Young Republican Federation of Sacramento

What Scott Brown’s Victory Means…………….And What It Doesn’t.

2010-01-25T18:29:00.000-08:00

With Republicans and Independents celebrating the return of a small amount of Republican influence to Washington, it is important that Republicans not get carried away in concluding that the public is returning to the Party that it removed from power over the course of the 2006 and 2008 election seasons. While the ability to alter or perhaps entirely scuttle the Democrat’s health reform efforts is the most important outcome of the election, nobody should be under any illusion that this was a GOP win. Rather it was a Democrat loss.

While a Democrat loss is a GOP win practically speaking, this election did not mean that Massachusetts is about to turn into a red state along the lines of a Georgia or a Texas. All it really means is that Massachusetts voters wanted to send the Democrats a message, the GOP being the only practical alternative with which to do so. Despite victories in this election, along with the races in New Jersey and Virginia in November, the GOP still has a huge image problem among the electorate according to some polls.

Over the last 2 election cycles, voters abandoned the GOP largely because of the fact that the GOP became seen as fiscally irresponsible, tone-deaf, and corrupt. The Democrats were swept into office promising to be the opposite. However, the American people are clearly concluding that perhaps they have traded a bad problem for a worse one. Scott Brown’s victory in a deep blue state is not the result of an electorate deciding that the GOP is “good” and the Democrats are “bad”, but rather an electorate deciding that it had better put the brakes on a Party that was in control of the entire government and was pulling it too far in one direction. Many of the words used by voters to describe the Democrats (i.e. arrogant, tone-deaf, etc) were the same words used to describe the GOP congressional majority 4 years ago.

If the GOP wants to build a governing majority capable of bringing needed fiscal and judicial reforms to America, there are some realities that it will have to accept. Firstly, if GOP base expects Scott Brown to govern as a Georgia or Mississippi conservative, then it had better prepare to have that Senate seat return to the Democrats in 2012. Scott Brown was sent to the Senate to represent the voters of Massachusetts, and he will need to stake out positions at least somewhat consistent with those of the voters in his state. By necessity, this makes it likely that he will be closer to the center of the political spectrum than what many in the GOP base are likely to prefer. That being said, Brown was elected as a result of a populist backlash against a government that people are beginning to sense has become too large. Consequently, he is also likely to favor initiatives that reduce the size of government; something which is consistent with conservative governing philosophy.

While the GOP is benefitting from the current political trends, it still has a lot of work to do if it is to repair its brand nationally. Because attracting independent voters (as Scott Brown did) is the key to a Republican revival, it is imperative that Republicans realize that these voters are often looking for practical solutions to problems rather than ideologically based solutions. While many of these voters hold positions that are consistent with conservatism, many of them also distrust ideology. Consequently, a Republican Party that effectively decides to excommunicate Brown because of a couple of votes that he may cast that go against conservative orthodoxy will likely turn off many independents and not serve to make the Republican Party the majority. On the other hand, a Party that shows that it is big enough to allow someone like Brown to provide the necessary representation to his constituents who may not happen to be as conservative as one might like has a good chance of winning races that would ordinarily be considered out of reach.

Two Americas: The Productive And The Unproductive

2010-01-15T17:35:00.000-08:00

As the new year dawns with the costs of Obama’s attempt at remaking American society coming into focus for many Americans, conservatives will undoubtedly be able to get some political mileage out of proposals to scale back or repeal much of Obama’s agenda. However, while John Edwards spoke of an America divided between the “haves” and the “have not’s”, conservatives would do well to take note of another political division that appears to be opening up between those who engage in economically productive work and those who do not.

If society is to be wealthy and powerful, it must attempt to maximize the productivity of the resources at its disposal, including human resources. However, there are certain activities that do not produce anything of economic value. For example, a large fraction of government bureaucracy does not foster wealth creation, but rather monitors those who do create wealth through various regulations or transfers wealth from one place to another (think welfare or other government transfer payments). Although some of this activity is necessary, just as some overhead/administrative expense is a necessary cost of doing business in the private sector, it should be noted that overhead cost that exceeds what is absolutely necessary for the smooth functioning of any entity is essentially economically unproductive deadweight.

However, unproductive activity is not confined to government departments, but is also present in the private sector. For example, the overly complex tax code that results in Americans spending roughly $100 billion a year to ensure compliance helps to employ armies of CPA’s, tax attorneys, and tax preparers in the private sector (not to mention government clerks at the IRS). Given that the current amount of tax revenue could be generated through a properly constructed flat tax or consumption tax system, a certain fraction of these CPA’s, tax attorneys etc. are engaged in economically unproductive work. There is no real economic difference between the current system, and a system that would send $100 billion taxpayer dollars to unemployed CPA’s and tax attorneys that sat at home all day. Another example that the recent financial crisis brought into focus was the fact that many finance professionals were simply engaged in what is termed “churning assets” (simply moving financial assets from one financial institution to another). While some of this activity is necessary for the proper functioning of markets, too much of it results in some practitioners essentially being involved in economically unproductive work.

