Weekly Team-Up: Dobbs & Fox A Match Made for Democrats?
Lou Dobbs has suddenly resigned from CNN effective immediately.? Given the recent?Biblical exodus of sorts of conservative journalists from all the major networks to Fox News in the last 12-18 months, will Dobbs be the next to make his arrival on Rupurt Murdoch’s ever growing conservative juggernaut?
MarketWatch seems to think he is headed to Fox Business Network, which would most likely be very fitting.? It would also allow for him to be a guest commentator on Fox News, and do drop in segments on Fox News from the Fox Business studios.
We have to ask once more: is?this a good thing? Sure, it’s great for Fox News Network and its profits, but is it good to be pulling all conservative influence from the other networks? Check out Dustin’s articles on this?here and here.
-nick
———————————————————————————————————————-
Following up on Nick’s comments, a liberal friend made a point recently?that made a lot of sense- namely, that with Lou Dobbs on Fox, the Republican Party and conservatives will further be known as the “white party” and the “white movement.” If Dobbs is brought onto Fox News, conservatives and Republicans stand to lose a massive number of potential voters and supporters they are already struggling with- minorities in general, and Hispanics in particular. Dobbs is despised by many Hispanics, and if he comes to Fox, this will do great damage to the conservative movement and its ability to convince minority voters to support its candidates and policy viewpoints.
Before the accusations start, no- I am not saying we should be politically correct. I am saying, however, that good tactics are needed to spread a message, since many people associate a message with the messenger in both positive and negative ways. Example: my friend Rachel Sheffield, a researcher at The Heritage Foundation, is a much better representative for?social conservatives?than someone like Rhode Island Governor Carcieri, for many reasons. These include the fact that Sheffield comes across as sincere and constructive when supporting heterosexual marriage (full disclosure: she’s a friend of mine), whereas Carcieri is appears bigoted and hateful in his most recent defense of heterosexual marriage. Likewise, someone like Dobbs could cause major damage to the conservative movement’s attempts to show immigrants and minorities how conservative policies are better for both of those groups of people as well as the country as a whole.
Personally, I don’t pay attention to Dobbs, so?I don’t know the truth of the accusations against him regarding race and prejudice.?However, since Hispanics dislike him, my opinion doesn’t matter- theirs does. After all, a movement can have strong views without alienating a large number of American citizens, but Dobbs is not able to do that for the conservative immigration policy supporters. Thus, the question remains: is Dobbs an effective voice for conservative immigration policies, or is he a liability to the movement?
-dustin
Don’t Panick Yet- Healthcare Reform Still Needs Senate Passage
One of my friends sent me a text early Sunday morning (1:15 a.m. EST) saying that a trillion dollar House bill had been foisted on America. While it is true that a more-than-trillion dollar bill was passed by the House of Representatives 220-215, this should not yet be a cause for panick.
No, the bill is not good news. However, as Hot Air points out, “Take heart, righties…the likelihood of 60 votes in the Senate, especially after a vote this narrow, [is] very slim indeed.” (Also, see my piece?here on how I think Reid could very well fail in his goal to pass health care reform.)?Furthermore, the upcoming Senate bill (which is still being scored by the Congressional Budget Office) is certainly going to be more moderate than the House one, given the influence of moderate Democratic senators such as Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Independent Joe Lieberman (D-CT). Democrats need 60 out of 100 votes in the Senate, not the 50%+1 (or 218) necessary in the House of Representatives, and assuming all Republicans oppose the bill, even just one of the three Senators listed above voting with Republicans to not close debate on the bill would kill it. Therefore, Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) must keep the bill more moderate. (Unfortunately, of course, liberals will kill it if it’s too moderate, so he can’t make it an actual good bill, just a less-worse one.) This balance of power is what gives Americans reason to hope that this disastrous Democratic form of health care reform does not work. Allow me to briefly explain.
