he was sitting and went, “He is drinking the Kool-Aid!”
MB: Oh! (laughter) She is so creative. Well you know the great thing is, he has a tremendous audience, and a lot of interests, and he tries very hard, I think…I think he is really trying to be fair and balanced and trying to get both sides or both perspectives. And obviously he has been very successful for a long period of time. But people really do love Laura and I think that her stock is only going to continue to soar.
DS: Oh I have to agree with you. There’s no way, and especially with what’s going on here in DC, there’s no way any conservative’s stock is going to tumble in the next two to four years.
MB: Yeah.
DS: Um, so I was talking to Dave, whom I met a couple of weeks ago, and I am currently at the Heritage Foundation working on the Debt Paying Generation project…
MB: Oh good so you’re working with Bill Beach!
DS: Exactly. According to Mr. Beach you are a ‘huge fan.’
MB: I am a huge fan! This is the issue, I told Bill, that I really want to hit on because I think that young people’s ears are starting to perk up on their future, what their future is going to be like. And I think that it’s a tremendous shock for a lot of young people to find out that their standard of living could be demonstrably lowered beyond what their parents had. And even though people may hear that in the abstract, especially for younger people, it’s hard to believe that it could be true or that it could be translated into a diminishing reality going forward, and I think it’s important for us to make that case and I think it will be easier, then, for us to talk about positive solutions to be able to dig our way out so that we can have a way forward. Because, there is, it isn’t something where we have to give up and realize that we have to consign ourselves, especially the young debt-paying generation, to a future of less. We can have a better future, but what it means is people in my generation are going to have to make alterations as well. We can’t let the government try to be the answer to every problem.
DS: Your generation, 31,32?
MB: That’s right. (laughter) No actually I love getting older, to be honest with you. I’m 54 years old and I told my husband that I love getting older so it doesn’t bother me at all.
DS: Interesting. Well I’m 24 and look 20, or 19 and 18; so I wouldn’t mind looking a little older, but-
MB: Ahh, well I’m sure, well your…It’ll come sooner than what you think.
DS: Well hopefully- I think the grey hair would help make me look distinguished.
MB: Yes, undoubtedly. Get a pair of glasses- that will help.
DS: I’ve had glasses since I was one and a half and it hasn’t helped (laughter) Well anyway, a little side-tracked. Regarding the debt paying of this generation, I mean obviously the democrats aren’t going to pass a budget in the house. Rep. Hoyer just stated that yesterday, correct?”
MB: That’s right.
DS: Why are they not passing a budget? Are they scared that American will look and say “oh wow, they made it worse than the Republicans did?”
MB: Well, it’s a dereliction of duty and it’s also an admission that they can’t govern. They had made the comment about Republicans passing budgets and I think now what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I think they’re going to have to live by their own statements. If they make an admission that they can’t pass a budget when they own the white house, when they own the senate, and when they own the house, they are making an admission that they cant govern. And frankly, they are digging a hole for themselves…that they hole that they dug for themselves is embarrassing. The debt and the taxing…the taxes that result from this out of control debt will be one that will mean fewer jobs will be created in the private sector. You have to have a growth economy to create jobs and we saw that there were some 40,000 jobs that were created last month, that is not going to get us anywhere. Especially for the debt paying generation, there is certainly more than 41,000 people who graduated from college last year. Those recent college graduates and those individuals that have left high school and chose not to go onto college, they are looking for employment; and unfortunately, under President Obama’s policies and Speaker Pelosi’s policies…their policies are not inducing entrepreneurs to grow and create jobs. Without private job creation, there can be no healthy public sector either. And so, they are making some very foolish decisions that have long term consequences and they bode ill for the debt paying generation.”
DS: The Center for American Progress did a study- well I guess they called it an analysis, I wouldn’t call it an analysis myself- but they cited several polls showing that the most popular thing for America is to cut the budget of Foreign Aid which is two percent of the budget that President Obama proposed and yet older Americans seem to like Social Security and seem to like Medicare, how do we convince people in my age bracket that we have to get rid of these programs, or at least reform them severely, as President Bush tried to do in 2005. How do we convince people this is best- that they’re going to have to suffer a little bit for the long-term benefit of the country?
MB: Well, I think the best way we can do that is to make the case to people that these programs are going to collapse of their own accord- no one will benefit from that. We don’t want to see senior citizens put in a situation where they’re dependent on either Medicare or Social Security, and one day when they go to their mailbox, they open it up, and there’s no check there because these programs have collapsed because we’re actually bankrupt. That’s why we need to do the responsible thing and make these programs work for the people they were intended to benefit. And we can do that- we could do that sitting down with a magnifying glass and a pencil, and we could make adjustments so that we can actually save these programs for the people who really, truly need them and who truly depend on them, and then for the Debt-Paying Generation we want to make sure going forward that we have alternatives for them so that they can have a secure retirement and deal with health care in a more rational level.