The underlying problem with the growth of government over the last generation, is that increasing numbers of people have been removed from doing productive work and have built entire careers on performing unproductive tasks. Attempts to significantly reduce the size and complexity of government have foundered because of the many interest groups that have built their structure on a system that happens to reward unproductive work. If conservatives are to have success in reducing the size and scope of government, then they will need to give voice and clarity to the idea that they are fighting the unproductive on behalf of the productive. The various proposals that they make need to be viewed through the lens of whether they will increase the productive workforce or the unproductive workforce. The battle over welfare reform was ultimately won by pitting those who worked against those who sat around. By promoting awareness of the difference between productive work and unproductive work over the long term, conservatives can set the stage for some radical spending reductions that will eventually be necessary to effect the smaller government that they favor.

Ben Bernanke: Four More Years?

2009-12-15T17:46:00.000-08:00

While health care reform has received the lion’s share of media attention and analysis as the year comes to a close, the Senate is also taking up the very important matter of whether or not to confirm the reappointment of Ben Bernanke for another 4 year term as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. While Bernanke’s confirmation is virtually assured given the Democrat majority in the Senate, there is one item that should give serious-minded Senators pause before casting a vote to confirm him.

While many people have been critical of Bernanke’s actions over the last 18 months, one must remember that he was dealing with an extraordinary set of circumstances. While mistakes were made, it is not at all clear that another Fed Chairman would have handled the crisis any better. Far more concerning, however, is that Bernanke appears to have politicized the Federal Reserve in a way that is unprecedented. One particular example occurred last October when Bernanke endorsed a Democrat version of fiscal stimulus, which effectively amounted to an endorsement of Obama, two weeks before Election Day. Historically, Fed Chairmen have always limited their actions in the months leading up to elections so as not to appear as if they are attempting to influence the economy one way or the other (which would invariably be to one Party’s advantage). While Fed passivity was not an option last election season due the magnitude of the global financial meltdown, endorsing a plan put forward by one of the political parties two weeks before the election was unnecessary. Come what may, Fed independence and the appearance of political impartiality is crucial to maintaining the effectiveness of its actions. It is worth noting that the Fed’s actions exert far more influence on the economy than any given President. Proposals floating around Congress to open the Fed to more congressional oversight are unwise as they would undermine this independence. A central bank that comes to be seen as nothing more than a tool of the political party in power has injected an element of political uncertainty into the decision-making calculus of investors and entrepreneurs. Uncertainty resulting from a politicized Fed will lead to increased instability in financial markets, and likely result in higher interest rates and capital costs as investors demand an increase in their prospective return to compensate them for the additional political risk. A higher cost of capital will lead to lower economic growth rates than would otherwise be the case.

While actions by the Fed have helped to avert a second Great Depression, it is not clear that politics is not influencing Bernanke’s actions. While he has found it easy to increase the money supply in the economy (quantitative easing) in response to the crisis, it is not clear that he will have the nerve to do what is necessary and contract the money supply to head off inflation, especially since this action will likely cause economic pain which will be to the Democrats disadvantage in the upcoming midterm elections. Actions that call the Fed’s independence into question serve to undermine a necessary belief that the Fed will make the best possible decision for the long term health of the economy given the available information. Serious Senators should consider this, and vote against confirming Bernanke for another term.

Healthcare: Price Controls and Shortages

2009-11-23T18:08:00.001-08:00

As the final healthcare debate ramps up and certain moderate Democrats (and Joe Lieberman) become the last best hope for a bill that is something slightly less than a complete disaster, it is worth noting that underlying the scrambled mess that reform has become are some basic economic fallacies. The primary underlying problem is the purported view that rising healthcare costs have something to do with either the greed of the healthcare industry or some failure in the market. In this view, increased prices are a sign of moral failure rather than a signal that more economic resources are needed in the healthcare industry. Unfortunately, the rise in costs is not fundamentally a function of lawsuit abuse leading to higher malpractice insurance costs or a flood of illegal aliens crashing our healthcare system. While reforms in these areas would lead to some cost saving and are certainly worth pursuing, the primary drivers of increasing costs are increasingly effective technology and an aging population. All efforts at reform are bumping up against the reality that the population is aging at a faster rate than doctors are being produced (it takes years to produce a doctor or a new drug or a piece of innovative medical technology). This means that healthcare costs would be increasing in the absence of high medical malpractice insurance premiums and illegal immigration, and there is no reason to suppose that the same voices would not be calling for healthcare reform anyway.

Another problem that is being ignored is the effect of price controls, which is effectively what the healthcare bill is attempting to impose when everything is stripped away. While a purely market healthcare system would result in seniors paying a significant fraction of their income and assets to the healthcare industry as they aged (with the accompanying descent into old age poverty which makes this undesirable), government involvement that uses a system of effective price controls (even if it is in the form of a “public option” that artificially drives down prices) simply creates shortages. A staple of basic economics is that lower prices cause producers to produce less of a product. Setting prices artificially low results in less product being produced, but it also results in more of the product being demanded as well. While a government subsidy of healthcare bills for certain segments of the population (senior’s and the indigent) would lead to increased taxes (along with the associated economic cost), such a program would ultimately be less damaging in that it would lessen the political pressure for price control style reform, while allowing healthcare producers to obtain higher prices thereby leading to more healthcare being available.

In the current healthcare reform plan, it appears that we may end up with the worst of both worlds: an effective price control that produces shortages and a government plan that costs the taxpayers money to an extent that they can’t afford. A simple price control that was mandated by law would cause a shortage, but would not cost the taxpayer much. On the other hand, a subsidy of certain healthcare costs would cost the taxpayer money, but would have less of a shortage inducing effect. Unfortunately for the country, Obama has to have a bill and the Democrats control Congress. Even if the moderate Democrats can eliminate the worst aspects of any bill, the final product is going to be one that fundamentally ignores basic economic laws. As with ignoring the law of gravity, the outcome of ignoring economic laws is rarely pretty.

