I read to my relief the other day that I am not the only one uncomfortable with the direction the House Republican Caucus is heading under the leadership of Rep. Tom Delay. My primary concern is that we are slowly beginning to look like the Democratic majority we replaced in the Republican invasion of 1994. The GOP was able to sweep control of congress that year primarily because the Democrats had grown a little too comfortable in their forty-plus year control of the House, they were slightly corrupt and they abused their power. Their decades-long majority status led them to take advantage of that status and the American people didn't approve of it.
Now I fear that a similar phenomenon is taking place with the Republican caucus led by Rep. Delay. Though he has done nothing overtly scandalous, his growing pattern of actions are frighteningly similar to the Democratic majority that got the boot over ten years ago. For example, he has changed Ethics Committee rules to disallow investigations of Representatives on a party-line vote, which would obviously benefit the majority in the House. He has also attempted to change other ethics rules to allow a party leader to retain his post if indicted. Fortunately he failed in this attempt, but the fact that he came so close to convincing House Republicans to lower ethics standards seriously agitated me.
These two instances are just a couple in a rather long list of questionable actions taken by Rep. Delay. He has formed a political action committee that is being investigated for money laundering and illegal campaign contributions (though to be fair, the man doing the investigating is a blatant political hack). He has also gone on junkets overseas on a few lobbyist's dime, which is in direct conflict with House ethics guidelines. To me Rep. Delay's lax ethics represent a troubling sense of arrogance, and as the WSJ put it, "Mr. DeLay, who rode to power in 1994 on a wave of revulsion at the everyday ways of big government, has become the living exemplar of some of its worst habits."
If House Republicans continue to have Rep. Delay as their leader than they will slowly devolve into the twin of the Democratic majority defeated in '94. Republicans in the House should stand for now what they stood for then; limited government that is beholden to the people and that conducts itself with the utmost honesty and integrity. For the more the House GOP strays away from these principles that brought them here, the more they hasten the day they are kicked out for betraying those very same principles.
UPDATE (11: 31 P.M. 4/10/05): It appears that increasingly more and more Republicans are beginning to share the very same concerns I have expressed.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Monday, March 28, 2005
Putting The House In Order
The simple fact of the matter is the United Nations is irrelevant. The world body has degenerated into an unaccountable, scandal-plagued, and weak organization that isn't equipped to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. A good house-cleaning is in order, and though there are many areas that need to be addressed, there are a couple major aspects that should be our focus.
First the lack of accountability within the organization must be resolved. The prevalence of scandal within the U.N., whether it be Oil For Food or the numerous cases of sexual assault by peacekeepers, and the lack of any significant actions to address these scandals have shown in graphic detail that the U.N. is not capable of keeping itself accountable. To address this I believe two avenues can be taken. Either an oversight commission comprised of the United Nation's top financiers can be formed or that purpose can be delegated to those country's legislative bodies. The oversight commission or the legislatures would have access to all the U.N.'s internal records and dealings. This would make sure that funds given to the U.N. are being utilized properly and that operation of the U.N.'s bureaucracy is fully transparent.
Secondly, the U.N. needs to obtain some moral clarity. Any organization that has had Cuba and Libya chairing it's Human Rights Commission is clearly devoid of moral clarity, and this compromises it's ability to push for real human rights in countries where they don't exist. If Cuba, Libya, or any other nation that doesn't respect it's citizen's human rights wants a seat at the table than fine, just make it conditional that that country enacts reforms that will respect free expression and the protection of personal property. The United Nations needs to step away from the current air of moral relativism that exists, for an organization that condemns Israel's defensive actions while giving Palestinian terrorism a pass serves no useful purpose.
And finally, if the U.N. really wants to make itself relevant in the twenty-first century than it should make the promotion and preservation of democracy it's main focus. The only way to win the War on Terror and secure a lasting global peace will be to spread freedom to every corner of the globe, for the world will never be at harmony with itself until every man and woman therein lives in freedom. The U.N. and it's members must realize this and rededicate themselves to pushing for democracy around the globe.
This doesn't necessarily mean military intervention however, but also aiding fledgling democracies such as Iraq and Afghanistan, supporting the efforts of those seeking freedom in their homelands, and putting pressure on totalitarian regimes to reform. Speaking in one voice and remaining steadfast while dealing with totalitarian regimes severely decrease the likelihood that that regime will be able to wiggle out from meeting the world's demands and decrease the likelihood that military action will need to be taken against them.
For example, the unified pressure from the globe on Syria has forced them to continue to go through with their pullout from Lebanon. President Assad has tried every avenue possible to slip out of his promises to withdraw, yet the continued pressure from the United States, France, and the rest of the world has prevented him from doing so. If such unity had existed when confronting Saddam a couple of years ago there is a very real possibility that we could have removed him without war.
Similarly, the U.N. should follow up on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's proposal to allow for a multi-candidate presidential election this fall. If the world demands in a unified manner international monitoring and full transparency than President Mubarak will be hard pressed to resist. If we don't present a unified front, than Mubarak will easily be able to craft some excuse not to go through with his promises, just as Saddam did for so many years.
Though it's true that the United Nations is basically useless in it's current state, enacting the above reforms can completely change that. The U.N. can be, if the right actions are taken, an invaluable tool in winning the War on Terror, spreading democracy throughout the world, and securing a lasting global peace for centuries to come. All that's needed is for the world to put the U.N.'s house in order.
First the lack of accountability within the organization must be resolved. The prevalence of scandal within the U.N., whether it be Oil For Food or the numerous cases of sexual assault by peacekeepers, and the lack of any significant actions to address these scandals have shown in graphic detail that the U.N. is not capable of keeping itself accountable. To address this I believe two avenues can be taken. Either an oversight commission comprised of the United Nation's top financiers can be formed or that purpose can be delegated to those country's legislative bodies. The oversight commission or the legislatures would have access to all the U.N.'s internal records and dealings. This would make sure that funds given to the U.N. are being utilized properly and that operation of the U.N.'s bureaucracy is fully transparent.
Secondly, the U.N. needs to obtain some moral clarity. Any organization that has had Cuba and Libya chairing it's Human Rights Commission is clearly devoid of moral clarity, and this compromises it's ability to push for real human rights in countries where they don't exist. If Cuba, Libya, or any other nation that doesn't respect it's citizen's human rights wants a seat at the table than fine, just make it conditional that that country enacts reforms that will respect free expression and the protection of personal property. The United Nations needs to step away from the current air of moral relativism that exists, for an organization that condemns Israel's defensive actions while giving Palestinian terrorism a pass serves no useful purpose.
And finally, if the U.N. really wants to make itself relevant in the twenty-first century than it should make the promotion and preservation of democracy it's main focus. The only way to win the War on Terror and secure a lasting global peace will be to spread freedom to every corner of the globe, for the world will never be at harmony with itself until every man and woman therein lives in freedom. The U.N. and it's members must realize this and rededicate themselves to pushing for democracy around the globe.
This doesn't necessarily mean military intervention however, but also aiding fledgling democracies such as Iraq and Afghanistan, supporting the efforts of those seeking freedom in their homelands, and putting pressure on totalitarian regimes to reform. Speaking in one voice and remaining steadfast while dealing with totalitarian regimes severely decrease the likelihood that that regime will be able to wiggle out from meeting the world's demands and decrease the likelihood that military action will need to be taken against them.
For example, the unified pressure from the globe on Syria has forced them to continue to go through with their pullout from Lebanon. President Assad has tried every avenue possible to slip out of his promises to withdraw, yet the continued pressure from the United States, France, and the rest of the world has prevented him from doing so. If such unity had existed when confronting Saddam a couple of years ago there is a very real possibility that we could have removed him without war.
Similarly, the U.N. should follow up on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's proposal to allow for a multi-candidate presidential election this fall. If the world demands in a unified manner international monitoring and full transparency than President Mubarak will be hard pressed to resist. If we don't present a unified front, than Mubarak will easily be able to craft some excuse not to go through with his promises, just as Saddam did for so many years.
Though it's true that the United Nations is basically useless in it's current state, enacting the above reforms can completely change that. The U.N. can be, if the right actions are taken, an invaluable tool in winning the War on Terror, spreading democracy throughout the world, and securing a lasting global peace for centuries to come. All that's needed is for the world to put the U.N.'s house in order.
Sunday, March 27, 2005
Kerry In '08.......Probably Not
John Kerry is running for president in '08. In fact, he has never stopped running for president since he kicked off his campaign in 2003. Just look at what he's doing with his time; he's constantly out on the stump pushing his liberal agenda, he has formed a Political Action Committee, and he has been privately dining with donors and political operatives. As Perry Bacon Jr. puts it, it's as if his defeat last November "was merely a detour on his road to the White House." Another Kerry bid in '08 has now become more of a certainty than a Hillary Clinton bid, which is something I welcome with open arms.
But unfortunately, the chances of Sen. Kerry getting the Democratic nomination again in '08 are slim to none. Sen. Clinton is leading by leaps and strides over all other possible Democratic hopefuls, including a sizable lead over Sen. Kerry in his own home state of Massachusetts. Furthermore, presidential losers have not gotten a second chance from their party for decades, and Sen. Kerry is likely to be no different.
This is unfortunate, for I would love to run against Sen. Kerry again in four years. Throughout the previous campaign every Democrat I talked to said they didn't really like Sen. Kerry, they just despised President Bush. Sen. Kerry was able to overtake Howard Dean in the Democratic primary simply because the Democratic base viewed him as the best man to beat the president. His primary source of support from within his own party wasn't any position he had, personal leadership skills, or infatuation towards him from the base, but rather a commonly held conception that he was the only viable option available who could help them get that dunce Bush out of office.
