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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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................

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Saving Ourselves From A Brave New World

In an earlier post I opined that we as Americans should stand for life and severely limit the practice of abortion in this country, which is robbing future generations. I believed then as I believe now that human life is a gift from God with limitless worth, and that the practice of abortion robs us of the gifts and talents that each life brings. The call of not only myself but millions of others to protect human life must now be renewed with the emerging debate over human cloning. Recently Harvard University announced their intention to create human embryos for the purpose of research. The university then declared, disingenuously I might add, that they are opposed to human cloning, that the creation of embryos would be for research only, and that the embryos will be destroyed once they have outlived their usefulness.

To do this would not only be disgusting, it would contradict every sense of human ethics and decency we as a nation hold dear. Human life is not a commodity to be created and destroyed for research. It is not something that should be kept in labs and destroyed as if it were a lab rat. The day we as Americans permit this kind of activity will be our darkest.

Those supporting cloning for research say that opposition to it is opposition to progress, that we are standing in the way of horrific diseases being cured. But to what lengths are we to go for progress? I'm not the only one who believes it is morally reprehensible to destroy the lives of future generations to prolong the existence of current ones. The scientific community who supports such activities need to stop demagoguing the issue and realize that they are not God. They have no right to decide whether we discard all matter of ethics in the name of progress and they certainly have no right to create and destroy human life.

We as Americans must stand for life once again, for a line needs to be drawn somewhere before we as a society become an actual "Brave New World".

The Emerging GOP Generation?

From the early 1930's all the way through the 1970's the Democratic Party dominated American politics. During that period Republicans held the White House just sixteen of the forty years. Democrats held huge majorities in both houses of congress and a majority of state legislatures. At the height of power they held nearly forty of the nation's fifty governor's mansions. Simply put, the Democrats owned the halls of government and every thing that came out of them.

But all that began to change in 1980 when a wise and optimistic man named Ronald Reagan rode a grassroots rebellion straight to the White House. Americans were simply beginning to grow tired of the gorilla that had become government and the deterioration of their traditional culture. No longer did the Democratic Party stand for helping the common man at home while advancing liberty and freedom abroad. The downfall of the Democrats left a void that Republicans were quick to fill. In the twenty-five years since than Republicans have steadily rose to become America's majority party ( you can read one of my earlier posts on how we got from then to now here).

However new numbers seem to be suggesting that the GOP might be moving into that dominant status the Democrats enjoyed for so long. Whereas Democrats used to enjoy a two-to-one party affiliation advantage, that number was tied between the two parties at 37% in the last election. This parity is not only a move up from thirty years ago, but just eight years ago, for Democrats enjoyed an affiliation advantage in both the '96 and '00 elections. If we continue in the same direction Republicans will soon transcend the Democrats in party ID, presumably as early as '06 or '08.

If you look at a different set of numbers however, you could argue that the GOP has already surpassed the Democratic Party. As Alexander K. McClure points out, President Bush won 250 House Districts and 31 states in the last election (or 62 Senators). Furthermore, in a recent column Robert Novak cites recent projections that show red states are likely to gain 6 electoral votes following the 2010 census, with Texas and Florida each gaining three. This number coincides with the fact that President Bush won ninety-six of the country's hundred fastest growing counties. Americans are simply migrating to Republican states where friendlier business climates and greater prosperity exist, while those in Blue America wallow in stagnation caused by over regulation and low birth rates.

To sum up, if we continue down the same path we have been going for the last twenty-five years, we will soon be entering a new generation of GOP dominance, very similar to New Deal generation that dominated for so long in the 1900's. This reiterates once again the necessity for Democrats to compete in middle America, where they have steadily lost ground. This also brings up the question whether Howard Dean is really the right man to be leading the party, for we live in a center-right nation and I don't think someone on the far left is going to help stop the bleeding, he'll only increase it.

Hat Tip: Polipundit

Hopping On The Train

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak called for changes in that country's election laws today. The new reforms would allow more than one candidate to compete for the presidency, much different from the current system, where the Egyptian Parliament selects a candidate and a referendum takes place within the country where voters are allowed to check either "yes" or "no". If the new law passes, election of the presidency will be a direct election with multiple candidates.