After spending over 14 months in D.C., both at The Heritage Foundation and in health care lobbying, I’m certainly not an expert on the political process, but I know it fairly well, and any number of things could happen that would derail health care reform. The first is getting a Senate bill passed. The second is to get the House and Senate bills to conference and make one combined bill. The third is to then vote on that combined bill in both chambers. However, a number of things along the way could derail the process. A few examples: a Senate bill could be killed in the inital chamber vote; the conference bill could be killed in either the House or the Senate (remember, many liberals are declaring they won’t vote for a bill without a public option, and some won’t vote for a bill that’s pro-life); and, lastly,?the bill could pass in its conference-created form in one chamber but?be modified slightly in the other and therefore have to be voted on again in the chamber that passed the conference bill. This latter course could make the bill unpassable, as the changes could be very minor or very large.
We should all be actively involved in contacting our representatives in Congress, becoming active through organizations such as The Heritage Foundation?or Americans for Prosperity?and generally following the debate so when voting comes around next year we know who to vote out of office. One example of a Republican who?perhaps should be?gone: Representative Joseph Cao (R-LA), who represents a Democratic district and voted in favor of the House bill.
Abortion Preferable to Single Motherhood?
Over the years, many crackpot arguments have been made in favor of abortion- however, this one takes the cake.
The argument is that single motherhood is the biggest threat to pro-family efforts, not abortion. This is a very defensible position, as abortion merely ends a life and single motherhood is likely to bring a life through a cycle of poverty that will lead generations after it through the same cycle. Of course, I disagree strongly with this position, as should all pro-life supporters. Murder is murder, after all.
What is not defensible, however, are the author’s presumptions as to why single motherhood is the biggest threat to pro-family supporters, including the following: “Virgins are now considered losers, and people who save themselves for marriage are considered weird or extreme religious nuts. ” There are a number of things wrong with these points, including the following:
1. Speaking as a male, female virgins are considered very attractive, classy and worthy of raising one’s standards to impress, as I see guys doing every day. It’s the free-living, one-night-standers who are considered losers, of bad morals, etc. even by those who partake in sexual activities with them. (To paraphrase the old adage, a guy is “cool” for sex, a woman is an R-rated word. Britney Spears, anyone? Lindsay Lohan, perhaps?) To clarify, no, I have no experiences with these matters, as I am a virgin. Perhaps my viewpoint is biased regarding abstinent women. If so, I would contend non-virgin viewpoints on the benefits of having sex are biased as well.
Related, there are many consequences to those who have pre-marital sex at a young age; The Heritage Foundation shows a number of them, and the Journal of Youth and Adolescence had this study in February, 2007. The consequences, detailed in the linked research, include high delinquency rates and lower educational success, among others.
2. People who save themselves for marriage are considered respectable religious followers, as Americans generally respect others’ spiritual and religious beliefs (or non-beliefs, as the case may be). As a conservative Catholic, I am told by many that they “wish they had done that [been a virgin]” until they met their current significant other, often a fiancee. Too, even those who don’t regret their past actions often say it’s respectable to have the kind of strength they believe it takes not to have pre-marital sex. There are, of course, those who are virgins due to social awkwardness, but there are also those who have sex because of peer pressure, so the “losers” argument holds no water. (One example of an abstinent non-loser, by the way, is retired NBA player A.C. Green.)
The fact is that abortion consists of the taking of a human life, and most pro-family advocates recognize this. They also recognize that not having sex, staying married, having a good education etc. are major keys to keeping single motherhood rates down. On the other hand, encouragement by those who are distinctly not pro-family for actions such as abortion, contraceptive use, “shacking up” and “The Pill” definitely keep single motherhood rates up. Want proof? Look at how out-of-wedlock birth rates have changed over the last half-century, when all of the liberal and not pro-family concepts listed above became more popular. Too, as The Heritage Foundation put it, “For decades long, this well intentioned program had the unfortunate consequence of encouraging single women to have more children out of wedlock and penalized them if they got married or found employment. Not surprisingly, the welfare caseloads exploded and the out of wedlock birth rate steadily rose.”
The fact is, however, that all arguments against the author’s points are weaker than the basic point that abortion is wrong. Supporting the killing of humanity’s weakest for the sake of single motherhood prevention is a flawed argument akin to saying we should shoot poor people for increasing our health care costs or execute people for the sake of decreasing global warming.