Come '08 Sen. Kerry will lose his best and really only means of support. President Bush won't be there for him to kick around anymore, which will force Sen. Kerry to actually get Democrats to support him instead of simply oppose Bush. For him to actually accomplish this would be the equivalent of experiencing a blizzard in the Sahara.
Sen. Kerry has nothing to offer the Democratic Party. He is a liberal from Massachusetts in a center-right nation, he brings in no constituency the Democratic Party doesn't already have, and he has no reputation in the Senate that will bring the Democrats the credibility they need to stop the hemorrhaging they have been experiencing over the last couple of election cycles. Another John Kerry ticket will insure that the GOP holds the White House for another four years, the Democratic Party knows this and they are preparing to move on. Though the fact that they elected Howard Dean to lead their party gives a sliver of hope that maybe, just maybe, by some unexplained miracle, John Kerry will be the Democratic nominee in four years.
This probably won't happen, but I can dream can't I?
But unfortunately, the chances of Sen. Kerry getting the Democratic nomination again in '08 are slim to none. Sen. Clinton is leading by leaps and strides over all other possible Democratic hopefuls, including a sizable lead over Sen. Kerry in his own home state of Massachusetts. Furthermore, presidential losers have not gotten a second chance from their party for decades, and Sen. Kerry is likely to be no different.
This is unfortunate, for I would love to run against Sen. Kerry again in four years. Throughout the previous campaign every Democrat I talked to said they didn't really like Sen. Kerry, they just despised President Bush. Sen. Kerry was able to overtake Howard Dean in the Democratic primary simply because the Democratic base viewed him as the best man to beat the president. His primary source of support from within his own party wasn't any position he had, personal leadership skills, or infatuation towards him from the base, but rather a commonly held conception that he was the only viable option available who could help them get that dunce Bush out of office.
Come '08 Sen. Kerry will lose his best and really only means of support. President Bush won't be there for him to kick around anymore, which will force Sen. Kerry to actually get Democrats to support him instead of simply oppose Bush. For him to actually accomplish this would be the equivalent of experiencing a blizzard in the Sahara.
Sen. Kerry has nothing to offer the Democratic Party. He is a liberal from Massachusetts in a center-right nation, he brings in no constituency the Democratic Party doesn't already have, and he has no reputation in the Senate that will bring the Democrats the credibility they need to stop the hemorrhaging they have been experiencing over the last couple of election cycles. Another John Kerry ticket will insure that the GOP holds the White House for another four years, the Democratic Party knows this and they are preparing to move on. Though the fact that they elected Howard Dean to lead their party gives a sliver of hope that maybe, just maybe, by some unexplained miracle, John Kerry will be the Democratic nominee in four years.
This probably won't happen, but I can dream can't I?
Friday, March 25, 2005
Dispelling Misconceptions
A recently released poll from Rasmussen Reports shows that the major factor behind the public's opposition to Personal Savings Accounts is the fact that they don't have the facts straight. The two commonly held misconceptions dogging the president's sales pitch right now are 1.) seniors believe that their benefits will go down under the new plan, and 2.) younger generations of Americans believe that PSAs will be mandatory. Both of these notions are completely false, and as the president has said repeatedly, though not clearly enough, anyone fifty-five years or older will see no change in their benefits and PSAs will be optional. If younger workers so choose, they can remain in the current Social Security system.
If the president has any hope of passing a Social Security reform package with PSAs included than he and the White House are going to have to disabuse the American people of these misconceptions. The president has been out on the road now for a couple of weeks and these misconceptions have only grown worse, signaling to me that the White House needs to step up it's communication effort. Townhall meetings simply aren't going to cut it, for the media can pick and choose which sound bites, if any, the American public hears on the news each night. If there is one thing we Republicans have learned more than anything else it is that you can't trust the MSM to get your message out. The president and the White House should follow the example of President Reagan and go over the media's head completely, scheduling a prime-time speech where the president lays out in clear terms what his plan is. Of course this means he will finally have to develop a full and complete plan, instead of simply saying he is "open to all good ideas". To address the poll numbers above, the president must say clearly and definitively that benefits will not change for those fifty-five and above and younger workers will have the option of starting a PSA or remaining in the current system.
It was Thomas Jefferson who once said that if the American people are given all the facts than they will never make the wrong decision. I still believe that, and the White House must get out and finally give the American people all the facts about the president's plan. The MSM, the Democrats, and special interests groups such as the AARP have done a good job in scaring the American people away from reform, it is up to the president to get up in front of the people and reassure them with the facts of the matter. If given all the facts the American people will make the right decision and give the president the support he needs to reform Social Security once and for all.
UPDATE (3/29/05 9:12 P.M.): Former vice-presidential candidate Jack Kemp dispels the misconception that Personal Savings Accounts won't fix Social Security's long-term solvency crisis. Hat tip to From The Bleachers.
If the president has any hope of passing a Social Security reform package with PSAs included than he and the White House are going to have to disabuse the American people of these misconceptions. The president has been out on the road now for a couple of weeks and these misconceptions have only grown worse, signaling to me that the White House needs to step up it's communication effort. Townhall meetings simply aren't going to cut it, for the media can pick and choose which sound bites, if any, the American public hears on the news each night. If there is one thing we Republicans have learned more than anything else it is that you can't trust the MSM to get your message out. The president and the White House should follow the example of President Reagan and go over the media's head completely, scheduling a prime-time speech where the president lays out in clear terms what his plan is. Of course this means he will finally have to develop a full and complete plan, instead of simply saying he is "open to all good ideas". To address the poll numbers above, the president must say clearly and definitively that benefits will not change for those fifty-five and above and younger workers will have the option of starting a PSA or remaining in the current system.
It was Thomas Jefferson who once said that if the American people are given all the facts than they will never make the wrong decision. I still believe that, and the White House must get out and finally give the American people all the facts about the president's plan. The MSM, the Democrats, and special interests groups such as the AARP have done a good job in scaring the American people away from reform, it is up to the president to get up in front of the people and reassure them with the facts of the matter. If given all the facts the American people will make the right decision and give the president the support he needs to reform Social Security once and for all.
UPDATE (3/29/05 9:12 P.M.): Former vice-presidential candidate Jack Kemp dispels the misconception that Personal Savings Accounts won't fix Social Security's long-term solvency crisis. Hat tip to From The Bleachers.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Cheney In '08......Yes Please
I have previously commented on the possibilities of the GOP nomination going to Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, and Condoleezza Rice in '08, yet no candidate mentioned has excited me as much as the possibility of a Dick Cheney presidential bid. As I stated in my post on a possible Rice bid, what I will be looking for among the nomination seekers is which one will best advance the Bush agenda and legacy for the next four years. As quite arguably the president's most important advisor, and one of the leading crafters of White House policy, Vice President Dick Cheney is the best man to meet this criteria.
My guess is the '08 elections will be very similar to the '88 elections. The Republican candidate, whomever he or she might be, will be running largely on the president's legacy and his perceived success in the eight years he will have occupied office. The exact same situation existed in '88, where the president's father ran and was elected to continue in the Reagan legacy, and the large margins he won with are do in the most part to the satisfaction the American people had with President Reagan's presidency and it's accomplishments.
Bush 41 was a disappointment however, as he inexplicably wandered away from the Reagan agenda and legacy that had proven successful. Instead of confronting evil and seeking to spread freedom, the elder Bush worked with dictators and left Saddam in power. Instead of following in the tradition of supply-side tax cuts and deregulation he broke the promises he campaigned on and raised taxes.
This is the exact kind of thing I want to avoid in four years. Republicans must seek a candidate who will continue to advance liberty's cause abroad and limited government at home. Growing threats in Iran, Syria, North Korea, and China will demand that America is led by a president who is tough and who understands that the only way to genuinely secure America is to insure that the world is populated by free peoples, peoples who do not threaten their neighbors or the world. Nominating a candidate who slips back into realist diplomacy and who seeks to raise taxes instead of cut them will ill-serve not only our party but our country.
The contentions that the vice president is neither dynamic or graceful in appeal are in my mind exaggerated. Vice President Cheney carries more gravitas than just about any public figure present, and his grasp of the issues, sharp mind, and strong leadership should more than compensate for the fact that he isn't exactly the communicator that Reagan was. The American people are not stupid, and they will turn to the candidate who will best bring leadership and strength to the Oval Office. Dick Cheney is that candidate, and it is my hope that the president will ask him to run when the time comes.
My guess is the '08 elections will be very similar to the '88 elections. The Republican candidate, whomever he or she might be, will be running largely on the president's legacy and his perceived success in the eight years he will have occupied office. The exact same situation existed in '88, where the president's father ran and was elected to continue in the Reagan legacy, and the large margins he won with are do in the most part to the satisfaction the American people had with President Reagan's presidency and it's accomplishments.
Bush 41 was a disappointment however, as he inexplicably wandered away from the Reagan agenda and legacy that had proven successful. Instead of confronting evil and seeking to spread freedom, the elder Bush worked with dictators and left Saddam in power. Instead of following in the tradition of supply-side tax cuts and deregulation he broke the promises he campaigned on and raised taxes.
This is the exact kind of thing I want to avoid in four years. Republicans must seek a candidate who will continue to advance liberty's cause abroad and limited government at home. Growing threats in Iran, Syria, North Korea, and China will demand that America is led by a president who is tough and who understands that the only way to genuinely secure America is to insure that the world is populated by free peoples, peoples who do not threaten their neighbors or the world. Nominating a candidate who slips back into realist diplomacy and who seeks to raise taxes instead of cut them will ill-serve not only our party but our country.