Risks And Opportunities For The GOP

2009-10-19T17:44:00.000-07:00

With the Republicans fighting to prevent the wholesale government takeover of healthcare while looking towards the next election in 13 months, the political landscape is changing in ways that present them with some risks and some opportunities. While the last two months have been tough for the Obama Administration and the Democrats, Republicans who think that they can just sit back and let Democrat miscues carry them to victory next November are likely fooling themselves. While Obama’s approval numbers have dropped significantly since the beginning of summer, the Republicans have only really seen a modest improvement in their own numbers. Going forward, the Republicans face some serious, but not insurmountable, risks to their dream of recapturing one or both houses of Congress.

Firstly, the Republicans have not made any serious attempt to present an alternative health care reform plan. While they have been very successful pointing out deficiencies in the various plans and offering important suggestions for certain piecemeal reforms, the lack of a comprehensive reform package that they are willing to promote strongly and loudly makes the Republicans appear (whether fairly or not) that they are not really contributing any ideas. The Republican’s allowing themselves to be branded as the Party of No (as the Democrats will attempt to do) is not a strong argument for turning over the reins of government to them next November. A second risk is that the economy appears to be improving. While this won’t matter if unemployment stays high, the likelihood of unemployment going down increases as the economy improves. Ben Bernanke has generally not done a bad job considering the circumstances in which he was operating, and I don’t expect him to make a serious mistake that will negatively impact the economy over the short-term. An improving employment picture lessens the potential damage to the Democrats in next year’s election.

However, the recent shifting of the political winds has also presented the Republicans with some opportunities. Firstly, Obama’s radical lurch to the left has made the electorate more receptive to Republicans that at any time in the last five years. Secondly, in addition to the fact that off-year elections typically favor the party out of power, 49 Democrat House Members now sit in districts that were won by John McCain. While this advantage is tempered by the fact that 34 Republicans sit in districts won by Obama, that these Republicans survived the Obama surge makes it unlikely that many of them would be thrown out at a time when Obama’s popularity is hovering around 50%. Thirdly, Obama’s constant talking to the American people through various media appearances and press conference has likely overexposed him, meaning that people are beginning to tune him out. The fact that he has been shown to be untruthful regarding health care reform and his attempt to ram reform through without much debate in July and early August has likely damaged his credibility. Finally, an improving economy presents the Republicans with an opportunity to argue that the rest of the stimulus money (the majority of which has not yet paid out) should be canceled to save money. That this suggestion would be acted upon by Congress is unlikely, but it presents the Republicans with an opportunity to present themselves as more fiscally responsible than the Democrats.

If the Republicans are to win back Congress, they are going to have to present a coherent case to the American people that they should be given control. Although the political landscape is shifting in the Republican’s direction and will allow them to pick up some seats, it likely will not be enough by itself to carry them to a majority in at least one chamber. To take back one of the chambers, the Republicans are simply going to have to want it next November more than the Democrats and spend every moment from now until then working for it.

The Importance Of Federal Reserve Independence

2009-07-16T17:54:00.000-07:00

As the Obama administration continues to shape the regulatory overhaul that is being conducted as a result of the financial crisis, one oversight measure that appears to have gained some support across party lines is giving the General Accounting Office broader authority to examine the Fed’s conduct of monetary policy. Of all of the actions that have been proposed in the aftermath of this crisis, decreasing the independence of the Federal Reserve by increasing congressional oversight is perhaps the one that has the potential to be most damaging to the long term health of the U.S. economy.

Contrary to popular perception, it is the Federal Reserve rather than the President that exerts the most powerful direct influence on the direction of the U.S. economy. While a President can propose policies and tax changes (which must then be approved by Congress), it is the Federal Reserve that controls the money supply and exerts influence on interest rates throughout the entire economy with no input from Congress or the President being required. The Fed uses monetary policy to try and fulfill two of its major goals which are to promote full employment and maintain price stability (i.e. mitigate inflation). Unfortunately, any action that the Fed takes to control one has the effect of exacerbating the other. For example, the Fed’s response to the current crisis has been to flood the U.S. economy with dollars (i.e increasing the money supply) in an effort to get the economy going again (and thereby increase employment). However, actions of this sort tend to increase inflationary pressures. At some point in time, it is likely that the Fed will have to begin contracting the money supply to combat inflation.

Given that the Fed must walk this tightrope, it is imperative that the Fed not be subjected to the political pressures that increased congressional oversight would likely bring. The power that the Fed exerts over the economy means that politicians will necessarily attempt to use their power to shape Fed policy actions in a way that the politicians believe will enhance their electoral prospects, rather than what is necessarily best for the long-term health of the economy as a whole. The potential for congressional meddling will inject another element of uncertainty into financial markets and business decisions as investors will need to engage in political calculations (along with the normal economic analysis) when making an investment/business decision based on macroeconomic factors. This additional uncertainty will likely lead to higher interest rates than would otherwise be the case as investors demand compensation for the additional risk, which will likely have the effect of lessening economic growth over the long run.