This is encouraging news, but talk alone never accomplished anything. Mubarak needs to follow through on this promise and the elections, set for September, must be free and fair. Mubarak must also allow all parties to participate, for elections can only be free and fair when everyone is given an equal chance to run. It is the responsibility of America and the world to keep the pressure on Mubarak, and we must demand full transparency so the international community may rest assured that these elections are not tainted.

But with all that said, this announcement is further validation of our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Just as the Lebanese are demanding their full democratic rights, Egypt can see the train is headed towards democracy in the Middle East and they don't want to be left behind. Freedom is contagious, and democrats in the Middle East who saw Iraqis vote last month are asking themselves, "Why not us?" Leaders in the region are all admitting that times are changing, and that no longer can regimes deny their people their full democratic rights.

If it weren't for the United States and President Bush, none of this would be possible and the train would still be in the station.

Assessing Our Presidents: Bill Clinton

One of the worst kept secrets in America is the Republican Party's rank and file distaste for Bill Clinton. Some would call it hatred, but after seeing the Democrats' hatred of President Bush it is hard to justify such a claim. The main reason behind Republicans' distaste of Clinton is two-fold, one part being his personal moral corruption, the second being that he won two terms despite it. While I certainly abhor Clinton's sense of ethics, and his absolute disgrace of the Oval Office and the presidency, there is no denying that there were a few notable achievements during Clinton's two terms. As a matter of fact, I could easily argue that the presidency of Bill Clinton was simply an extension of the Reagan presidency.

Clinton's three greatest achievements were all Reagan platforms; NAFTA, Welfare Reform, and the balanced budget. NAFTA was first proposed by President Reagan than negotiated and agreed upon under Bush 41, Clinton simply signed it. Welfare Reform was also a Reagan proposal, and Dick Morris convinced Clinton that failure to sign it would jeopardize his reelection. Finally, the supply-side policies of the eighties led to the robust growth and surpluses in the nineties, Clinton was just fortunate to be sitting in office throughout it all. Without a Democrat in office, it is unlikely that NAFTA and Welfare Reform ever would have passed, for Clinton was able to garner support for these measures within his party that would be absent had George H.W. Bush still been in office. It took a Democrat to convince Democrats to go against their free trade and zero accountability slants.

Other than this, very little of significance occurred during Clinton's tenure. No major crisis or event challenged the nation, nor did he change the nation's course in any way. Unlike the current President Bush, who seeks to change the status quo, Clinton artfully rolled with the country's conservative current, able to claim credit for a Republican Congress' achievements. When history passes it's judgment on Clinton's eight years, it will regard them as insignificant, with the most memorable episode being the Lewinsky scandal which epitomized Clinton's overall moral bankruptcy. With a current president who has sought to reshape not just the country but the world, nary a passing thought will be paid to his predecessor's time in office.

The Nuclear Alternative

One of the more prominent examples that has epitomized the Democratic Party's downfall has been their filibustering of lower court judicial nominees. Trying to justify their actions by claiming the nominees were extremists, the Democrats have in fact been going to desperate lengths to prevent these nominees from ever reaching an up or down vote due to the nominees' pro-life positions. This strategy is unprecedented in American history, and the obstruction has not gone without consequence. By turning off socially conservative voters, the Democrats essentially forfeited every southern and plain state to Republicans. In both these regions six Senate seats were up for grabs, Democrats won only one of those contests. Furthermore, the man who crafted this obstruction strategy, former Minority Leader Tom Daschle, lost his seat as well.

With clear proof that the country rejects obstructionist politics you'd think the Democrats would quit. That's not the case however, for new Minority Leader Harry Reid seems just as intent as his predecessor was to ride straight off the cliff. Continued obstruction and filibustering will only lead the Democrats to further losses in '06, with greater GOP majorities as a result. But Republicans aren't willing to wait that long, for the increased judicial activism has brought about the need to bring in strong, conservative judges who will interpret the law, not change it.

So the question now becomes what Republicans can do to bring the filibusters to their deserved end. The most discussed option has become the "nuclear" option, or changing the Senate rules to prohibit filibusters on lower-court judicial nominees. To do this all Republicans would need to do is appeal to the chair, Vice-President Cheney, for a rules change, with only a simple majority of fifty-one votes needed to pass it.