The contentions that the vice president is neither dynamic or graceful in appeal are in my mind exaggerated. Vice President Cheney carries more gravitas than just about any public figure present, and his grasp of the issues, sharp mind, and strong leadership should more than compensate for the fact that he isn't exactly the communicator that Reagan was. The American people are not stupid, and they will turn to the candidate who will best bring leadership and strength to the Oval Office. Dick Cheney is that candidate, and it is my hope that the president will ask him to run when the time comes.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
The Governor's Budget
Governor Gregoire's proposed '05-'06 budget for the state of Washington is for all intensive purposes a dud. While she did cut some programs as well as 1, 000 useless management jobs within the state's bureaucracy, she still increased spending that will cause the state to send out $1.6 billion more than it brings in. To cover this discrepancy she proposed another tax hike on cigarettes, this time with a hike of twenty cents a pack, as well as the reinstitution of a tax on inherited estates worth $2 million or more.
The problem with this budget, a problem the governor has acknowledged, is that it is unsustainable. Currently state spending is rising at a clip of 6-7%, while revenues taken in by the state are only increasing at a 4.5% clip. The governor's budget does nothing to address the state's fiscal insolvency and down the road the legislature along with the governor are going to have to do one of two things, either raise taxes or make genuine spending cuts.
This state already has one of the highest tax burdens in the country, and it is for this reason that the state is so unfriendly to businesses. The National Federation of Independent Business' Washington Small Business report ranked Washington State dead last among the nation's twenty-six largest states in how supportive we are of small businesses. Raising taxes even further will only scare more and more businesses away from Washington, further hurting our economy and driving away more sources of tax-revenue.
If we are going to solve the state's fiscal problems the only viable option open to us is to cut spending. Any program or bureaucratic agency that isn't absolutely necessary should meet an ax, and furthermore, we should also reform the way the state subsidizes medical coverage. Let me make it clear that I am not at all knowledgeable on the state's health care system, but I do believe that the state should only help out with emergency cases, such as visits to the emergency room or life and death surgeries.
The governor's budget might work for the next couple of years, but in the words of the governor herself, "I don't like it. It's not sustainable. It's what is wrong with the budget in Washington." Sooner or later the legislature and either Governor Gregoire or her successor are going to have to deal with the fact that the state's costs are rising faster than it's revenues. Increasing taxes will only further the problem, leaving cuts in spending as the only viable option. The message we in Washington State received from our governor today however is basically that that is another problem for another day, left for some other governor and another legislature to handle. If she continues in this manner though, that day may come sooner than she desires.
The problem with this budget, a problem the governor has acknowledged, is that it is unsustainable. Currently state spending is rising at a clip of 6-7%, while revenues taken in by the state are only increasing at a 4.5% clip. The governor's budget does nothing to address the state's fiscal insolvency and down the road the legislature along with the governor are going to have to do one of two things, either raise taxes or make genuine spending cuts.
This state already has one of the highest tax burdens in the country, and it is for this reason that the state is so unfriendly to businesses. The National Federation of Independent Business' Washington Small Business report ranked Washington State dead last among the nation's twenty-six largest states in how supportive we are of small businesses. Raising taxes even further will only scare more and more businesses away from Washington, further hurting our economy and driving away more sources of tax-revenue.
If we are going to solve the state's fiscal problems the only viable option open to us is to cut spending. Any program or bureaucratic agency that isn't absolutely necessary should meet an ax, and furthermore, we should also reform the way the state subsidizes medical coverage. Let me make it clear that I am not at all knowledgeable on the state's health care system, but I do believe that the state should only help out with emergency cases, such as visits to the emergency room or life and death surgeries.
The governor's budget might work for the next couple of years, but in the words of the governor herself, "I don't like it. It's not sustainable. It's what is wrong with the budget in Washington." Sooner or later the legislature and either Governor Gregoire or her successor are going to have to deal with the fact that the state's costs are rising faster than it's revenues. Increasing taxes will only further the problem, leaving cuts in spending as the only viable option. The message we in Washington State received from our governor today however is basically that that is another problem for another day, left for some other governor and another legislature to handle. If she continues in this manner though, that day may come sooner than she desires.
Monday, March 21, 2005
The Terri Schiavo Case
The tragic case of Terri Schiavo has been something that I have wrestled with over the past couple of days. On the one hand I believe that it is absolutely abhorrent for this woman to be put to death. She's a living, breathing, viable human being, and the insinuation that she is brain dead or on life support is ridiculous. She reacts to stimulus and occasionally shows recognition of her parents. The only special assistance she needs to live is a feeding tube, so how any one could even think of just letting her die is beyond me. Her husband Michael Schiavo contends that it was her wish to be allowed to die had she ever gone into such a state, but to date he has provided no proof of such a request.
Yet on the other hand the actions of congress this weekend make me uncomfortable. Centuries of common and constitutional law have held that a man and a woman joined in matrimony are one, and that it is the spouse who has authority in matters such as these. Furthermore, influence and authority over cases such as this have always belonged to the states, and congress' actions over the past couple days have in my mind violated this system of federalism. By having the federal government intervene in this specific case, it creates a precedent for future congresses to interject into similar cases. Though conservatives and Republicans might believe that federal intervention on behalf of Mrs. Schiavo is justified here, we are involuntary opening a Pandora's box that will now allow the federal government to overstep it's boundaries in the future.
Though I wholeheartedly believe that Terri Schiavo should be allowed to live, I also believe that congress and the president made the wrong move in this case. If a person is incapacitated and unable to make their intentions known, than it automatically falls to the spouse to make the decisions for them. Though I strongly disagree with Mr. Schiavo's decision, and I am appalled at the manner in which Terri is being left to die, I must respect that decision. It is not congress' or the government's place to interject in such a matter, and therefore I must respectfully disagree with their actions as well.
Yet on the other hand the actions of congress this weekend make me uncomfortable. Centuries of common and constitutional law have held that a man and a woman joined in matrimony are one, and that it is the spouse who has authority in matters such as these. Furthermore, influence and authority over cases such as this have always belonged to the states, and congress' actions over the past couple days have in my mind violated this system of federalism. By having the federal government intervene in this specific case, it creates a precedent for future congresses to interject into similar cases. Though conservatives and Republicans might believe that federal intervention on behalf of Mrs. Schiavo is justified here, we are involuntary opening a Pandora's box that will now allow the federal government to overstep it's boundaries in the future.
Though I wholeheartedly believe that Terri Schiavo should be allowed to live, I also believe that congress and the president made the wrong move in this case. If a person is incapacitated and unable to make their intentions known, than it automatically falls to the spouse to make the decisions for them. Though I strongly disagree with Mr. Schiavo's decision, and I am appalled at the manner in which Terri is being left to die, I must respect that decision. It is not congress' or the government's place to interject in such a matter, and therefore I must respectfully disagree with their actions as well.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
In Argument Against The Nuclear Option
George Will has an interesting commentary today arguing against the use of the nuclear option, changing Senate rules so that judicial nominations cannot be filibustered. I agree with him in the sense that the nuclear option is probably not the best way to go. I believe that instead of changing Senate rules Republicans in the Senate should force Democrats into an around the clock filibuster. If the Democrats want to filibuster lower circuit judicial nominees, than they should have to stand on the floor and do it. By simply letting them sign pledges that they will filibuster should the nominee's vote come to the floor they are able to obstruct judicial nominees without having to face the full consequences of their actions. If they are forced to actually filibuster than they will have to justify their reasoning for not only obstructing judges, but for shutting down the Senate as well.
Minority Leader Reid has already promised to shut down the Senate should Republicans pass the nuclear option, so why not force them to filibuster and put the burden of culpability completely on them. By changing time old Senate rules Republicans could give Democrats all the justification they need for shutting down the Senate.
In his piece today Mr. Will argues that the filibuster is a legitimate form of checks-and-balances. I have to disagree on that point. As I stated in my previous post, the filibuster is no longer a rarely used vehicle to insure minority rights. Instead, it has grown into a vehicle the obstructionist minority (the Democrats) use to thwart the will of the majority. Vast majorities of the American people resent judges changing the laws and customs of this country, and the Democrats' filibustering of judicial nominees denies jurists who would rule within the confines of the law from reaching the bench.
As Mr. Will states in his piece today, the constitution delegates the right for each house to craft their own rules of proceedings. Though I disagree with doing it in this case, the Republicans in the Senate are well within their constitutional grounds to change the rules. I'm all for checks-and-balances, but what I'm not for is a tyranny of the minority, which is exactly the situation in the Senate today.
UPDATE ( 3/21/05 7:37 P.M.): Mark Levin, author of Men In Black, responds to Mr. Will's piece in rather extensive detail.
Minority Leader Reid has already promised to shut down the Senate should Republicans pass the nuclear option, so why not force them to filibuster and put the burden of culpability completely on them. By changing time old Senate rules Republicans could give Democrats all the justification they need for shutting down the Senate.
In his piece today Mr. Will argues that the filibuster is a legitimate form of checks-and-balances. I have to disagree on that point. As I stated in my previous post, the filibuster is no longer a rarely used vehicle to insure minority rights. Instead, it has grown into a vehicle the obstructionist minority (the Democrats) use to thwart the will of the majority. Vast majorities of the American people resent judges changing the laws and customs of this country, and the Democrats' filibustering of judicial nominees denies jurists who would rule within the confines of the law from reaching the bench.
As Mr. Will states in his piece today, the constitution delegates the right for each house to craft their own rules of proceedings. Though I disagree with doing it in this case, the Republicans in the Senate are well within their constitutional grounds to change the rules. I'm all for checks-and-balances, but what I'm not for is a tyranny of the minority, which is exactly the situation in the Senate today.