While there is no doubt that policy mistakes by the Fed (i.e. keeping monetary policy too loose for too long) helped to fuel the real estate bubble and contributed to the ensuing crisis, these mistakes were made while the Fed was trying to do the best job that it could in fulfilling its mandate. The idea that increased congressional oversight would improve monetary policy is doubtful at best. Federal Reserve independence is too important to be tossed aside in the political turmoil of a crisis period that will eventually pass. Increasing congressional oversight of the Fed is an idea that should be scrapped.

Obama’s North Korean Challenge

2009-06-17T21:14:00.000-07:00

Over the last 2 months, the world has been treated to a familiar pattern of North Korean saber-rattling. From conducting a nuclear test, to firing off missiles, to declaring that it no longer considers itself bound by the 1953 armistice agreement, the North seems determined to see how far it can push Obama. In the past, bad behavior from North Korea has been rewarded with concessions in an effort to entice the government of Kim Jong Il back to the negotiating table. While the Obama team has been vigorously trying to blame the problems that the U.S. is currently facing on failings of the Bush Administration, few people believe that a Democrat administration would have done anything substantially different to try and stop North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons. Indeed, Obama’s policy on this issue has been substantially the same as Bush’s was in the last two years of his tenure in office. Whether he realizes it or not, Obama’s foreign policy will be judged in large part on how he deals with North Korea.

If Obama wants to be judged more favorably than his predecessor on this issue, then he needs to accept some realities that many on both sides of the political aisle do not yet appear to have accepted. While the recent passage of a U.N resolution condemning North Korean actions signals Russian and Chinese displeasure with Kim Jong Il, those in the Obama administration who believe that it also signals that Russia and China intend to get serious about these issues are bound to be disappointed. What should be abundantly clear now to everyone is that China and Russia do not consider it in their interest to solve the North Korean issue. While the rest of the world would cheer a collapse of Kim Jong Il’s regime (like East Germany in 1989), neither China nor Russia (nor even really South Korea) relish that thought. Such a collapse would likely lead to a massive refugee exodus into China and South Korea , with all of the headaches that would result from it in the short run. In the long run, a reunited Korea would likely put a U.S. ally on China’s doorstep, something that China probably views as a threat. As for Russia, their foreign policy calculus seems to be “if it is good for the U.S., then it is bad for us”. Consequently, while they may not want to see an all-out war on the Korean peninsula, a nagging foreign policy problem that continues to be a distraction for the U.S. is probably seen as desirable by them.

Until Russia and/or China see that it is in their interest to disarm North Korea, they are probably not going to be much help in this endeavor. Consequently, the Obama administration needs to prepare for a Cold War-style containment/military preparedness strategy, with regime change as its ultimate goal. On the diplomatic front, the Obama administration should consider making diplomatic gestures in favor of rearming Japan. Not only would such a move send a message to North Korea (as they haven’t forgotten 40+ years of Japanese occupation), but it will also put China on notice that a no longer pacifist Japan may be welcome once again in the community of nations. A rearming of Japan in the face of the North Korean threat might just be the incentive that the Chinese (who also haven’t likely forgotten their own occupation by the Japanese) need to convince them to provide assistance in the removal of that threat.

In dealing with North Korea, success requires that the Obama administration be forceful and purposeful. Ironically, Obama has more leeway to be tough with North Korea, since the adoring media likely won’t unleash a storm of criticism and opposition like it would have done in response to tough actions by Bush. In dealing with this challenge, Obama has an opportunity to help his Party alter its image of weakness on foreign policy by accepting the current realities and making the proper decisions. On the other hand, if Obama decides to continue to operate under the fictions of the past, then he will deserve all of the criticisms that Republicans and others will heap upon him. The next few months should be very interesting.

California Supreme Court Defends Democracy……………And The Rule Of Law.

2009-06-04T08:25:00.000-07:00

Last week, despite coming under enormous pressure from the Democrats, the Governor, the media, and other assorted interest groups, the California Supreme Court resisted inflicting a major wound on democracy and affirmed that the people of California have the right to amend their Constitution as they see fit. By voting to uphold Proposition 8, the Court delivered a stinging rebuke to members of the political class who had revealed their contempt for democracy and the democratic process by urging the Court to overturn a voter-approved constitutional amendment. While there is certainly a case to be made that California’s voter initiative/constitutional amendment process has been abused by special interests to insert favorable amendments into the Constitution (resulting in the 3rd longest Constitution in the world by some estimates), the process is still legal in this state. The willingness of many in the political class to advocate the invalidation of a decision reached by legal and democratic means, for no other reason than that they disagreed with that decision, bespeaks an arrogance and disdain for the views of their fellow Californians that could possibly prove problematic for California’s long-term future as a democratic republic.

At the same time that the Court was upholding Proposition 8, it was also validating roughly 18,000 same-sex marriages that were performed in the state while such marriages were legal. While the original Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage was a classic case of judges usurping authority and reading their personal preferences into the Constitution, attempting to invalidate these marriages would have struck a blow against an important legal pillar upholding a stable society. It is a generally accepted legal principle that a contract that is legal at its inception should not be retroactively invalidated. By dissolving these marriages, the Court would have violated this principle and thereby injected an element of legal uncertainty into every transaction in California, as one could then never truly feel secure that a future legislature or court might not just invalidate retroactively another type of currently legal contract. A free and stable democratic society requires security that currently valid contracts are going to be enforceable going forward in order to function smoothly. While the Court was never constitutionally justified in legalizing same-sex marriage in the first place, invalidating these marriages would likely have been a case of the cure being worse than the disease.