Economics Are The Key To Immigration Reform
Immigration reform has been heating up for a while- though it is currently taking a backseat to health care and energy- and has already garnered much attention with regards to President Obama’s policies on illegal immigration raids, protectionist allegations?regarding Mexican trucking and putting National Guard troops on the border . Furthermore, President Obama?recently held a meeting to discuss how such? reform would take place, and?Senator Chuck Schumer, chair of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, said last week he plans to have an immigration reform bill completed by Labor Day and on the president’s desk later this year or early next year. Given the president’s margin of victory with Hispanics over Senator McCain (R-AZ) last November-he won 67% of the demographic- and his efforts to appease that base with the?nomination of Judge Sotomayor, Republicans are in a lot of trouble. If President Obama can pass legislation that pleases that base,?Republicans will be hard-pressed to even close to the 40%-or-so of the?Hispanic vote then-President Bush got in 2004??for many years to come. Too, Hispanics are a massive part of the country now , and are expected to continue being the fastest-growing minority in?America.
Immigration reform is likely to come to a head sometime in the next?twelve months, as it did in 2007. However, I think Republicans can pre-empt the Democratic initiatives if they tackle the issue head-on, with?a comprehensive look at its various and disparate parts, and not from?a solely ideological view. While we certainly cannot ignore the millions of illegal immigrants in the country, as the left wants to?do, nor do we have the financial or other resources to kick 20 million?people out of the country, as many conservatives want to do.
The first- and most important- step in immigration reform is to stop?or reform the economic incentives to come to America. We need to?punish the businesses that hire illegal immigrants through fines, and we need to punish sanctuary cities through fines and the rescinding of?federal funds. We also should create a reformed welfare policy that?does not give monies of any kind to illegal immigrants. Finally, we?need to create the proper economic incentives to bring the kind of?immigrants we want here- hard-working, highly educated, technical?people who will create jobs.
Some conservatives would argue against the above point- they say building a wall is the vitally important first step to protecting?America from illegal immigrants. There are two reasons why this is a?bad idea: first, why do illegal immigrants come to America? According?to both libertarian?Ken Schoolland in 2005 and conservative Dinesh D’Souza in “Letters to a Young?Conservative,” they come for economic reasons. They also send BACK at?least $10 billion to Mexico and at least $20 billion more to other?countries, as seen here? and?here. Lastly, many immigrants are going back to their native countries because of the recession. There is no doubt?that they are coming to America for economic reasons, and so it makes?sense to shut down those resources and incentives that encourage the numbers of illegal immigrants entering the country we have seen for so?many years.
A second reason we should not push for building a wall is that it is a?waste of resources?for?the country?(immigrants will find a way through, around, over,?etc.), and thirdly it is a terrible public relations move for Republicans (who tend to support a border wall the most). Only the most hardened conservative won’t be moved by stories of families?looking for a better life, and trying to achieve the American Dream.?By creating economic disincentives to come illegally, and creating?economic (and legal, though that is a discussion for another day)?incentives that encourage immigrants with the skills and mindsets we?want in America (including this suggestion by The Heritage Foundation), we would find ourselves with a very?much diminished illegal immigration issue.
Other supported reforms include putting troops and agents on the?border which, given our current laws, will not do much- see here? and here?to see how two border agents were railroaded for doing their job,?and even the National Guard cannot shoot if attacked while patrolling the border. However, like a wall,?people can find ways around even a good border security policy, and?therefore the impact is limited. Economics are the reason illegal?immigrants come to America, and good border economic policy is why?they will either leave or not enter in the first place. (However, by?
the same token, it would not hurt to allow our immigration protection?officials to shoot at drug smugglers, gang members and others who?intend to harm this country and/or its citizens.)
-dustin
Cornyn keeps ‘em honest- or at least scared
If you can’t keep them honest, keep them scared of losing elections. This seems to be the lesson the NRA and Senator John Cornyn of Texas have taught us- and as a general fan of the Constitution, I am grateful.
During the 111th Congress, for the umpteenth time, the D.C. voting issue was brought to the legislative table. Cornyn, however, put a gun amendment into it a number of months ago that caused a major issue- many Democrats didn’t want to pass the gun amendment, but they DID want to allow D.C. residents the right to vote in national elections (which, considering the liberal bias of D.C., would be offset by a Republican seat in Utah)- but more conservative Democrats wanted to pass the bill WITH the gun amendment. According to Wednesday’s issues of Roll Call, as well as the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/09/AR2009060902083.html), the gun amendment (which would would limit the District’s authority to restrict firearms, repeal the D.C. semiautomatic gun ban and remove gun-registration requirements (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/2009/02/_the_senate_today_considered.html)) has essentially killed the bill.