UPDATE ( 3/21/05 7:37 P.M.): Mark Levin, author of Men In Black, responds to Mr. Will's piece in rather extensive detail.
Some Republicans Need To Start Acting Like Republicans
The U.S. Senate is hands down one of the most frustrating institutions of American Government. The filibuster, which in theory is supposed to preserve minority rights, is in practice simply a tool for obstructionism, thwarting majority rule as opposed to preserving minority rights. As opposed to the House of Representatives, which runs in a fairly efficient manner, the Senate always seems to be bogged down with endless amounts of debate, amendments, filibusters, threatened filibusters, and so forth.
Now the Senate has delved further into madness, this time by leaving the realm of fiscal sanity. This is disappointing in itself, but even more so with the fact that it is Republicans who control the Senate. Throughout the entire '04 campaign the president took flack from both Republicans and Democrats alike for his exorbitant spending. This criticism was valid, even though it rang a bit hollow at times coming from Democrats who criticize spending and deficits but rise in angry indignation when there are specific proposals to cut spending. The president promised during the campaign to rein in Federal spending, and he followed through on that promise with his '06 budget.
For their part, the House has retained most of the president's cuts and reductions in their budget, the Senate however found reduced government spending simply too much to swallow. If the Senate's budget were to end up as the final Federal budget than government spending as a portion of GDP would be 20.2%, dangerously close to the 22.3% peak back in '91. This will hurt the economy, for too much government spending will cause inflation, among other negative repercussions.
It has always been my belief that government and the economy are constantly battling in an old Western-style duel, and there's not enough room for the both of them. As government grows larger the less room there is for the economy to grow. Government spending takes money out of the economy, and our economy, though growing rapidly right now, is still very fragile. The exorbitant spending the Republican Senate has passed is as Investor's Business Daily put it, a "dead weight" on the economy. As the House and Senate go to conference to iron out differences before passing the final budget, my hope is that the true Republicans in the House will stand their ground and force their Republican counterparts in the Senate to actually act like Republicans.
Now the Senate has delved further into madness, this time by leaving the realm of fiscal sanity. This is disappointing in itself, but even more so with the fact that it is Republicans who control the Senate. Throughout the entire '04 campaign the president took flack from both Republicans and Democrats alike for his exorbitant spending. This criticism was valid, even though it rang a bit hollow at times coming from Democrats who criticize spending and deficits but rise in angry indignation when there are specific proposals to cut spending. The president promised during the campaign to rein in Federal spending, and he followed through on that promise with his '06 budget.
For their part, the House has retained most of the president's cuts and reductions in their budget, the Senate however found reduced government spending simply too much to swallow. If the Senate's budget were to end up as the final Federal budget than government spending as a portion of GDP would be 20.2%, dangerously close to the 22.3% peak back in '91. This will hurt the economy, for too much government spending will cause inflation, among other negative repercussions.
It has always been my belief that government and the economy are constantly battling in an old Western-style duel, and there's not enough room for the both of them. As government grows larger the less room there is for the economy to grow. Government spending takes money out of the economy, and our economy, though growing rapidly right now, is still very fragile. The exorbitant spending the Republican Senate has passed is as Investor's Business Daily put it, a "dead weight" on the economy. As the House and Senate go to conference to iron out differences before passing the final budget, my hope is that the true Republicans in the House will stand their ground and force their Republican counterparts in the Senate to actually act like Republicans.
No New Taxes!
I have commented before on government overreach in my home state of Washington and it's effect on our economy. Similar to the national government and most state governments, Washington State's legislature is currently haggling out a budget for fiscal year '06. Now unfortunately we in Washington haven't joined the Republican wave that has touched most of the rest of the country, and Democrats hold both houses of the legislature and the govnernor's mansion. It has been this way for a long time now, and as I am sure you all can assume our state has one of the highest tax burdens in America. Yet, just when you think you can't be taxed anymore, you read that legislators have proposed $1.2 billion in new net tax increases. Only adding fuel to the fire is a study released by the Department of Revenue which neatly outlines all the different ways our representatives can raise taxes on us even more.
When will it stop?
When given the chance, Democrats will usually show that they are incapable of running government effectively. As the budgeting process works in Washington, the governor proposes her budget than the House and Senate offer their proposals, and the haggling and negotiating than follows which ultimately leads to a budget. Yet we're a little behind this year, with our new governor failing to provide her budget plan which was promised last week. What she seems to be waiting for now is a better revenue forecast so she and the Democratic legislature can justify further spending. Not only that, the State Senate passed a bill last week that would repeal Initiative 601, which enacted tight spending limits on the state government. I-601 also requires a two-thirds vote within both houses to raise taxes.
This is a terrible move and the average Washingtonian will feel the hurt brought about by the state legislature's fiscal recklessness the most. High taxes have already hurt the economy here, raising them further will only hurt us more. Instead of continually raising taxes to raise more revenue for further spending, we should prioritize needs according to our existing revenues. The state government should spend no more than it takes in, and if we can't afford some new program than tough. It's time that the legislature and governor get their act together, so we can pass a budget that represents limited government and fiscal discipline.
When will it stop?
When given the chance, Democrats will usually show that they are incapable of running government effectively. As the budgeting process works in Washington, the governor proposes her budget than the House and Senate offer their proposals, and the haggling and negotiating than follows which ultimately leads to a budget. Yet we're a little behind this year, with our new governor failing to provide her budget plan which was promised last week. What she seems to be waiting for now is a better revenue forecast so she and the Democratic legislature can justify further spending. Not only that, the State Senate passed a bill last week that would repeal Initiative 601, which enacted tight spending limits on the state government. I-601 also requires a two-thirds vote within both houses to raise taxes.
This is a terrible move and the average Washingtonian will feel the hurt brought about by the state legislature's fiscal recklessness the most. High taxes have already hurt the economy here, raising them further will only hurt us more. Instead of continually raising taxes to raise more revenue for further spending, we should prioritize needs according to our existing revenues. The state government should spend no more than it takes in, and if we can't afford some new program than tough. It's time that the legislature and governor get their act together, so we can pass a budget that represents limited government and fiscal discipline.
Friday, March 18, 2005
The Entitlement Monster
With each passing year since 1960 the portion of the federal budget consumed by entitlement spending has steadily grown larger. Whereas back in '60 entitlement spending accounted for only around twenty percent of the budget, it now takes up nearly sixty percent. On the current path entitlements will double with each passing decade, and in about thirty years entitlements will swallow up the entire federal budget, eliminating discretionary spending completely. This means no money for defense or any thing else. If we simply do nothing, than when that time comes congress will either have to raise taxes an average of $10, 000 dollars a family or severely cut benefits. Neither of these options is desirable, so we need to take action to shrink the entitlement monster now before it swallows up Washington and the nation.
President Bush at least in part understands this. In his budget he proposed a one percent cut in Medicaid, the medical care program for impoverished or low-income individuals. The one percent cut is not a cut in benefits however, but in the program's growth. Yet despite this, and the larger entitlement problem, the Senate voted yesterday to reject the president's proposal. This is astounding, and the Senate's inability to accept even modest cuts in entitlement growth illustrates one of the obstacles in shrinking the entitlement monster. If the Senate and the rest of congress don't get their act together than the next generation of Americans faces an age of back breaking taxes and recession.
The Medicaid program doesn't account for the whole entitlement problem, but it does account for a large chunk. Medicaid spending today exceeds over $300 billion, up more than fifty percent in the past five years. This is due in large part to congress lowering the eligibility requirements in '86. The problem with the program now is that while Washington sends out most of the money the states decide how that money is spent. Governors and state legislatures have no problem spending money that is not a part of the state budget, and in addition, much of that money is spent on trivial items such as antacid aspirin for example. Many states cover non-emergency ambulance rides, or brand-name prescription drugs when identical generic drugs would suffice. State governments are simply too liberal with the people's money.
There are several good ideas to address the Medicaid problem, two of which are from within the Bush family. The president has proposed converting Washington's contributions into block grants, where the federal government gives each state a specific amount of money each year, and the state has to make that money last for the year. This will force states to be much more stringent in how they spend that money, no longer having a virtual blank check from Washington.
Florida Governor Jeb Bush also has a plan for his state, and it resembles the president's proposed Personal Savings Accounts for Social Security. Under the governor's plan, the state would provide funds based on need, with the recipients than being able to choose from which insurance plan best suits them. The state would simply provide transparency and counsel on all private plans. This reform gives recipients more choice while introducing competition into Medicaid, something that is sure to lower costs.
It is measures such as these that are going to be necessary to shrink the entitlement monster before it consumes us. We need to take government out of the equation and promote an ownership society, which will shrink government's influence and obligation. This country was formed on the basis of limited government and self-determination, and it's time we shrink entitlements and move back in that direction. The costs of not doing so are simply too unbearable.
Hat Tip: David Gratzer, The Weekly Standard
President Bush at least in part understands this. In his budget he proposed a one percent cut in Medicaid, the medical care program for impoverished or low-income individuals. The one percent cut is not a cut in benefits however, but in the program's growth. Yet despite this, and the larger entitlement problem, the Senate voted yesterday to reject the president's proposal. This is astounding, and the Senate's inability to accept even modest cuts in entitlement growth illustrates one of the obstacles in shrinking the entitlement monster. If the Senate and the rest of congress don't get their act together than the next generation of Americans faces an age of back breaking taxes and recession.