Now that the Court has reaffirmed that California is actually a democracy, the battle over same-sex marriage will be continued at the ballot-box where it belongs. A political class and a media that have apparently their lost reverence for democratic and legal processes cannot be counted on to defend the people’s right to govern themselves. Fortunately, California still has a Supreme Court that is willing to guarantee that right. For that, all Californians can be grateful.

An ‘Empathetic’ Judge: A Long-Term Danger To A Free And Civil Society

2009-05-31T20:01:00.000-07:00

Now that Obama’s much anticipated ‘empathetic’ appointment to the Supreme Court has been revealed, one can be forgiven for feeling that one is perhaps witnessing the next step in the country’s transition from a nation ruled by laws to a nation subject to the arbitrary rule of judges. To be sure, this process has been underway for nearly 2 generations, and Obama’s announced search for ‘empathetic’ judges who will legislate from the bench can be seen as merely doing openly what Bill Clinton (and other Democrats) have done in secret. While generally not popular with the public in theory, it is an unfortunate fact that what we conservatives refer to as ‘judicial activism’ has become a mainstream judicial practice. While the public at large still currently appears to see judges as honest interpreters of the law (and Constitution), this image will likely be undermined by Obama’s actions and judicial choices.

Contrary to what may be supposed by the political class, an orderly society does not spring forth from laws, but from the public’s willingness to see those laws (and those who enforce and interpret them) as legitimate. If the public broadly comes to see a ‘law’ as nothing more sacred than an individual judge’s opinion, respect for the law will be diminished (and not easily rebuilt). A society that loses respect for the law is not one that can remain stable and free. Either society will start to break apart as legal anarchy begins to take hold (political instability), or the state must become extremely powerful in order to coerce compliance out of a citizenry that has lost respect for it (lack of freedom). Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court, as well as his open search for judicial ‘legislators’, is pushing the U.S. further down a potentially dangerous road.

The ‘Specter’ Of A Permanent Minority Party

2009-05-09T08:21:00.000-07:00

With Arlen Specter’s defection to the Democrats, the Republicans have taken a blow that practically eliminates their influence in Washington. Despite brave talk from certain activists and Party leaders, the Republican Party is in a major crisis that will not likely be resolved by a 2010 replay of 1994, with a resurgent Republican Party retaking control of Congress. A collapse such as the one the Republicans have undergone (losing the White House and both Houses of Congress in 3 years) does not occur because a political party puts up a bad candidate for President, or because of a biased media establishment, but is rather an indication that a party has taken a wrong turn at some point. While many in the Republican Party are debating what errors were made, there are clearly several that have combined to largely remove Republican influence from Washington for the time being.

Firstly, the Republicans have lost their traditional advantage over the Democrats on foreign policy, largely due the handling of the conflict in Iraq. The failure to find stockpiles of WMD’s and the lack of preparation for what would come after major combat operations made the Bush Administration (and by extension Republicans) appear incompetent. Continued exhortations to “stay the course”, rather than help matters, actually ended up making the Administration look helpless.

Secondly, the Republicans have lost their traditional advantage as having the reputation of being the Party of fiscal responsibility. When the Republicans were in control of Washington, they abandoned their small government, fiscally conservative roots. Not only did a Republican Congress massively increase government spending, but a Republican President appeared to be unaware that the office of U.S. President comes equipped with a veto pen. Now that Obama and the Democrats are massively increasing the size of government beyond what the public appears to be comfortable with, the Republicans currently lack the credibility on the issue to mount an effective opposition to them.

In addition to losing credibility on a couple of issues, the Party has taken it upon itself to shrink its base. Under Reagan, the Republican Party was truly a “big tent” Party that was able to integrate different people with somewhat differing views. Today, the Party has become more homogenous on issues to the point where it has effectively exited New England, being unable to produce congressional candidates (apart from a couple of Senators) with values and opinions that play well in that part of the country. While Arlen Specter is an opportunist who was always going to do what was best for himself, the vitriol from some Republicans that accompanied his vote for the Obama budget (words like ‘traitorous’ and ‘retribution’) sent a signal to people who might be open to Republican ideas that they are not welcome, if they differ in any way from what is considered to be Republican orthodoxy. While this state of affairs may be acceptable to certain Party factions, it is not the way to build a truly national party or a lasting Republican majority.

Until the Republicans broaden their base and restore their credibility on certain issues, they will continue to lose elections. While some in the Republican Party appear to have recognized the need to restore the Party’s credibility on certain issues (i.e. returning to small government roots), many still view the term ‘compromise’ with disdain. Politics, however, is about the art of the possible, and some compromise is necessary if one is to build a dominant political party. A Party that is broad-based and wins elections furthers the goals of its factions more effectively than one that remains ideologically pure, and yet fails to win elections (and power). The treatment of Specter, and other Republicans with views similar to his, indicates that the Republicans have not yet absorbed this lesson. Until they do, they will be forced to learn another lesson: how to live as a permanent minority political party.

Vote No on Prop. 1A - Stop the $16 billion Tax Hike!

2009-05-04T12:00:00.000-07:00

The politicians recent decision to issue raises to their staffers while warning of “fiscal Armageddon,” if tax increases do not pass tells us a lot about the thinking of many politicians under the Capitol dome. Amid a major outcry from citizens, Speaker Bass rescinded the raises, and the Sacramento Bee reported was that, “Assembly Speaker Karen Bass said she did not want the raises to be used as "some sort of club against the responsible, urgently needed ballot initiatives Californians will be voting on."