Unfortunately, two issues currently exist- first, Constitutionally, D.C. residents cannot vote (http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm37.cfm), and the longer Democrats hold power the more likely it is that D.C. residents will have that unconstitutional right. However, this leads to the second issue, which is the quandary that ALL citizens of America should have the right to vote in national elections, since they pay taxes and are otherwise influenced by federal decisions (especially in D.C., where Congress has direct authority over much of the city’s decisions and laws). Fortunately, The Heritage Foundation has come up with multiple potential solutions to the issue (including the various drawbacks to each):
* Propose an Amendment. Congress could propose an amendment granting the District a representative in Congress, perhaps using the 1978 proposal noted earlier as a model. Adding such representation directly to the Constitution would by definition avoid running afoul of the nation’s supreme law. In addition, the amendment solution would retain the Founders’ intention that the capital city remain subject to the “exclusive legislation” of Congress–even as it grants the city’s residents a more direct voice in that legislation. For many purposes, this would treat the District as if it were a state granted representation in Congress, but it would seem to require unanimous consent of every state if it sought to provide representation in the Senate, per Article V. An amendment would also upset the Framers’ design for the federal district and placement in the national polity.
* Grant Statehood. It is highly unlikely that Congress could simply grant statehood to the District upon its application. More likely, doing so would require a constitutional amendment, because the Constitution grants Congress, not any state body, “exclusive legislation” over the nation’s capital. Such a plan would also run counter to the Framers’ still reasonable intent to have a national capital outside the influence of state politics. Granting statehood would also automatically provide the District with a representative and two senators, more representation than it would receive under current legislative proposals, possibly shifting the balance of power in that smaller chamber.
* Retrocede to Maryland. Congress may be able to return, or “retrocede,” residential portions of the District to Maryland, allowing residents to vote as citizens of that state. Some scholars argue that this would be analogous to the retrocession of Arlington and Alexandria to Virginia undertaken by Congress in 1846. The constitutionality of retrocession is hardly settled, however. The Supreme Court avoided ruling directly on the Virginia retrocession, and the 23rd Amendment, by conferring three electoral votes for President upon the District, may limit the changes that can now be made to its territory. At this date, legal scholars are sharply divided on the issue.
* Allow Voting in Maryland. Though the idea has been proposed many times, Congress could probably not allow District residents to vote as if they were residents of Maryland or some other state. While such a plan would give city residents a say in congressional elections and would not affect the District’s status under the Constitution, it would suffer from a number of practical and constitutional defects, due in part to the 23rd Amendment.
* End Federal Taxation. Given its exclusive power over the District, Congress could abolish federal income taxes on District residents, providing a powerful solution to the city’s “taxation without representation” complaint. This compromise is fully within Congress’s powers, and indeed, Congress has enacted special tax policies for the District in the past, something that it cannot do concerning states. There are also strong policy arguments in favor of this approach.[20]
* Change of Residence. It should be noted that District residents–unlike the American colonists, who had little choice in the face of British denial of representation–have always had the option to move to other U.S. jurisdictions, like Maryland or Virginia, where they could enjoy full representation in Congress. While this might not be preferable or immediately affordable to all District residents, it remains a simple and unobjectionable option.
(http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm37.cfm)
All of the above have various strengths and weaknesses- however, they are far better options constitutionally than what Democrats are currently offering. On a personal level, I like the end of the federal taxation- more on that from Heritage’s Robert Book here: http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm2338.cfm.
- dustin
Single-Payer Violates Constitution?
On May 26, the New York Times had an article regarding the attempted collaboration by President Obama and the major healthcare industry players to lower costs. In the article, it was discussed how such collaboration could violate anti-trust laws.
Two things occurred to me as I read this: first, legal concerns haven’t stopped this (or other) administrations from violating laws before. Look at how the Troubled Asset Relief Program has been used- not one cent has gone to Relief for Troubled Assets. More importantly, however, I wonder if conservatives have found a new way to attack single-payer health care through anti-trust laws.