The Medicaid program doesn't account for the whole entitlement problem, but it does account for a large chunk. Medicaid spending today exceeds over $300 billion, up more than fifty percent in the past five years. This is due in large part to congress lowering the eligibility requirements in '86. The problem with the program now is that while Washington sends out most of the money the states decide how that money is spent. Governors and state legislatures have no problem spending money that is not a part of the state budget, and in addition, much of that money is spent on trivial items such as antacid aspirin for example. Many states cover non-emergency ambulance rides, or brand-name prescription drugs when identical generic drugs would suffice. State governments are simply too liberal with the people's money.
There are several good ideas to address the Medicaid problem, two of which are from within the Bush family. The president has proposed converting Washington's contributions into block grants, where the federal government gives each state a specific amount of money each year, and the state has to make that money last for the year. This will force states to be much more stringent in how they spend that money, no longer having a virtual blank check from Washington.
Florida Governor Jeb Bush also has a plan for his state, and it resembles the president's proposed Personal Savings Accounts for Social Security. Under the governor's plan, the state would provide funds based on need, with the recipients than being able to choose from which insurance plan best suits them. The state would simply provide transparency and counsel on all private plans. This reform gives recipients more choice while introducing competition into Medicaid, something that is sure to lower costs.
It is measures such as these that are going to be necessary to shrink the entitlement monster before it consumes us. We need to take government out of the equation and promote an ownership society, which will shrink government's influence and obligation. This country was formed on the basis of limited government and self-determination, and it's time we shrink entitlements and move back in that direction. The costs of not doing so are simply too unbearable.
Hat Tip: David Gratzer, The Weekly Standard
Oil Exploration In ANWR......Finally
The U.S. Senate voted to allow drilling in a small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve in Alaska yesterday, with the measure attached to the Budget Resolution, thus requiring only a simple majority for passage. The debate over drilling in ANWR has extended throughout most of President Bush's tenure in office, and the measure was voted down twice in the Senate in the previous couple of years. In my view this vote was long overdue, and kudos to Majority Leader Frist and the Senate leadership for getting it through.
Soaring oil prices and energy shortages here at home have emphasized the need to develop more sources of energy domestically. We are too dependent on OPEC and their oil cartel, with only forty percent of the energy we use in America produced at home. It is wrong to have despots in Venezuela, Iran, and other countries holding us hostage with their oil, and producing more energy here at home is the only way we can lessen their influence and power. Drilling in ANWR can produce enough oil to fill up every car in America one-hundred and fifteen times. Furthermore, oil production in ANWR would reduce American dependence on foreign oil by four percent.
These facts are beyond dispute, the true debate between us and our friends on the left is what impact drilling will have on the environment in ANWR. They say that drilling will destroy the refuge's pristiness, and it will hurt the caribou herds that make their homes in that region. However the area where drilling will take place is hardly pristine, for there are roads, military installations, an airstrip, a school, homes, and stores located there. Furthermore, the area in dispute has been set aside for drilling since the refuge's creation under President Eisenhower. Drilling would only take place on 1/100th of a percent of the refuge, and ANWR will now join twenty-nine other wildlife refuges within the country that are currently being drilled in.
To address the effects it will have on caribou, opponents of the creation of the trans-Alaska pipeline also said that it would adversely affect the caribou herds, yet those herds have tripled in number since it's construction. There will be no such permanent structure with drilling in ANWR, for the roads to the drilling sites will all be carved in the snow, melting once the weather heats up. Furthermore, when drilling ceases, there will be nothing left but a hole in the ground with a plug in it.
Opponents of drilling also argue that we need to develop modern sources of energy instead. In this they are part correct, for some forecasts have stated that oil production will peak in the near future, meaning that the energy sector needs to start developing sources of energy apart from fossil fuels, such as hybrids. The transition from fossil fuels to hybrids and such can't happen in a day however, which means we need to continue to drill for new oil while developing other sources of energy at the same time. Until hybrid energy is ready to take the place of oil energy we have no choice but to continue to drill.
America is becoming more and more energy dependent on regimes that are growing more and more hostile to the United States, with the prime example being Iran, where the last meeting of OPEC took place. Drilling in ANWR's North Slope, which has always been earmarked for oil exploration, will go a long way in diminishing OPEC's complete control of oil prices here at home, and increased energy independence at home will go a long way in improving the economy. Drilling has minimal, if any negative effects while having great potential positive effects, namely cheaper gas and less American dollars going into the pockets of Iran and OPEC. Drilling in ANWR simply makes too much sense, and it's about time we started.
Soaring oil prices and energy shortages here at home have emphasized the need to develop more sources of energy domestically. We are too dependent on OPEC and their oil cartel, with only forty percent of the energy we use in America produced at home. It is wrong to have despots in Venezuela, Iran, and other countries holding us hostage with their oil, and producing more energy here at home is the only way we can lessen their influence and power. Drilling in ANWR can produce enough oil to fill up every car in America one-hundred and fifteen times. Furthermore, oil production in ANWR would reduce American dependence on foreign oil by four percent.
These facts are beyond dispute, the true debate between us and our friends on the left is what impact drilling will have on the environment in ANWR. They say that drilling will destroy the refuge's pristiness, and it will hurt the caribou herds that make their homes in that region. However the area where drilling will take place is hardly pristine, for there are roads, military installations, an airstrip, a school, homes, and stores located there. Furthermore, the area in dispute has been set aside for drilling since the refuge's creation under President Eisenhower. Drilling would only take place on 1/100th of a percent of the refuge, and ANWR will now join twenty-nine other wildlife refuges within the country that are currently being drilled in.
To address the effects it will have on caribou, opponents of the creation of the trans-Alaska pipeline also said that it would adversely affect the caribou herds, yet those herds have tripled in number since it's construction. There will be no such permanent structure with drilling in ANWR, for the roads to the drilling sites will all be carved in the snow, melting once the weather heats up. Furthermore, when drilling ceases, there will be nothing left but a hole in the ground with a plug in it.
Opponents of drilling also argue that we need to develop modern sources of energy instead. In this they are part correct, for some forecasts have stated that oil production will peak in the near future, meaning that the energy sector needs to start developing sources of energy apart from fossil fuels, such as hybrids. The transition from fossil fuels to hybrids and such can't happen in a day however, which means we need to continue to drill for new oil while developing other sources of energy at the same time. Until hybrid energy is ready to take the place of oil energy we have no choice but to continue to drill.
America is becoming more and more energy dependent on regimes that are growing more and more hostile to the United States, with the prime example being Iran, where the last meeting of OPEC took place. Drilling in ANWR's North Slope, which has always been earmarked for oil exploration, will go a long way in diminishing OPEC's complete control of oil prices here at home, and increased energy independence at home will go a long way in improving the economy. Drilling has minimal, if any negative effects while having great potential positive effects, namely cheaper gas and less American dollars going into the pockets of Iran and OPEC. Drilling in ANWR simply makes too much sense, and it's about time we started.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Judicial Activism Rears It's Ugly Head Again
Making the case once again for the need to put conservative, constructionist judges on the bench was a ruling from a superior court in San Francisco today. Judge Richard Kramer declared a statute within the state of California that outlawed gay marriage null and void, paving the way for California to join Massachusetts as the only other state to allow gay marriage. Today's ruling overturns a popular referendum from back in 2000 where Californians voted to prohibit gay marriage within the Golden State with over 60% of the vote. In effect Justice Kramer declared, "Screw the will of the people, it is unelected judges such as myself who should be deciding the shape of our society!"
Judicial activism such as today's ruling is only getting worse with each passing day. With the left unable to push their agenda the old democratic way, they are forcing their views and agenda down our throats through the judiciary, which is there to interpret the law, not create it. This is a double-edged sword for the American left however, for they have been able to get rulings such as today's, but such rulings anger the electorate who don't want to have some judge from San Francisco shove their far-left views down their throats. Rulings from rogue judges such as Justice Kramer's will only accelerate the American electorate's migration to the Republican Party.
The next election is over a year and a half away however, and a lot of damage can be done in that span. It' s important that the president keep nominating good judges to the bench until then, and than hold the Democrats' feet to the fire when they go and filibuster them. Today's ruling should also add a new sense of urgency to getting a constitutional amendment regarding gay marriage passed. We live in a country built upon majority rule, and it's time that we prevent far-left judges from forcing their views upon the rest of us.
Hat Tip: Polipundit
Judicial activism such as today's ruling is only getting worse with each passing day. With the left unable to push their agenda the old democratic way, they are forcing their views and agenda down our throats through the judiciary, which is there to interpret the law, not create it. This is a double-edged sword for the American left however, for they have been able to get rulings such as today's, but such rulings anger the electorate who don't want to have some judge from San Francisco shove their far-left views down their throats. Rulings from rogue judges such as Justice Kramer's will only accelerate the American electorate's migration to the Republican Party.
The next election is over a year and a half away however, and a lot of damage can be done in that span. It' s important that the president keep nominating good judges to the bench until then, and than hold the Democrats' feet to the fire when they go and filibuster them. Today's ruling should also add a new sense of urgency to getting a constitutional amendment regarding gay marriage passed. We live in a country built upon majority rule, and it's time that we prevent far-left judges from forcing their views upon the rest of us.
Hat Tip: Polipundit
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Condi In '08?
For the last couple of months there has been a lot of rumblings among the Republican grassroots about a possible presidential bid from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. A recent interview with The Washington Times and her refusal to rule out a possible run in '08 are sure to only add fuel to the fire. As I have stated before, I haven't chosen a horse in the '08 race yet, but I am very intrigued by a Rice candidacy. My most important concern come a couple of years from now, for the nomination seekers will begin campaigning almost immediately after the '06 mid-terms, will be what would-be GOP nominee will best advance the Bush legacy for at least another four years? Concerning the War on Terror especially, Secretary Rice will probably be the best choice to accomplish this.