I on the other hand would go a different route. Instead of simply allowing the Democrats to sign a pledge that they will filibuster should it come to the floor, force the Democrats to actually go through with an old style filibuster, bringing out the cots and everything. This would force the Democrats to stand in front of the cameras and try to justify their shutting down of the Senate, and it would bring further scrutiny upon actions that the MSM has tried to hide under the carpet.

Republicans should stop allowing Democrats a pass. If the Democrats are so intent on blocking judges than force them to go to all lengths to achieve that. Put the onus on them, make them responsible for bringing the Senate to a standstill. It's high time that the Democrats' determination be put to the test. Making them stand endlessly on the Senate floor with the whole nation watching would accomplish just that.

And The Fire Spreads

Thousands took to the streets in Lebanon yesterday protesting Syrian occupation of that country and demanding the immediate withdrawal of all Syrian troops. Lebanon is set to have parliamentary elections this spring and the citizens of that country want them to take place without Syrian interference. The entire episode was strikingly similar to the nature of protests that took place within the Ukraine last November and December, where millions took to the streets demanding a fair election free of Russian interference.

The similarities between the two episodes are not a coincidence. Even the most stubborn cynic would have a hard time arguing that those protesting in Lebanon would have summoned the strength were it not for the inspiration of the democrats in Ukraine and the heroic acts of those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Empowered by the establishment of liberty in other countries, the people of Lebanon are now demanding full sovereignty and freedom in their country. As President Bush declared in his second inaugural, the "untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world."

The fire of freedom is untamed, and the more people are given their freedom the more it will embolden others to demand theirs. America must lead the rest of the world and stand by the Lebanese people who are demanding their rights, ourselves demanding that Syria keep it's promise and leave Lebanon at once. When that happens, and Lebanon follows the path of it's Middle East cousins by having free elections, we will win yet another victory for freedom and democracy.

Mending Fences

The president's current trip through Europe is being called by many in the MSM a "fence mending" tour. They call it this because most within the MSM believe the president has much to apologize for to the Europeans, for he shamefully ignored the advice of our wiser, smarter European cousins and went into Iraq. Not only this, he unilaterally pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, which served as a shameful slap in the face of the Europeans.

This is all of course absurd. Recent events on the ground in Iraq have shown that President Bush was right and the Europeans, specifically France and Germany, were wrong. In regards to the Kyoto Protocol, President Bush was absolutely right to pull out of it, for it would unfairly hurt American businesses while leaving those in Europe untouched. God forbid that the president of the United States actually look out for America's interests.

No, if anything it is the Europeans who need to do the "fence mending". Better yet, if they really want to improve relations they need to do some serious self-reflection, for it is their loss of moral clarity that has truly done harm to the trans-Atlantic alliance. From the lead up to war in Iraq until now, many in Europe have snubbed their nose at our efforts in Iraq, condescendingly opposing and undermining the very same actions we are taking in Iraq that freed them from Hitler's control sixty years ago. Enjoying all their full freedoms, they have had the audacity to say that others are not ready or can't be free.

Even worse, they based much of their opposition to Saddam's ouster on the profits they were bringing in under Saddam. This lack of moral clarity has shown itself time and time again over the last couple of years. It is a lack of moral clarity that leads someone to decry all the civilian deaths in Iraq while just a few years prior looking the other way as Saddam murdered his own people. Because of this the president can be forgiven for not exactly taking what these people advise to heart.

Our relationship with Europe will never be what it used to be until all of this changes. President Bush can make nice with Chirac and Schroeder all he wants, but until these leaders and their countries fully align themselves on the side of freedom they will have little use to us. It is Europe, not the president, that has some fence mending to do.

Time For Change In The Evergreen State

For over twenty years now Democrats have resided in the Washington State governor's mansion. Both houses of our state legislature are currently controlled by Democrats. We haven't awarded our eleven electoral votes to a Republican presidential nominee since President Reagan in '84.

And does anyone really wonder why Washington has one of the most sluggish economies in the nation?

Thanks to over taxation and over regulation businesses have been on a mass exodus from our state for quite a long time. Now, our representatives in government think it is their right to infringe on our personal property. Just recently a bill was proposed by a Democratic legislator that if passed would prohibit property owners from collecting rain water on their own property without a permit. This isn't the end of it however, for the King County City Council recently passed an ordinance that restricts property owners' activities on their own piece of land. As one affected property owner, and a Democrat until the new ordinance passed explained, her property is now "worthless". Her dog can only run free on two of the five acres she owns, and she needs an $800 dollar permit to simply pick raspberries on her own property.