Government takeover of health care has been the Obama way and the Obama solution, and it isn’t that I think President Obama is an evil, negative person- I think he just simply, simply has it wrong. I think he’s simply wrong about the government takeover of health care, and a person can’t point to one jurisdiction or area where the government takeover of health care has actually improved healthcare for people, or made it more inexpensive, because adding the price of bureaucracy to a product doesn’t make a product cheaper, it makes it more expensive and more difficult to obtain- and I think Americans intuitively know that will be our future going forward.
This is why I think, when it comes to health care, which is a new entitlement program, that’s why I think we have a real, and realistic, chance, of actually repealing the bill, and I was the first Member of Congress to issue a full-scale repeal of the bill, and ObamaCare, and it is very popular, as a measure, and we’re looking at about 2/3 of the American people hoping Congress will have a repeal. If you have 2/3 of the American people, wanting to repeal the president’s signature achievement over the last 18 months-perhaps the signature achievement of whatever length of time is his presidency- I think that we will be able to make the case on a number of areas of government overreach.
DS: Well, I guess my last question- and you talked about what the Democrats have done badly, and I agree with you- but I came of age during the Bush years, and Republicans obviously didn’t do so well between 2001 and 2006 with the Medicare Part D, and they jumped the cost of government, the size of government, up. How do you convince the American people that Republicans are trustworthy? Not you individually, of course [DS: Rep. Bachmann was first elected in 2006, and served her first term starting in 2007], but how, I mean, the Republican Party as a whole. This year, yes, it’s anti-incumbent, but I don’t think, personally, that it’s so much pro-Republican.
MB: Oh, I think you’re accurate about that. I think people are reacting negatively to what they have observed from the Pelosi/Reid/Obama agenda. People intuitively understand that they can’t live with excessive spending that creates unsustainable levels of debt- if they can’t live like that in their own personal lives or in their businesses, they certainly know that government doesn’t have a magic formula that defies economic reality. So people are rejecting the Obama agenda. People want to know, “Republicans, if we give you the gavel, can we trust you? Will you be responsible? Do you have a plan to get us out of this hole?” And that’s up to Republicans, now, to make that message. I think one of the best things we could do, is let the American people know- number one- if you put us in office, we will vote to full-scale repeal ObamaCare. Root and branch, we will pull it out, and we will repeal that measure. I think that’s something that is a very saleable proposition. I also think it’s saleable to tell the American people that we will pass a budget- a balanced budget- and I think that’s what people want us to do, is to pass a balanced budget, and then to show the American people, first of all, that the tremendous straits that we’re in, financially, going forward, once people know the difficulties and the reality of the problem that we’re in right now, I think they’ll be more amenable to the solutions that we can propose to put our financial house on a- in the right order.
DS: I hope so, because I’d like to see this country be as good for me as it was for my parents, so-
MB: Exactly. I will tell you, anywhere I go to speak, I ask that question. “Do you believe you live better than your parents?” Almost everyone in the audience puts their hand up. I ask them, “do you think your children will live better than you financially?” Virtually no one puts their hands up. I doubt in the last 234 years, if you ask that question of any generation, that they would think that their children would not be better off than they are; I just don’t think that you would have gotten that response. That’s really what is frightening today, because we’ve always been a country that’s been about forward- looking people, and growth. And this is one of the first times when Americans look into the future, and they see diminished way of life, and they see decline.
The beauty of America, is that we get to choose. We get to choose decline, or we get to choose if we want growth. I think that if you put the question to a referendum to the American people, they will choose growth. And if that means pinching back on a social safety-net, I think that we’ll have buy-in from people, because, ultimately people do want better for their children and for the next generation. Even if people are childless, they want the next generation to be able to do well. In fact, I think it’s simply the matter of having to make the case, you know just like you’ll see on Glenn Beck with his chalkboard, he makes a compelling case if he’s describing an issue. And I think that’s something that Republicans will have to do, so to speak, have our own kind of a chalkboard where we make the case to the American people of two futures for America: one where we go down the road of the Pelosi-Reid Agenda that they have taken us down, which the American people are thoroughly rejecting, but take it beyond the year 2010…play it out to 2020, and play it out to what America will look like when we are in the same economic bind that Greece is in today. Economists like Larry Lindsey tell us that we are looking within a ten-year window of having that type of economic decline. That truly is not a road that people would choose to go down, and that’s what gives me great hope and great excitement because even people who are senior citizens, they don’t want to bequeath a future grounded in decline. I know that sounds like an oxymoron; but senior citizens don’t want to see that for their own children and grand-children. And that’s what gives me hope going forward- because we really are a nation of very bright people, who make good choices. We could trust the American peoples’ choice, we just need to give them the truth and put all facts on the table, and then I have every hope and every reason to believe that people will make choices for their own gain and their own benefit because no one wants to succeed… I mean, no one wants to fail, everyone wants to succeed.
DS: Well, Representative Bachmann, I think I’ve run out of time. I really appreciate what you’ve said and hopefully we’ll see you doing a lot of that, especially if Republicans take back the House.