Secretary Rice served as the president's National Security Advisor in his first term, and her and Vice President Cheney were probably the two most influential advisors shaping the president's foreign policy. Furthermore, her first few months on the job over at State have been nothing short of dazzling. She has been a strong advocate for the president's policies in her visits overseas, and it is her canceling of a visit to Egypt that is largely credited with Mubarak's announcement that he will allow multi-party elections next fall.
It also shouldn't go past mentioning that it was Secretary Rice who served in President H.W. Bush's NSA and oversaw Eastern Europe at the time the Berlin Wall fell.
As with any possible candidate, there are some drawbacks to a Rice candidacy. She has never been elected to office, and her area of expertise is exclusively limited to foreign affairs. If Secretary Rice were to run she would have to craft viewpoints on economic and social issues(something she began to do in that interview above). A run for the presidency isn't the best time or place to be doing this, which is why many have stated that it would be best for her to run for Senate in her home state of California to gain some experience in domestic affairs.
But to me these are largely inconsequential issues. Secretary Rice having no experience in domestic affairs is no different than any other governor who will be running, for they will have no experience in foreign affairs. Also, there is a congress and fifty governors and state legislative branches to deal with domestic issues, it is foreign affairs in my view that are the most important to the president. Secretary Rice has also proven herself competent in handling Democratic attacks, as proven in her testimonies before the 9/11 Commission and her nomination hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, so handling fire from the other side really isn't a major concern to me.
Among the major candidates being mentioned so far, I would probably lean towards Secretary Rice at this point. In '08 we will be coming off of eight years of George W. Bush, and I don't want his presidency to be followed by a presidency similar to his father's, who after eight years of Ronald Reagan largely strayed away from Reagan's legacy and paid the price for it. It is important that when that time comes we continue to fight to spread freedom abroad, and Secretary Rice is a solid bet to do that. I'm not sure of her chances right now, but I think there is a good possibility that she will either be the presidential or vice presidential nominee. Either way, Condoleezza Rice will be a vital person in insuring that we continue down the path President Bush has led us these past four years.
UPDATE (11:31 P.M.): In an interview with Tim Russert on Meet The Press today, Secretary Rice declared that she "will not run for president" in '08. This goes past the usual denial of "I have no intention of running at this point" or "I am just worried about being a good governor, senator, etc". I have to take her at her word and assume now that she will not be a candidate in '08, unless of course President Bush were to ask her to run................
Secretary Rice served as the president's National Security Advisor in his first term, and her and Vice President Cheney were probably the two most influential advisors shaping the president's foreign policy. Furthermore, her first few months on the job over at State have been nothing short of dazzling. She has been a strong advocate for the president's policies in her visits overseas, and it is her canceling of a visit to Egypt that is largely credited with Mubarak's announcement that he will allow multi-party elections next fall.
It also shouldn't go past mentioning that it was Secretary Rice who served in President H.W. Bush's NSA and oversaw Eastern Europe at the time the Berlin Wall fell.
As with any possible candidate, there are some drawbacks to a Rice candidacy. She has never been elected to office, and her area of expertise is exclusively limited to foreign affairs. If Secretary Rice were to run she would have to craft viewpoints on economic and social issues(something she began to do in that interview above). A run for the presidency isn't the best time or place to be doing this, which is why many have stated that it would be best for her to run for Senate in her home state of California to gain some experience in domestic affairs.
But to me these are largely inconsequential issues. Secretary Rice having no experience in domestic affairs is no different than any other governor who will be running, for they will have no experience in foreign affairs. Also, there is a congress and fifty governors and state legislative branches to deal with domestic issues, it is foreign affairs in my view that are the most important to the president. Secretary Rice has also proven herself competent in handling Democratic attacks, as proven in her testimonies before the 9/11 Commission and her nomination hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, so handling fire from the other side really isn't a major concern to me.
Among the major candidates being mentioned so far, I would probably lean towards Secretary Rice at this point. In '08 we will be coming off of eight years of George W. Bush, and I don't want his presidency to be followed by a presidency similar to his father's, who after eight years of Ronald Reagan largely strayed away from Reagan's legacy and paid the price for it. It is important that when that time comes we continue to fight to spread freedom abroad, and Secretary Rice is a solid bet to do that. I'm not sure of her chances right now, but I think there is a good possibility that she will either be the presidential or vice presidential nominee. Either way, Condoleezza Rice will be a vital person in insuring that we continue down the path President Bush has led us these past four years.
UPDATE (11:31 P.M.): In an interview with Tim Russert on Meet The Press today, Secretary Rice declared that she "will not run for president" in '08. This goes past the usual denial of "I have no intention of running at this point" or "I am just worried about being a good governor, senator, etc". I have to take her at her word and assume now that she will not be a candidate in '08, unless of course President Bush were to ask her to run................
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due
Over the last two and a half odd years I have been very critical of our friends in Europe. There has always been differences between us, but in my view it became more than differences in the leadup to war in Iraq. From the very beginning some European countries, led by France, have obstructed and fought the United States every step of the way, making it harder for us and our troops, as well as our coalition, to succeed in Iraq. While we have toiled to bring freedom and democracy to that country, the European obstructionists have fought to allow a brutal dictator continue his reign of terror.
Simply put, the Europeans have been a thorn in the side to the United States, the coalition, and the Iraqis. By steadfastly refusing to hold Saddam to account and than refusing to help us out in the postwar construction, they have in many ways denied the efforts in Iraq legitimacy while granting it to the terrorists and insurgents trying to defeat us. Because of this Europe will be stuck on the wrong side of history when it is all said and done, and there is nothing that can be done about it.
Yet for the first time in maybe my lifetime I see fit to give France and her friends some credit. President Assad of Syria has tried every avenue he can find to wriggle out of having to withdraw from Lebanon. But instead of only the United States standing up to him, a united Europe has stood with us as well. With the whole world demanding in unison that Syria vacate Lebanon immediately and completely, Assad has had no where to go and no one to hide behind, which wasn't the case with Saddam for all those years.
Left with no other choice, Assad has promised that Syria will leave Lebanon in meetings with a U.N. envoy today, something he was refusing to do just days ago. The shared resolve by the United States, France, and the rest of Europe has been very encouraging, and my only regret is that we didn't have such unity when confronting Saddam a couple of years ago.
Simply put, the Europeans have been a thorn in the side to the United States, the coalition, and the Iraqis. By steadfastly refusing to hold Saddam to account and than refusing to help us out in the postwar construction, they have in many ways denied the efforts in Iraq legitimacy while granting it to the terrorists and insurgents trying to defeat us. Because of this Europe will be stuck on the wrong side of history when it is all said and done, and there is nothing that can be done about it.
Yet for the first time in maybe my lifetime I see fit to give France and her friends some credit. President Assad of Syria has tried every avenue he can find to wriggle out of having to withdraw from Lebanon. But instead of only the United States standing up to him, a united Europe has stood with us as well. With the whole world demanding in unison that Syria vacate Lebanon immediately and completely, Assad has had no where to go and no one to hide behind, which wasn't the case with Saddam for all those years.
Left with no other choice, Assad has promised that Syria will leave Lebanon in meetings with a U.N. envoy today, something he was refusing to do just days ago. The shared resolve by the United States, France, and the rest of Europe has been very encouraging, and my only regret is that we didn't have such unity when confronting Saddam a couple of years ago.
Friday, March 11, 2005
Small Carrots, Big Stick
During a visit to Louisiana today the president announced a reversal in United States policy towards Iran. As opposed to further isolating the country, the president announced that he is willing to allow Iran to petition for entry into the World Trade Organization and to purchase commercial airline parts. This approach is in concert with the efforts by Europe to offer incentives to Iran if they abandon their nuclear pursuits. On the face of it this does look like a major reversal in U.S. policy, but I tend to suspect that there are alterior motives behind today's announcement.
Entry into the WTO and permission to purchase airline parts are rather small carrots, and it isn't much to entice the mullahs to give up their nuclear program. My guess is the administration knows this, and when Iran does reject this offer, they can then go to Europe and say, "Look, you're diplomacy didn't work, now it's time to do things our way and get tough on Iran." This would mean passing sanctions against Iran in the Security Council and/or conducting military actions against them, either against suspected nuclear facilities or the regime itself.
In the long run Iran is never going to abandon their nuclear program, for they are a dictatorship who will do anything to maintain their grip on power. They find themselves increasingly isolated in the Middle East, where they and Syria are really the only two countries not making at least small steps towards democracy. This will make it harder and harder for the mullahs to maintain their power, which is why they will never abandon their nuclear program so long as they are in power, no matter how big the carrots that we offer them are. The above strategy by the Bush Administration will simply prevent us from engaging in an endless saga of cat and mouse with the Iranian regime, which will surely happen if the Europeans are left in charge.
By getting diplomacy out of the way now, diplomacy which is sure to fail, we strengthen our ability to act before Iran actually does develop a nuclear weapon(s).
Entry into the WTO and permission to purchase airline parts are rather small carrots, and it isn't much to entice the mullahs to give up their nuclear program. My guess is the administration knows this, and when Iran does reject this offer, they can then go to Europe and say, "Look, you're diplomacy didn't work, now it's time to do things our way and get tough on Iran." This would mean passing sanctions against Iran in the Security Council and/or conducting military actions against them, either against suspected nuclear facilities or the regime itself.