"How can government overstep so much?'' she rightly asked County Executive Ron Sims at a town meeting. She isn't alone in her indignation either, for there were thousands of affected landowners protesting the ordinance at the meeting as well.

I join their indignation, for even though I do not live in King County, and even though I do not own property, I strongly believe that this type of government action hurts us all. It is laid out in the Declaration of Independence that each individual is entitled to "the pursuit of happiness". This means being able to own property and being able to enjoy that property. By the message our local and state government has been sending us in the Evergreen State, we no longer have that right.

State Democrats can only get away with this for so long, for sooner or later Washingtonians are going to grow tired of this state's larger than life government. When that time comes, and I hope it's soon, they are going to become more and more receptive to what we Republicans have been saying all along: government is beholden to the people, not the other way around, and it's time Democrats get that message loud and clear.

Hat Tip: Sound Politics

Another Stupid Comment

Adding to his already lengthy list of gaffes, new DNC Chair Howard Dean recently had this to say in a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus:

You think the Republicans could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here.

And Democrats actually believe this guy will help their party? In what way will stupid and insensitive comments such as these attract those who voted Republican in the last election? This kind of rhetoric might make the MoveOn and Michael Moore crowd feel good, but it will only alienate the rest of America.

Hat Tip: From The Bleachers

Negroponte To Be New DNI

In a press conference earlier today President Bush nominated current ambassador to Iraq John Negroponte as the nation's first National Intelligence Director. Ambassador Negroponte's main role will be to oversee fifteen of the nation's intelligence agencies, bringing them under one umbrella. Furthermore, Negroponte will also be tasked with delivering the daily security briefing to the president, something that had fallen to the CIA and FBI directors.

From what I've heard Negroponte has always been somewhat of a "ruthless" operator, unaffected by political pressure and risk. This is all fine and dandy, but I'm still skeptical that the creation of this new post will make much of a difference. The 9/11 Commission hailed this as the cure all for the nation's intelligence woes, and many in congress were all to ready to follow every beckoning order from the commission. The intelligence problems that led to our inability to prevent 9/11 were not due to a lack of bureaucracy however, but were a result of institutional walls preventing agencies form communicating with each other and a lack of good human intelligence.

The PATRIOT Act took care of the first problem, the second one still hasn't been addressed. Many of the intelligence cuts that took place during the Clinton years were justified by the rise of greater technologies. Supposedly, satellites and unmanned drones would be able to replace on the ground spies, and it would be a lot less messy. This is flawed however, for satellites and drones can never make up for good human intelligence, they can only compliment it. The intelligence failures that led to 9/11 were a result of the fact that we did not adequately infiltrate al-Qaeda and similar terrorist organizations. Simply adding more bureaucracy and red tape is not going to fix this.

Now maybe I'm just being overly skeptical, and maybe centralizing intelligence will work. I just happen to believe that having all the intelligence brought in by the assorted agencies going through a one man filter isn't all that great of an idea. Fred Barnes, Executive Editor of The Weekly Standard, argued quite persuasively that having the agencies compete for saliency is the best model. That way, intelligence organizations have incentive to seek the most accurate, valuable intelligence, lest they lose the trust and the ear of the president. As is the case with just about everything, competition is the best method of attaining optimum quality.

Simply put, if we want to insure a sound intelligence gathering apparatus in America, than the best road to go down is bringing about more spies and less bureaucracy.

A Marriage Amendment That Makes Sense

Let me start out by saying that I am personally opposed to gay marriage, that I believe marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman, and that marriage has been under enough attack over the last couple decades without distorting it's time-old definition. Let me also state that I do support the idea of having a constitutional amendment, my only disagreement with most of my fellow Republicans is on how that amendment should be worded.

The biggest problem today is not gays getting married, it is the arbitrary actions of activists on the bench and renegade mayors. Trying to legislate their own beliefs on the rest of us, these courts and individuals are shamelessly disregarding the will of the people and subsequently the concept of democracy. Simply put, these entities are defying the rule of law.

The amendment proposed by the president and supported by congressional Republicans does not address this problem. Instead of directly outlawing gay marriage, a new amendment should address the problems I stated above. Here in America it is the will of the people, not the tyranny of a few, that dictates this country's laws. If future generations of Americans decide that gay marriage should be allowed than they should not have an amendment preventing that conviction from coming to fruition.