When I was a kid, I heard the joke “What is the only monopoly in the country?” “The post office.” The government, which broke up Microsoft for being a monopoly, had the single greatest monopoly in the nation. Similarly, by creating a single-payer system, the government is getting rid of competition. If we follow the logic behind preventing monopolies- because the monopolizing entity controls the product, creation of the product, etc.- having single-payer health care will do exactly that.
A great argument for nationalized health care is the elimination of the cost of insurance marketing- according to the Dennis Kucinich campaign in 2007, it’s around 30% of the cost of business. Single-payer would almost eliminate such costs, bringing administration costs down to about 4%, according to the same members of the Kucinich campaign.
The counter, of course, is why don’t we create monopolies in every aspect of our American markets? Because a no-competition environment creates a situation where a provider can charge basically whatever price it chooses (in the case of health care, the price elasticity is extremely limited), obviously, and it can diminish services however it sees fit. And since the government is made up of people, who are naturally flawed; hires on more people than necessary (unions, politicians, etc.); and tends to take care of its own (http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/14/morning-bell-the-public-sector-union-threat-to-economic-recovery/), you can guarantee the 26%-or-so of savings will disappear.
My point is simple- beyond every other concern, the same Democrats and liberals who decried Bush’s allegedly unconstitutional/illegal wiretapping, interrogation techniques etc. had better make sure their long-term goals include the same legality they clamored for over the last nine years. Since the ever-so-popular public option is guaranteed to lead to single-payer health care (as Stuart Butler of The Heritage Foundation analogs, would you trust an umpire who worked for the other team? Also, a Republican on the Ways & Means Committee accurately stated that businesses cannot run deficits forever…but governments can), we’d better make damn sure we hold the liberals to the same standard they wanted for us.
-dustin
The Struggle Between Teachers Unions and Students
The struggle between teacher unions and students continues- the D.C. school voucher program is the latest battleground. Unfortunately for around 1,700 students whose parents are happier with the program, whose grades and reading levels have gone up, and whose costs to the taxpayer per student have been halved…the unions appear to be winning, according to both The Heritage Foundation and the CATO Institute. Fortunately, The Heritage Foundation, the CATO Institute, and numerous conservative pundits, Congressmen, and columnists have called on President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan to keep the D.C. School Voucher program intact. Unfortunately, it appears that federal funding for the program will end after the current students graduate, according to the Washington Post.
Dan Lips, Senior Policy Analyst for Education at The Heritage Foundation, wrote on April 10th that the average improvement in reading for the program’s approximately 1,700 students was 3.7 months (meaning students were 3.7 months AHEAD of their classmates in equivalent grades in the D.C. school district). Lips also quotes two numbers: $7,500 is what the program allots per student per year, and $15,315 is what it costs each student in the public D.C. school system. Basically, students are getting better results for less cost to taxpayers, something the “fiscally responsible” Democrats should support.
Lastly, according to the National Right To Work website, “In 2007, D.C. public schools ranked last in math scores and second-to-last in reading scores for all tested urban public school systems on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).” Apparently the much-vaunted public school system is doing its job- providing teachers with lots of employment opportunities.
The accusation by many on the right is that union labor is to blame for Congress’ lack of courage in promoting the voucher system, since labor unions support many of the Democrats who dominate Congress. Whatever the reason, The Heritage Foundation surveyed members of Congress, and found that 20% had attended private schools, and 38% had children attending private schools.? I’m not sure why Congress won’t support helping poor minorities get a better start in life, but I hope that later this year, when the bill ending the program comes through the House, Congress will find Hell unfrozen and the Democrats will follow through on their caring for the poor minorities in the worst educational system in the nation.
An addendum: According to the May 5 issue of the Wall Street Journal Education Secretary Arne Duncan and President Obama put their children into private school (Obama) and a high-end public school (Duncan). Duncan was quoted as saying ?She goes to Arlington [Virginia] public schools. That was why we chose where we live, it was the determining factor . . . I didn’t want to try to save the country’s children and our educational system and jeopardize my own children’s education.” I must ask- why are Republicans, conservatives and Libertarians protecting poor minority children, and Democrats are throwing them to the proverbial wolves?
-dustin