In the long run Iran is never going to abandon their nuclear program, for they are a dictatorship who will do anything to maintain their grip on power. They find themselves increasingly isolated in the Middle East, where they and Syria are really the only two countries not making at least small steps towards democracy. This will make it harder and harder for the mullahs to maintain their power, which is why they will never abandon their nuclear program so long as they are in power, no matter how big the carrots that we offer them are. The above strategy by the Bush Administration will simply prevent us from engaging in an endless saga of cat and mouse with the Iranian regime, which will surely happen if the Europeans are left in charge.
By getting diplomacy out of the way now, diplomacy which is sure to fail, we strengthen our ability to act before Iran actually does develop a nuclear weapon(s).
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
The Two Factions
There are two factions within the Republican Party in regards to foreign policy. One faction consists of the realist/isolationist wing, whose most famous members are people such as President George H.W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft, and Pat Buchanan. This faction of the party believes that it is prudent (to borrow a term from Bush 41) to maintain the status quo, which helps preserve American national security and economic interests abroad. This led to policies that supported Middle East dictators, who we believed would serve as the lid that kept the bubbling cauldron that was their citizens in check. The reasoning went that a dictator who cooperates with the U.S. is more tolerable than one who is hostile.
The other wing of the party, the one of which I am a part, would immediately state that this policy doesn't work, needing only to allude to 9/11 to point that out. This wing's most popular members are Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The idealistic wing believes that idealism and realism are one in the same, that spreading freedom and democracy best promotes American interests. Anti-American resentment in the Middle East was only fueled farther by the fact that we supported those who oppressed them. It is no coincidence that the regimes America is most hostile towards also have the most pro-American citizens; Iran for example.
Tyranny only leads to discontent and violence, and the only way the Middle East and other regions will ever be peaceful is if freedom and democracy take hold there. Free societies are peaceful societies and they don't breed and export terror. Realist policies put forth in the name of stability might seem the easiest way to go, but they ignore the fundamental problems and challenges we face. By supporting the oppression of others, we only fuel their hostility and malice towards us.
As the Republicans prepare for '08 and beyond, a fundamental debate within the party will be to which of these two factions leads us. I believe it is essential that we select leaders who stand stride for stride with the beliefs of Reagan and Bush 43, for it is following in the legacy of those two that will make America and the world a better place. The world will never be at peace until every man and woman therein lives in freedom, and it is vital that the Republican Party continues to understand that.
The other wing of the party, the one of which I am a part, would immediately state that this policy doesn't work, needing only to allude to 9/11 to point that out. This wing's most popular members are Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The idealistic wing believes that idealism and realism are one in the same, that spreading freedom and democracy best promotes American interests. Anti-American resentment in the Middle East was only fueled farther by the fact that we supported those who oppressed them. It is no coincidence that the regimes America is most hostile towards also have the most pro-American citizens; Iran for example.
Tyranny only leads to discontent and violence, and the only way the Middle East and other regions will ever be peaceful is if freedom and democracy take hold there. Free societies are peaceful societies and they don't breed and export terror. Realist policies put forth in the name of stability might seem the easiest way to go, but they ignore the fundamental problems and challenges we face. By supporting the oppression of others, we only fuel their hostility and malice towards us.
As the Republicans prepare for '08 and beyond, a fundamental debate within the party will be to which of these two factions leads us. I believe it is essential that we select leaders who stand stride for stride with the beliefs of Reagan and Bush 43, for it is following in the legacy of those two that will make America and the world a better place. The world will never be at peace until every man and woman therein lives in freedom, and it is vital that the Republican Party continues to understand that.
Monday, March 07, 2005
In The Company Of Greatness
Michael Barone has a great article today discussing President Bush's numerological partnership with Presidents Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt. He points out that seventy-two years ago Franklin Roosevelt took office, and seventy-two years before that Abraham Lincoln did the same, who was preceded seventy-two years earlier by George Washington. Those three are quite possibly the three greatest presidents in American history, and it seems only fitting that their presidencies, as well as the presidency of George W. Bush, are separated by the same lengths of time.
Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt all arose to answer the challenge of their times, which were undoubtedly the most trying in our nation's existence. President Washington took office with the daunting task of leading a new republic, unlike any ever seen in the world. Aware of the precedent he was setting for his successors, Washington was able to lead a new nation while establishing and shaping the American Presidency at the same time.
President Lincoln came to office in the midst of the nation's greatest crisis. Faced with the possibility of America falling in division, Lincoln, through great leadership and courage, somehow held the nation together all the while setting it on a new course where people of color would eventually receive their full rights. Lincoln's belief in the greatness of America and the righteousness of democracy is one of the most inspiring aspects of our history, and there is little doubt as to why he is the most heralded president in our history.
President Roosevelt took the oath of office with the nation in the midst of it's worst economic downturn ever. Roosevelt achieved his greatness not in any particular program or initiative he signed to address this, but rather in his ability to help Americans believe in their country again. This was only accentuated as Roosevelt led the America that defeated Nazism and Fascism and liberated Western Europe.
Had these three men not been leading America at the times they did, this nation and this world would look vastly different than it does today, and it wouldn't be for the better. The times in which these men lead were, as Barone puts it, "moments when men mattered." Each were moments where America faced a turning point, and each moment demanded a leader who was equal to the task.
Though the challenges that confront this nation are not as dire as they were under the three men above, America is again experiencing a turning point. Faced with the destructive threat of Islamofascism, President Bush has seized the opportunity to reshape the world, introducing freedom in a region where it has never existed. Through his actions he has not only helped millions achieve the universal dream of freedom, but he has insured that our children will live in a safer, more secure world. Only time will tell if history regards President Bush in the same context as Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt, but it is safe to say that if it weren't for the president our world would look vastly different than it does today, and it wouldn't be for the better.
Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt all arose to answer the challenge of their times, which were undoubtedly the most trying in our nation's existence. President Washington took office with the daunting task of leading a new republic, unlike any ever seen in the world. Aware of the precedent he was setting for his successors, Washington was able to lead a new nation while establishing and shaping the American Presidency at the same time.
President Lincoln came to office in the midst of the nation's greatest crisis. Faced with the possibility of America falling in division, Lincoln, through great leadership and courage, somehow held the nation together all the while setting it on a new course where people of color would eventually receive their full rights. Lincoln's belief in the greatness of America and the righteousness of democracy is one of the most inspiring aspects of our history, and there is little doubt as to why he is the most heralded president in our history.
President Roosevelt took the oath of office with the nation in the midst of it's worst economic downturn ever. Roosevelt achieved his greatness not in any particular program or initiative he signed to address this, but rather in his ability to help Americans believe in their country again. This was only accentuated as Roosevelt led the America that defeated Nazism and Fascism and liberated Western Europe.
Had these three men not been leading America at the times they did, this nation and this world would look vastly different than it does today, and it wouldn't be for the better. The times in which these men lead were, as Barone puts it, "moments when men mattered." Each were moments where America faced a turning point, and each moment demanded a leader who was equal to the task.
Though the challenges that confront this nation are not as dire as they were under the three men above, America is again experiencing a turning point. Faced with the destructive threat of Islamofascism, President Bush has seized the opportunity to reshape the world, introducing freedom in a region where it has never existed. Through his actions he has not only helped millions achieve the universal dream of freedom, but he has insured that our children will live in a safer, more secure world. Only time will tell if history regards President Bush in the same context as Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt, but it is safe to say that if it weren't for the president our world would look vastly different than it does today, and it wouldn't be for the better.
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Sen. Hagel's Plan
Today on Face The Nation, Sen. Chuck Hagel, Republican from Nebraska, announced his own plan for Social Security Reform. In it PSA's would be funded by government borrowing and all those under forty-five would be allowed to invest. Also, to address the long-term solvency the Senator proposes several things. First of all, starting in 2023 he would raise the minimum retirement age from 67 to 68. For all those retiring early at the age of 62 they would receive 63% of full benefits, as opposed to the 70% number they currently receive. Furthermore, to take into account longer life spans Sen. Hagel would slow the growth of benefits.
I think this is a great plan, and it is certainly better than the other plan put forth by Sen. Lindsey Graham, which would raise the amount of money subject to the payroll tax. Not only does Sen. Hagel's plan allow for PSA's, but it also addresses the main reason that Social Security is headed towards insolvency, which is retirees living longer than they used to.
Back when the program was created, Social Security simply insured that seniors lived the last years of their lives with the decency and respect they deserved. With longer life spans today, Social Security is subsidizing a retiree's second life. Just as benefits increase with wages, so too should the age retirees are eligible to receive benefits move upwards with the nation's average life-span.
For a guy who is supposed to be a maverick, Sen. Hagel's plan mirrors the president's desires more than any other I've seen or heard. It is a strong, common sense plan and hopefully it will serve as the final piece of legislation addressing Social Security.
Hat Tip: From The Bleachers
I think this is a great plan, and it is certainly better than the other plan put forth by Sen. Lindsey Graham, which would raise the amount of money subject to the payroll tax. Not only does Sen. Hagel's plan allow for PSA's, but it also addresses the main reason that Social Security is headed towards insolvency, which is retirees living longer than they used to.
Back when the program was created, Social Security simply insured that seniors lived the last years of their lives with the decency and respect they deserved. With longer life spans today, Social Security is subsidizing a retiree's second life. Just as benefits increase with wages, so too should the age retirees are eligible to receive benefits move upwards with the nation's average life-span.
For a guy who is supposed to be a maverick, Sen. Hagel's plan mirrors the president's desires more than any other I've seen or heard. It is a strong, common sense plan and hopefully it will serve as the final piece of legislation addressing Social Security.
Hat Tip: From The Bleachers
Not So Fast
Conventional wisdom within the MSM these days is that President Bush's proposed reforms of Social Security, primarily personal savings accounts, are dead. To justify this rationale, they simply point to recent poll numbers which show that public support for PSA's is only around 45%. To them and their Democratic friends, Social Security reform and the president's momentum are dead, and he will be forced to simply ride out these last four years as a lame duck.