The will of the people should always carry the day, which is why we should pass an amendment that doesn't outlaw gay marriage, but rather states that gay marriage can only be legalized by a majority vote in that state's legislature or by state referendum. This amendment insures that current and future generation's views are respected, and that issues of this importance are taken away from unelected judges and runaway executives once and for all.

Our Republican leadership is right that we need a constitutional amendment, we should just have one that actually addresses the problem.

The Rove Mystique

One of the more amusing topics I have heard discussed over the last few months is the role of Karl Rove in the president's reelection victory. Many on the paranoid left are convinced that he is the one that is formulating policy and making decisions, acting simply as the puppeteer to the president (though I thought this was supposed to be Dick Cheney?). This is hilarious, and it goes to prove just how warped so many on the left are today.

Make no mistake about it, Karl Rove is a very influential man in the Bush White House, and his strategy in the president's reelection campaign was brillaint, but it was not Karl Rove that was responsible for the victory. Serving as Youth Chair in my home district's Bush-Cheney '04 campaign, I'll let you in on the true reason for the president's victory-- It was the millions of volunteers that worked tirelessly over the span of a year to see the president reelected. From the minute I was asked to join the campaign I was astounded at the level of devotion and selflessness that so many of my fellow volunteers displayed. These volunteers were motivated by their support of the president, who we all believed was a couragous, optimistic leader.

It is for this reason that the president was successful. While the Democrats had paid operatives going into neighborhoods they had never been in nor would ever be again, we had volunteers talking to their friends and neighbors. Not only that, Bush volunteers were motivated by support and devotion, while those on the other side were motivated by hate. The reelection of George W. Bush proves once and for all that a campaign based on hope and optimism will always defeat one that is based on hate and cynicism.

For as important as Karl Rove was to the president's victory, I firmly believe that the balance of that credit goes to those who dropped everything to serve in a cause that we all believed was worthy. And to our delight, that belief was confirmed by the voters on November 2, 2004.

Continuing In The Legacy Of Lincoln

We as Republicans have always taken pride in calling ourselves "the party of Lincoln", for as America's first Republican president, and inarguably it's greatest, Abraham Lincoln has left us a legacy that every Republican can be proud of. Not only did he guide this nation through it's most trying period, he did so by making it his mission, and the mission of his country that "government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from this earth".

Lincoln correctly believed that America was the only hope for democracy throughout the rest of the world, for if America had been cut in two during the Civil War the cause of freedom would have been destroyed. It is this belief that has fueled the presidencies of two other great Republicans, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Building upon Lincoln's legacy, both sought to spread freedom in areas of the world where it had never existed. If it had not been for the leadership of these two men and the United States of America, much of Eastern-Europe would still be in Soviet control and fifty million in the Middle East would still live in tyranny.

If we as Republicans are to remain as "the party of Lincoln", than we must always follow in his legacy of fighting for human liberty. Lincoln met more than his share of adversity, but this never deterred him from seeing the cause through to victory. It is this courage and leadership that is behind the greatness of Reagan and Bush. Freedom isn't free, and it never comes easy, but the Republican Party and the United States of America must always strive to insure that "government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from this earth". Spreading freedom elsewhere is the only way to insure that it is preserved every where, and if Lincoln were around today he would tell you that.

It's Dean

Defying both rational thinking and reason, the Democrats will officially elect Howard Dean as chairman of the DNC tomorrow. While he has been the front-runner from the start, there has always been a part of me that assumed our friends on the left would choose someone a bit more practical and suitable than Dean. After all, they came to their senses during the Iowa caucuses a little over a year ago, so who was to believe they wouldn't again? I guess it was simply foolish of me to believe that the across the board defeats in 2004 would serve as a wake up call within that once proud party. Instead it has driven them further into oblivion, as the party's rank and file seem more and more desperate to confront Republicans instead of work with them.

What the Democrats should be doing is taking a long look in the mirror and pondering why they have lost the last three elections. Their choice of Dean shows that they haven't learned their lesson yet, that they believe their problem is how they market their message to Americans, not the message itself. Denying this is denying reality, for Democrats simply do not have any message or vision that resonates with the majority of Americans. Selecting a man to lead the party who says that he hates Republicans and every thing they stand for is not going to alleviate this problem.