Or in other words, she sees nothing wrong with this, but she doesn’t want to lose an election. The pay raises give taxpayers a window into what tax and spend politicians will do if Proposition 1A is approved. It will be more business as usual ... more waste, fraud and abuse. A yes on Proposition 1A would be a vote to reward the Legislature’s gross fiscal mismanagement with $16 billion of additional money.

Proposition 1A increases income tax and sales tax, nearly doubles the car tax and robs families with children of the $200 per child tax credit. Proposition 1A will cost the average family $1100 a year.

Proponents of Proposition 1A claim the initiative limits spending, however the Legislative Analyst states: “Proposition 1A does not strictly limit the amount of revenues that could be collected by the state or the amount of spending that could occur.” Prop. 1A allows payments into the rainy day fund to be suspended for any reason and allows for the spending cap to be adjusted upwards any time politicians want to raise taxes.

Even worse, 1A supporters are doing everything possible to win passage of the measure through a campaign of deception. The fact that Prop. 1A is a tax increase is intentionally not mentioned. Proposition 1A’s ballot language, ballot title and summary were NOT prepared by an independent authority, such as the Attorney General, but were written by politicians to deceive you. You will similarly find no mention of the tax increase in any communication from the yes campaign, a group which, with a straight face, calls itself “Budget Reform Now.” In fact, they even claim 1A protects us from tax increases.

This is not the first time we’ve been promised budget reform. In 2004, the Governor promoted Proposition 58 which he said would cut up the credit cards and never allow big spending politicians to get us into trouble again. Four years later, Prop. 58’s “reforms” have failed to deliver, and the politicians want more money in exchange for more phony reforms.

California’s tax increases have made our state the highest taxed state in the nation. Jobs and businesses are fleeing the state for our neighbors where taxes are far lower. Last year, California saw a domestic outmigration of 144,000 citizens. Our most productive citizens are finding a better future elsewhere, and this shrinks our tax base. For a healthy economy, California’s tax climate needs to be less burdensome.

You can learn more about the Proposition 1A deception and see the pretty cool Taxo cartoon at www.NoProposition1A.com

Tax Reform

2009-04-23T18:42:00.000-07:00

Another tax season has come and gone, and with it 7.6 billion hours in tax compliance that cost Americans $200 billion (according to a recent Wall Street Journal piece). While a complex and byzantine tax code can benefit those who make their living guiding ordinary mortals through it, or politicians who change it to reward favored interest groups, the tax code actually hurts the country as a whole.

Firstly, the country is hurt economically in that $200 billion annually in compliance cost is actually waste. This money and output does not produce anything tangible for society, and only enables Americans to do what most of them would do anyway in the absence of such complexity (i.e. pay their taxes). When one considers that $200 billion is roughly equivalent to 33% of the amount that was eventually spent on Social Security in 2008, it is not hard to see that the amount of resources used on tax compliance is not insignificant and could likely be put to better use than simply helping Americans fill out their tax forms correctly.

Secondly, the current tax code hurts the country from a transparency perspective. An opaque tax code allows politicians to reward certain interest groups by changing the code in ways that the public does not understand to the benefit of those interest groups. Many of these favors would not be politically feasible if the public truly understood what was going on, which is why the politicians won’t simply write the favored interest groups checks from the public treasury. By keeping these changes and rewards hidden, the accountability of government is reduced.
Finally, a complex tax code hurts the country from a freedom perspective. In order for freedom to flourish, rules must be clearly defined and known in advance. A tax code where one is not sure whether or not one has broken the law, despite ones best efforts to comply, is not a code that can be said to promote freedom in society.

Simply put, the American tax code is badly in need of serious overhaul. While certain proposals for flat taxes or national sales taxes in the past have sometimes been criticized on the grounds that they would not raise enough tax revenue or that they are inherently unfair (i.e. having the rich and the poor paying the same tax rate), such concerns do not require complexity to be addressed. For example, a ‘progressive flax tax’ might have 3 or 4 flat tax rates for various income brackets, and there is no reason that these rates could not be set high enough to raise the required revenue. While one can legitimately argue over exactly what the various tax rates should be or what exactly an ideal tax system should look like, one would be hard pressed to make the case that the current tax system is the one that the United States should be using. It is long past time for a major overhaul of the U.S. tax system.

The Changing Face Of The American Dream

2009-04-05T10:35:00.000-07:00

As America continues to watch as stock markets recede and job losses increase, many have yet to accept that the economic landscape has likely changed permanently. While the perennial pessimists may be premature in predicting the irreversible economic decline of the United States, there is no doubt that Americans are currently faced with major challenges that will take a long time to overcome.

Since the 2nd World War, except for the decade of the 70’s and some minor pauses for recessions, Americans have been treated to economic expansion and the improvement of their quality of life. Homes became larger, there were more cars in the drive way, entertainment options were expanded, etc. While some had warned for years that Americans were living beyond their means, a rising stock market coupled with rising home prices appeared to indicate that Americans could afford to increase their debt burden and did not need to save (as increasing asset prices were doing their saving for them).Now, however, American confidence is eroding. While stock market losses now mean that many are not going to be able to retire when they were planning to, collapsing home prices mean that even young, responsible families are facing an economic drag. Leaving aside the damage to individuals who end up in foreclosure, people who purchased homes in the early part of this decade are often finding themselves so far “upside down” on their mortgage that they may actually end up paying more than the house is eventually worth, even taking into account that the price of the home will recover somewhat after the market hits bottom. The amount that these families eventually overpay for the home will effectively be negative saving, in that overpaying will consume resources that could otherwise be used to help fund retirement.