But as is usually the case, the MSM and the Democratic Party are a little too cocky, a little to soon. As Byron York of National Review points out, things are going just as the president and the White House expected they would. From the very beginning the president and his strategists have believed that before you can convince the public to support your reforms, you must convince them that there is a reason to reform in the first place. Only after you have done this can you start to make the pitch for specific reforms and legislation.
This is a good, sound strategy, and the same polls that the left jumped on earlier are proving that this strategy is working. 68% of Americans now believe that Social Security is either in crisis or has serious problems. Just 4% subscribe to the Democrats' contention that there is no problem with the program at all.
As the numbers above bear out, the first phase of the White House's strategy has proven successful, as a vast majority of the American public believe that Social Security has problems and something needs to be done. Now comes the second part of the strategy, with the president in the midst of a sixty-day tour designed to amp up support for PSA's. The president is very strong on the stump, and you can expect the level of support to slowly but surely rise.
In what has become a frequent comedy of errors, the American left has been caught once again counting their eggs before they have hatched.
But as is usually the case, the MSM and the Democratic Party are a little too cocky, a little to soon. As Byron York of National Review points out, things are going just as the president and the White House expected they would. From the very beginning the president and his strategists have believed that before you can convince the public to support your reforms, you must convince them that there is a reason to reform in the first place. Only after you have done this can you start to make the pitch for specific reforms and legislation.
This is a good, sound strategy, and the same polls that the left jumped on earlier are proving that this strategy is working. 68% of Americans now believe that Social Security is either in crisis or has serious problems. Just 4% subscribe to the Democrats' contention that there is no problem with the program at all.
As the numbers above bear out, the first phase of the White House's strategy has proven successful, as a vast majority of the American public believe that Social Security has problems and something needs to be done. Now comes the second part of the strategy, with the president in the midst of a sixty-day tour designed to amp up support for PSA's. The president is very strong on the stump, and you can expect the level of support to slowly but surely rise.
In what has become a frequent comedy of errors, the American left has been caught once again counting their eggs before they have hatched.
Saturday, March 05, 2005
Senate Considers Minimum Wage Hike
The Senate is currently considering differing proposals dealing with the Federal minimum wage, both proposals, one by Sen. Kennedy and one by Sen. Santorum, would raise it. Sen. Kennedy's proposal would raise the rate a full two dollars while Sen. Santorum's would raise it just over a dollar. Both plans would also have the wage raised in increments, the only difference being that Sen. Santorum's plan also includes certain tax breaks for small businesses.
While I favor Sen. Santorum's plan over Sen. Kennedy's, I think both are bad ideas. The economy, and specifically the job market, have been moving forward for well over a year now, and last month's job creation was the highest it's been since around this time last year. Raising the minimum wage would only hamper job creation, for a wage hike would directly affect small business owners. If these owners are forced to pay higher wages to their employees than it will most likely prevent them from hiring new ones, and possibly force them to let go of current ones.
The economy is slowly but surely gaining steam. We are creating jobs and we are growing at paces that outdistance every other industrialized nation in the world. The economic troubles of Germany should be teaching us a lesson. Over regulation there and too much government interference have created an environment where growth is almost nonexistent and unemployment is in double digits. Our government here should leave the economy alone so that it may continue to grow, lest we fall into the same trap as our German and European cousins.
While I favor Sen. Santorum's plan over Sen. Kennedy's, I think both are bad ideas. The economy, and specifically the job market, have been moving forward for well over a year now, and last month's job creation was the highest it's been since around this time last year. Raising the minimum wage would only hamper job creation, for a wage hike would directly affect small business owners. If these owners are forced to pay higher wages to their employees than it will most likely prevent them from hiring new ones, and possibly force them to let go of current ones.
The economy is slowly but surely gaining steam. We are creating jobs and we are growing at paces that outdistance every other industrialized nation in the world. The economic troubles of Germany should be teaching us a lesson. Over regulation there and too much government interference have created an environment where growth is almost nonexistent and unemployment is in double digits. Our government here should leave the economy alone so that it may continue to grow, lest we fall into the same trap as our German and European cousins.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Here's An Idea......
One of the main arguments employed by the Democrats against personal savings accounts is that they will be too risky, that why would we take away a sure thing in the current system by changing it with this new one? Democrats are trying to convince you and I that having individuals put some of their payroll tax money into the stock market instead of the Fed's coffers is the equivalent of us gambling away our retirement on a game of roulette. This is their rationale, and it is flawed in more ways than one.
First of all, preserving the current system is the exact opposite of a sure thing. In around 2018 the system will begin sending out more money than it takes in, and by around 2040 the system will only be able to cover about 80% of the benefits that it does today. The program is heading off the cliff and we need to do something while we still have the time.
Furthermore, numbers show that investing in the stock market is the closest thing to a sure bet that you will find. For example, in only four of the last seventeen years has the rate of return on investments been negative. In eleven of the seventeen years the rate of return has been greater than 10%, in eight years it has been greater than 20%, and in four years it has been greater than 30%. The average rate of return over this seventeen year period has been 12%. As these numbers prove, investment in the market over the long term is very profitable, with the only risk being an investor pulling their stocks out after a short period of time. This will not be a problem though, for young workers will be investing for their retirement, meaning that they will be in the market for at least a few decades.
So what would you rather do; keep sending your payroll tax money to the government where on our current path you will only receive 80% of promised benefits, or invest it where long term returns will surpass anything you could ever hope to receive from Uncle Sam? I think myself and most young workers would choose the latter, for I trust myself with my own money far more than I trust the boys in Washington with it.
This brings me to the main point of this post however: To address the Democrats' concern that empowering individuals to take care of their own money is too risky, I propose that the congress pass a provision as part of any personal savings account bill that insures each individual who chooses to divert their payroll tax money into the stock market. If by the time of that person's retirement they have lost money, after decades of having it in the market, the government would reimburse that individual for every penny that they lost. So for example, if I invested a sum of $200, 000 that would have previously gone into the system, and I winded up at the time of my retirement with only $180, 000, the government would reimburse me for the $20, 000 that I lost.
As the statistics I showed you above bore out, the chances of an individual losing money in the market after an extended period of time are very minimal, with the chances being that you will see at least a 10% rate of return on your investments. As a result, it is highly unlikely that the government would have to give much out in reimbursement money, at least much less than it would have to pay out if the system is preserved in it's current state. This plan would also allow those who are pensive about the risks of investing to feel much more secure when they make their decision on whether to keep paying into the system in it's entirety or take the money and invest.
To sum up, Social Security on it's current path cannot be sustained, which is why we must act now before we fall over the cliff. Instead of the government creating a state where all of it's senior citizens are dependent on the government, we should allow individuals to take responsibility for their own retirement and their own future. As the current deficit and out of control spending show, the individual can do a much better job with their own money than the government can. It's the government's job to provide support to it's people, all the while allowing them to control their own lives. The creation of personal savings accounts and my plan of insuring those accounts serves that exact purpose.
First of all, preserving the current system is the exact opposite of a sure thing. In around 2018 the system will begin sending out more money than it takes in, and by around 2040 the system will only be able to cover about 80% of the benefits that it does today. The program is heading off the cliff and we need to do something while we still have the time.
Furthermore, numbers show that investing in the stock market is the closest thing to a sure bet that you will find. For example, in only four of the last seventeen years has the rate of return on investments been negative. In eleven of the seventeen years the rate of return has been greater than 10%, in eight years it has been greater than 20%, and in four years it has been greater than 30%. The average rate of return over this seventeen year period has been 12%. As these numbers prove, investment in the market over the long term is very profitable, with the only risk being an investor pulling their stocks out after a short period of time. This will not be a problem though, for young workers will be investing for their retirement, meaning that they will be in the market for at least a few decades.
So what would you rather do; keep sending your payroll tax money to the government where on our current path you will only receive 80% of promised benefits, or invest it where long term returns will surpass anything you could ever hope to receive from Uncle Sam? I think myself and most young workers would choose the latter, for I trust myself with my own money far more than I trust the boys in Washington with it.
This brings me to the main point of this post however: To address the Democrats' concern that empowering individuals to take care of their own money is too risky, I propose that the congress pass a provision as part of any personal savings account bill that insures each individual who chooses to divert their payroll tax money into the stock market. If by the time of that person's retirement they have lost money, after decades of having it in the market, the government would reimburse that individual for every penny that they lost. So for example, if I invested a sum of $200, 000 that would have previously gone into the system, and I winded up at the time of my retirement with only $180, 000, the government would reimburse me for the $20, 000 that I lost.
As the statistics I showed you above bore out, the chances of an individual losing money in the market after an extended period of time are very minimal, with the chances being that you will see at least a 10% rate of return on your investments. As a result, it is highly unlikely that the government would have to give much out in reimbursement money, at least much less than it would have to pay out if the system is preserved in it's current state. This plan would also allow those who are pensive about the risks of investing to feel much more secure when they make their decision on whether to keep paying into the system in it's entirety or take the money and invest.
To sum up, Social Security on it's current path cannot be sustained, which is why we must act now before we fall over the cliff. Instead of the government creating a state where all of it's senior citizens are dependent on the government, we should allow individuals to take responsibility for their own retirement and their own future. As the current deficit and out of control spending show, the individual can do a much better job with their own money than the government can. It's the government's job to provide support to it's people, all the while allowing them to control their own lives. The creation of personal savings accounts and my plan of insuring those accounts serves that exact purpose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)