The Democrats have to move away from their northeastern liberalism, and this won't happen by having a northeastern liberal leading the party. Howard Dean is simply the wrong man at the wrong time, and his leadership will turn more voters off than it will on. As someone who believes that two strong political parties are best for America, I would advise my Democratic friends to turn away from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party", and move back towards the center. With a war to win and reform necessary here at home, Howard Dean should have no place leading the party of Roosevelt and Kennedy.

Giuliani In '08?

I was watching Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN today and they had a report on the uphill struggle Rudy Giuliani faces in securing the GOP nomination in '08. Though it's true that Giuliani's positions on Gay Marriage, Abortion, and gun control starkly differ with most Republicans, he still leads in every poll I've seen in who Republicans want to see as their next nominee. '08 is still a long ways off however, and it remains to be seen whether Republicans will feel as enthusiastic about him after they scrutinize his positions a bit more.

The question really is is what Rudy Giuliani will Republicans be thinking of when they step into the ballot box or their local caucus. Will they think of the social liberal who stayed with two gay friends of his during he and his wife's separation, or will they think of the strong leader who led New York City out of the ashes following 9/11 and who entranced them at the '04 convention? I have some reasons to suspect it might be the latter. During the report today, a New York columnist relayed a conversation he had had with a Texas Republican who supported Giuliani. When the columnist told the man of Giuliani's social positions, he simply shrugged and replied, "So?"

I myself like and am intrigued by Giuliani. Though I certainly disagree with his social positions, he has shown great leadership and determination in defeating terror. His defense and efforts on the part of the president throughout the most recent campaign were very impressive, and in my mind he dispelled any notions that he is not a true Republican. The Republican Party is the party of the big tent, and though Republicans may disagree with each other here and there, the one pole that holds up the tent and unites us all is our strength and resolve in fighting terrorism.

Though I am by no means endorsing Mr. Giuliani, I am simply stating that just because he does not hold the same positions as most Republicans should not disqualify him from deserving consideration for our party's nomination. If we as Republicans become infatuated with ideological purity than we commit ourselves down the same road of defeat the Democrats have taken. When push comes to shove we Republicans must look for a presidential nominee who demonstrates both leadership and resolve, for it is those traits that make a great president.

What A Difference A Couple Weeks Makes

Only a couple of weeks ago I commented on the prevailing sense of doubt directed towards Iraq. At that time a majority of Americans believed that both going into Iraq was not worth it and that it was unlikely a stable democracy could be fostered there. Yet only a little over a week removed from the Iraqi elections American opinion has taken a dramatic turn. According to the latest Gallup numbers, Americans are now very bullish on Iraq and it's prospects for democracy. For example:

• 55% now say going into Iraq was the right thing to do, up from 47% last month.
• 53% now say things are going well in Iraq, up from 40% last month.
• 64% now say it is likely that Iraq will become a stable democracy.

It's amazing what effect people exercising their long-deprived right to vote among mortar fire and suicide bombers will have on a dubious foreign country. Though the irrefutable success of the Iraqi elections was no surprise to me, the president, or most Republicans, it has gone a long way in alleviating some of the doubts that had existed in this country.

Some other interesting tidbits from the poll are:

• Republicans receive a 56% approval rating, while Democrats only receive 46%.
• 55% now think the president's policies will lead the country in the right direction.

Though the numbers regarding Iraq are important, the most important portions of the poll are those two listed above. President Bush's vision and policies were proven right in Iraq, and will continue to be, which undoubtedly leads the public to be receptive to his other policies and proposals. The Democrats' approval is so low because their doom and gloom vision of Iraq was wrong, and all Americans see now is a party in disarray with no vision for the country.

If Republicans want to keep their approval high they must continue to push their vision, bringing about reform that will prepare America for the challenges of the 21st century. In short, stay the course, Americans are with us.

Happy Birthday President Reagan!

With the Super Bowl being today President Reagan's birthday will unfortunately receive little attention. But as we look back on the life of our 40th president we may all marvel at his epic greatness. At a time when America was getting pushed around in the world and was feeling down about itself at home, President Reagan came to the rescue.

Instead of trying to appease the Soviet Union, he sought to bring it down. Instead of following the failed liberal policies of the past, he shrunk the size of government and gave people back more of their money. And instead of standing idle while Americans continued to doubt themselves, he taught them to believe again.