In addition to this burden, there is the added need to fund Social Security and Medicare. These two programs have been a major pillar in the American retirement system for two generations. While the funding crisis for Social Security is less immediate (and more solvable) than the one for Medicare, Americans are extremely likely to face an increased tax burden (as well as some benefit cuts) to help maintain the solvency of these programs.

While the economic outlook for America will eventually improve from its current negative one, Americans are likely going to be faced with a somewhat different array of economic options than what they expected. Being faced with a higher tax burden (not to mention the need to pay down historically high levels of consumer debt) means that American families are unlikely to have the resources to fund their previous levels of consumption and save for retirement at the same time. Unless the stock markets (and housing) begin to generate returns that were seen during the internet and housing booms, thereby relieving individuals of the need to necessarily save a lot (not likely), Americans are going to be facing choices similar to those faced by their parents and grandparents. Either one will save more now (and possibly have a decent retirement), or one will consume more now (and likely have more limited options in retirement). Although America will likely continue to be the location to which the world’s poor and dispossessed gravitate, the changes to the economic landscape that have occurred mean that Americans are going to have to return to the values of previous generations (frugality), and likely lower their lifestyle expectations as well.

Help End Handouts to Lawbreakers

2009-03-28T14:51:00.000-07:00

In 2001, Gray Davis signed legislation giving in-state college tuition to illegal immigrants. This in effect subsidized college tuition for illegal immigrants while American students from out of state continued to pay much more costly out of state rates. Now, there’s a bill that would change this.

Regardless of how you feel about illegal immigration, granting in state tuition for illegal immigrants violates Federal law. In 1996 President Clinton signed legislation (Title 8, Chapter 14, Sec. 1623) which states: "an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State ... for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident." There was no doubt at the time that what this meant was that illegal immigrants could not be given subsidized tuition while denying those same benefits to an 18-year old Arizonan. The legality of California’s tuition subsidy for illegal immigrants is currently being considered by the state Supreme Court.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates there are 3,200,000 illegal immigrants in California costing the average household over $1100 a year in education costs, medical costs and incarceration costs. Rewarding lawbreaking with in state tuition is misguided and unfair.

Subsidized tuition for illegal immigrants actually creates a system that rewards those from other countries who break the law while punishing those who follow the rules. When I was studying at a community college in southern California, I served on the student government. We had a student worker in our office named Giselle who I became friends with. Giselle was from Dominica, a small Caribbean island nation. She lived with relatives here and dreamed of moving to New York City or maybe going back to Dominica when she completed her education. Giselle followed all the rules, she applied to come to America and study as a foreign student. But Giselle had to pay out of state tuition that was about ten times what I paid.

Interestingly, illegal immigrants are not allowed to work legally in America. The primary reason we want to encourage people to go to college is so they can acquire skills that they can use in the workplace. Training more skilled workers is good for the economy, if they use those skills. Illegal immigrants cannot do this, or at least not legally.

Assemblyman Knight has introduced legislation to end in state tuition for illegal immigrants. Knight’s bill, AB 454, will be heard in the Assembly Higher Education Committee at 1:30 pm in the State Capitol Room 437 this Tuesday, March 31st. If you feel that subsidizing tuition for illegal immigrants is unfair, this would be a good time to make your voice heard.

Politics, Seriousness & Censure

2009-03-07T12:44:00.000-08:00

While the California Republican Party was busy excoriating certain Republican legislators for having voted to increase taxes a couple of weeks ago, the rest of the state was sighing with relief that a budget was actually passed. While this relief may turn out to be temporary as many Republicans have argued it will be, there is perhaps a larger political point that Republicans may be missing.

Despite the seemingly perpetual state of crisis that California has experienced over the last decade, it is puzzling that the Republicans have not been able to make any headway in improving their brand in the state. The fact that a technology sector collapse, an electricity crisis, structural budget deficits, high gasoline prices, and a housing bust, have not enhanced the long-term electoral prospects for Republicans is perhaps an indication that the Party may be fundamentally out of step with the state's voters. Arguments about tax increases and the brand-ruining actions of six Republican legislators miss the point that Californians have not given Republicans a working majority in the legislature in a generation. The election of two centrist Republican governors over the last 20 years cannot necessarily be described as a success for the Party's brand, given that even a state such as Massachusetts has managed to have Republican governors for 16 of the last 20 years to act as a brake on a liberal legislature.

While the Republican Party certainly needs to get back to its fiscally conservative, limited government roots nationally, the Party never really strayed from those roots here in California. While fighting for lower taxes and smaller government at a state level are certainly worthwhile goals, it is not impossible that the people of California actually want a government that is functional, rather than one that is necessarily smaller. While few would argue with the assertion that the current system of government in California is both Democrat anddysfunctional, the Republicans have yet to formulate and articulate a serious set of comprehensive systemic reforms to allow the state to be governed in a more competent and efficient manner.