MB: Well, and we’ll do this again soon, I’d love to do this again!
DS: Alright, thank you very much. Take care!
MB: Alright, bye bye.
[Note: I would like to thank RJ; Will; and Nick for helping transcribe the interview. This would not have gotten posted without their help. DS]
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.
Obama Can’t Explain Lack of Communication With BP
Illegal Immigration and the Federal Government
Last evening, I watched the first twenty minutes or so of “The O’Reilly Factor” while in the gym. The host, Bill O’Reilly, opened by talking about the Arizona immigration law, and then talked to Karl Rove and Laura Ingraham about how the federal government has failed to do its job in securing our borders.
I wrote last week that the Arizona law needs to be modified so that civil rights abuses don’t happen, particularly with the “lawful contact” portion of the law. However, as O’Reilly pointed out, and Ingraham clarified, since the 1980s our presidents have failed to protect the borders, despite national security being one of the few areas the federal government is required to be involved in. Rove defended former President George W. Bush as having acted effectively to protect the border, something that is quite laughable.
Immigration, like a number of other issues in America, is extraordinarily complicated. Below are some of the key points I think need to be addressed, particularly in light of the Arizona law:
1. As O’Reilly said, liberals need to stop pitting Americans against Americans over the Arizona law. O’Reilly cited an Investor’s Business Daily poll showing 60% approval for the law and 30% opposition across the nation, and a Rasmussen poll shows 60% of Arizona residents support the law, and I keep hearing that up to 70% of the state supports it. President Obama, Al Sharpton and Daily Kos should probably go back and look at these polls before jumping to conclusions about where Americans stand, and making broad generalizations about who supporters of the law are, morally.
2. 30% of Arizona residents are Hispanic which, as one person wrote last week (I forget who and where- sorry), means that police officers are not going to be stopping every Hispanic on the street to ask for identification. Unlike the East Coast liberals in D.C., Boston and NYC, Hispanics are not a rare sight, and thus theoretical civil rights screeching from the East are not based upon firsthand knowledge of the state. Given the majority support for the law in the state, one has to assume a large portion of Latinos support the law (despite what La Raza found).
3. Ingraham noted that Republicans like the “wink-and-nod” from businesses looking for cheap labor, and Democrats like the probable votes they will get- even Bush only got about 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004. This is a failure from both parties at the federal level.
4. On “This Week,” George Will cited the federal law regarding legal immigrants and carrying identification. Turns out they are required to, much as the Arizona law requires them. Looks like Arizona’s law merely clarifies the letter of the federal law (though, as noted above, I think there are legitimate concerns regarding the application of the law, and civil rights of citizens).
5. O’Reilly and Rove talked about a wall being effective in stopping illegal immigration, but that is just not true. Economics drives immigration to this country, whether it be to work (the majority of illegal immigrants); to get on our welfare system; or to smuggle drugs, weapons and other items into the country. We need to punish sanctuary cities and businesses; stop welfare policies that encourage illegal immigration; put more troops on the border; and stop wasting money on a wall. We also need a policy that encourages work for those legal immigrants who want it, through a streamlined (but also effective, security-wise) immigration process.
6. This law was mostly about waking up the federal government. I know jobs are the main concern of Congress, as they should be, but our- as O’Reilly put it- porous border needs to be controlled. Now. (Of course, if Congress’ was really concerned about the economy, and not just for political reasons, it would stop impeding businesses through regulations and taxes.) The Arizona law is not the way to go, but it’s darn close.
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.
Legitimizing the U.N. & Iran…Again
I was in the gym this evening, watching a bit of news about the Iranian president’s speech earlier today, and what should come up on the station I was watching? That America has admitted to the size of its nuclear stockpile.
I was rather torn with my initial reaction- the national security hawk in me was upset at this potentially (though not likely) harmful release of information. However, the libertarian side of my brain was glad that the American people would have just that much more knowledge about what the government has for weaponry.
Unfortunately, I then got a shock: apparently, it was done to pressure Iran regarding its own nuclear ambitions. According to the Associated Press:
The United States has 5,113 nuclear warheads in its stockpile and “several thousand” more retired warheads awaiting the junkpile, the Pentagon said Monday in an unprecedented accounting of a secretive arsenal born in the Cold War and now shrinking rapidly.
The Obama administration disclosed the size of its atomic stockpile going back to 1962 as part of a campaign to get other nuclear nations to be more forthcoming, and to improve its bargaining position against the prospect of a nuclear Iran.
I understand the basic idea- show a willingness to be reasonable, and perhaps other countries will back us. However, given that the United Nations just gave Iran a position on its Commission on the Status of Women, I would say this shows the very severe lack of seriousness on the part of the U.N. leadership regarding the rights of women; holding Iran accountable for anything; and for the future prospects of stopping Iran’s nuclear program. It appears the Obama administration doesn’t understand this, and thus how useless its own gestures of outreach are.