President Reagan was one of those rare leaders that not only had convictions, but had the courage to act on those convictions. His love and belief in the power of freedom is truly inspirational, and it is because of Ronald Reagan that I am a Republican.

As he looks down upon us today I am confident that he is smiling upon us, for it is Reagan's legacy that is present in so much of our nation's actions today. As we continue the fight to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world, while trying preserve it here at home, it is important that we keep his words in mind:

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream, it must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

But What About The Senate?

President Bush has seemed to alleviate some of the doubts about Social Security Reform among Republican House members following his visit to the congressional Republican retreat in West Virginia last weekend. According to GOP whip Roy Blunt, many Republicans are excited about Personal Savings Accounts, which as he correctly describes it, will create millions of personal "lockboxes" that the government can't touch, instead of one lockbox in which the government can spend wherever and whenever it wants. This will force the government to live more within it's means, allowing individual's to spend and invest their money instead of Uncle Sam.

With the large GOP majority, I don't really expect there to be a problem passing Social Security Reform in the House. The Senate on the other hand, is a completely different story. Obstructionist Democrats seem hell-bent on preventing any progress from being made on Social Security, and the GOP still does not have enough of a majority to remove the threat of a filibuster. If the president seriously wants to see a reform bill passed, which he does, than he is going to have to personally invest large amounts of time and effort in persuading certain Senators to be brave and come along. There are several Democrats from red states that have expressed a willingness to consider a reform package, and it's important that they all are kept in the loop by the White House. The president will also have to spend some time cajoling some of the more liberal Republicans, i.e. Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins, to stick with him.

Though the House should not be taken for granted, the main obstacle in passing Social Security Reform is going to be the Senate. It is going to take a lot of hard work and maybe even some arm twisting to get it passed, but at the end of the day I believe the spending of political capitol on the part of the president will get his sensible reforms passed. If Democrats do succeed in obstructing good legislation, which is all they seem capable of, than they will face further retribution from the voters in '06.

The Road To Realignment

With the president's decisive victory in November, as well as nearly across the board gains by the GOP, there is little doubt a great realignment has taken place in this country. Whereas American politics used to be dominated by New Deal and Great Society Democrats, Republicans have slowly but surely gained the upper hand. It has been a long road to get to this point, with, in my view, three main milestones marking the journey.

1.) The Reagan Election in 1980: Reagan's election marked the first major backlash against the liberal policies that had dominated for so long. Americans were tired of Jimmy Carter's pacifism, which led to the U.S. getting pushed around overseas. They were tired of the high taxes and stagnant economy. They were tired of the troubling social trends, with traditional values being attacked by the liberal establishment. And most importantly, they were tired of feeling down about themselves. Jimmy Carter was right in that there was a great "malaise" in this country, what he didn't admit was that it was his liberal policies that were causing it.

Fortunately, Ronald Reagan was there to come to the rescue, storming onto the scene with his youthful optimism and belief in the greatness of America and the power of the individual. No longer did America retreat from challenges abroad, instead confronting those forces who represented evil in the world. No longer did government ride the backs of it's people, instead giving them back more of their own hard-earned money. And no longer were Americans forced into a great malaise, instead being allowed to believe in themselves again, which Reagan cited as his greatest accomplishment.

2.) The Republican Revolution of 1994: At that point Democrats had been in control of the House for over forty years and the Senate for around fifteen. To finally end the Democrats' rein of darkness, Newt Gingrich crafted the "Contract with America", which pledged to accomplish such things as spending restraint, elimination of unfunded mandates, welfare reform, etc. The overwhelming success of Gingrich's contract signified the prevailing conservative mood within the country. Though some might point out Clinton's reelection in '96 to disprove that, the fact remains that Clinton's major accomplishments were all Reagan platforms; welfare reform, NAFTA, and a balanced budget. Clinton was only successful because he ran as a moderate to conservative Democrat.

It also deserves mentioning that though Clinton won twice, he never won an actual majority, and if it hadn't been for Perot, he would have never won in the first place.

3.) Bush Reelection of 2004: Not only did the president win with the first majority since his father in '88, he was also the first president to win reelection while increasing his party's majority in congress since FDR. While a large part of this is due to the Democrats' self-destructive traits, there is no denying that the country has taken a right turn.

President Bush was able to achieve this decisive victory because he adopted the major traits that had made Reagan successful; i.e. a muscular foreign policy that confronts evil and pushes for the spread of democracy, supply-side economics, and a belief in traditional family and social values.

The across the board victories in '04 served as the final confirmation of a GOP realignment that had been in the works for over twenty years. The question now is whether the GOP can turn this into a decades long trend of Republican dominance, similar to the New Deal coalition that lasted for over forty years. How they perform in the next couple years will go a long ways in deciding this, for if they are able to accomplish the reforms they campaigned on, both at home and abroad, they can insure that the GOP will remain in power for years to come.

The State Of The Union

The main theme in the president's address tonight was leaving a better America and world for our children. He outlined this approach by reforming Social Security so it is able to fulfill it's obligations to America's younger generations. Current seniors and retirees are in no danger of losing their benefits, but the program faces a big solvency problem in the not to distant future, and the best way to prevent this problem from becoming a problem is by addressing it now. As the president argued tonight, the best way to insure the longevity of Social Security is to give younger Americans the opportunity to invest some of their payroll money so they may procure a larger return upon retirement. If we do nothing, we will have to either raise taxes or dramatically cut benefits down the road. It might cost a lot to act now, but it will cost far more if we wait.

The president's second way to insure a better future for young Americans is by spreading democracy in the Middle East and throughout the world. By liberating Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush secured greater American security for generations to come. He is not stopping there however, for tonight he called out Syria's practice of suppressing democracy and supporting terror, something he made clear must stop. He also pressured allies such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt to allow greater political participation among their people as well as expressing solidarity with democrats in Iran.

The most memorable moment of the night will surely be the embrace between the Iraqi women's rights activist and the mother of a fallen marine in Iraq. The emotional hug was not only moving but it really emphasized the great price so many brave Americans have paid so that Iraqis may enjoy the same rights we Americans do. Watching the whole thing really cemented my conviction that we must see the situation in Iraq through to success, insuring that that mother will not have lost her son in vain.

Overall I believe the president did a very good job tonight. He laid out in basic terms the problems facing Social Security and what we must do to address them. He pointed out the fact that we need to reform many things within our country to better fit the demands of a new century. And finally, he emphasized the fact that the best way to achieving peace and winning the War on Terror is by promoting freedom and democracy, with the ultimate goal of "ending tyranny in our world." For when it comes down to it, there really is no other way to accomplish this.

Lost In The Wilderness

The Democrats are in an interesting situation right now. After attacking the president over Iraq for well over a year, they put all their political capital on the possibility that things wouldn't go well there, that elections would fail and Americans would hold the president and Republicans responsible for committing the country to a quagmire. If things did fail in Iraq, than the president's domestic agenda would be doomed for failure, for minimal public support for the president would give little incentive for congress to sign on to his agenda. With low approval and a disenchanted public, the Democrats would than have had all the justification they needed to block the president's agenda.

However all of this blew up in the Democrats' faces when the Iraqi election went far better than the media establishment and punditry had predicted. Democrats now look foolish for all the doom and gloom rhetoric they engaged in, especially Ted Kennedy's ill-timed claim that Iraq is a "quagmire", delivered just days before the election. President Bush wasn't looking at Iraq through rose-colored glasses after all, and Democrats will now have to answer for the fact that their views and predictions of Iraq were completely wrong, not the president's or Republicans'.

The successful elections in Iraq have given the president momentum, and Democrats know it. Looking to take some of the wind out of the president's sails, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi spoke before the National Press Club yesterday, engaging in what they called a "prebuttal" to the president's State of the Union tomorrow.

Now, anytime a party feels they have to do a "prebuttal" to a State of the Union makes it pretty obvious that that party is not in great shape. With the party's numbers shrinking with each election, and a president whose actions were vindicated by events on the ground, the Democrats are in a tough spot. Somehow they are going to have to find some way to take the momentum away from the president, or else they are going to have a tough time going through with their trademark obstruction without further retribution from the voters.

How they're going to do this is anybodies guess, for they have no agenda of their own and all their predictions have proven false. President Bush and Congressional Republicans need to take this opportunity and aggressively push their legislative agenda, for the nation is going to be much more receptive to our views after the successful election. The Democrats are lost in the wilderness, and Republicans have a chance to bring about some much needed reform. I suggest they take advantage of it.