If Republicans are to become politically competitive in this state, they must show that they are a serious Party with serious ideas about how the state should be governed. As frustrated as many of us are with the tax increases that were approved, not approving them and driving the state off a financial cliff cannot really be described as a serious alternative. While the Party can always work behind the scenes to mount primary challenges to the legislators that broke ranks if that's what it wants to do, publicly censuring them sends the message that the Party would rather that the state have run out of cash. As emotionally satisfying as this outcome might be to some, a Party that takes this position cannot reasonably expect to be trusted with the serious responsibility that comes with being the majority Party. A permanent Democrat majority is what has led to the current state of dysfunction in California government. If Republicans ever decide to offer Californians the opportunity for a functional state government, instead of confining their message to tax cuts and spending reductions, they might actually find an electorate that is willing to listen to them.

Withering Confidence in Obama

2009-02-23T21:32:00.000-08:00

The Dow Jones opened at 8281.22 on the morning of Obama’s inauguration. Today it opened at 7365.99. That's a vote of no confidence that the markets are casting for Obama’s economic strategy. Perhaps at any other time, these numbers could be interpreted merely as a reflection of today’s grim market realities – after all, a credit crunch and recession are more than sufficient to paralyze investments. But in the wake of massive federal bailouts in the last six months, public sector decisions weigh more heavily than ever on investor confidence. That means Obama has more influence on stocks, for better or for worse, than perhaps any other president in the last generation. So far, that influence has been for the worse.

Two weeks ago, when Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner unveiled Obama’s long-awaited stimulus plan, the Dow plunged nearly 400 points – in a single day. The Obama plan stakes economic growth on expanded government spending that, in theory, will create jobs. But Geithner has been vague in describing the plan, driving stocks sharply lower and compelling investors to speculate – obsessively, no doubt – on what Obama has in store for America.

The Keynesian model Obama seems to favor believes huge government expenditures on public works projects will stimulate economic growth by creating jobs. But in his campaign for the White House, most of Obama’s grow-the-government proposals had nothing to do with infrastructure – instead, he called for giving “tax cuts” to those who do not currently pay taxes (i.e., $500 welfare checks). Obama also called for a variety of tax increases, including a jump in the capital-gains rate. Vilifying Wall Street may win some votes for candidate Obama, but it does not inspire investor confidence in President Obama.

Fast-forward a few months: In the absence of details on the current stimulus plan, investors can only assume Obama will fill in the gaps with the same ideas he proposed on the campaign trail, presaging an economic policy based in large part on 1970s-style Euro-Socialism - not a comforting thought for investors who are staking their livelihood on business expansion.

Until Mr. Obama changes course absolutely, the stock markets will continue to languish. That reversal of direction will require something that Mr. Obama will have a difficult time delivering: He will have to clearly and unequivocally renounce almost everything he proposed during his two-year campaign for the presidency. He will have to articulate a real economic recovery plan, based on business expansion and free enterprise, that will make his socialist supporters cry. That will come at a high political price for Mr. Obama; however, not nearly as high as the economic price everyday Americans will pay if stocks continue to plummet.

Detroit Eats Itself Alive

2009-02-12T17:10:00.000-08:00

General Motors Corp. is planning to cut another 10,000 salaried jobs this year, reducing its total number of white-collar workers by 14 percent to 63,000. Most of the company's remaining employees will have their wages cut.

Detroit was once the car-manufacturing capital of the world. It produced hundreds of thousands of jobs and spread prosperity throughout the nation. But over time, the United Auto Workers has cooked the golden goose and spread its ashes over Lake Michigan.

Asian automakers are outperforming their American competitors at an embarrassing rate, primarily because General Motors, Ford Motor Co., and Chrysler LLC must pay union wages that average $60,000 annually, plus gold-plated pension and health care benefits that double that amount per worker. A 2003 study by the Center for Automotive Research found that UAW compensation is 68 percent higher than the average US manufacturing sector. And UAW workers who "lose" their jobs go into a jobs bank that guarantees them full salaries for doing nothing as long as they don't accept transfers to open positions in other plants. Is it any surprise that these companies are imploding?

The sole purpose of a union is to protect its workers. But in this case, UAW is literally destroying the source of income for its workers. Our elected officials should see this as an example of the long-term dangers inherent in unchecked collective bargaining.

State Worker Furloughs

2009-02-06T17:23:00.000-08:00

Today roughly 238,000 state workers are staying home from work, a mandatory unpaid day-off. It is part of Governor Schwarzenegger's plan to save the state about $1.3 billion: Furloughing most state workers (even unionized ones) for two days per month, in an effort to ease the state's projected $40 billion deficit. It topples the notion that state civil service jobs are safe from the economic belt-tightening that everyone else goes through during a recession. Indeed, Gov. Schwarzenegger has succeeded where numerous past governors have failed.

Governors have long tried - and mostly failed - to reverse the growth of the state payroll when deficits have soared. Even as private companies lay off tens of thousands of workers, the state employment rolls tend to remain impenetrable.

In 1991, Gov. Pete Wilson tried trimming the state payroll by using his emergency powers to cut the salaries of most of the state workforce by 5 percent. But a state court judge ruled that the governor could not do so without the consent of the Legislature, and the money was eventually returned to employees in cash or vacation time. Wilson also tried laying off 10,000 state workers that same year, when California was facing a $14.1 billion deficit, but abandoned the idea after years of battling the public employee unions.

In 2003, Gov. Gray Davis put plans in motion to lay off about 12,000 workers, sending them notices that the state had begun the lengthy process of eliminating their jobs - but the layoffs never happened. Instead, Davis struck a deal with the unions that merely postponed their annual 5-percent pay raise and, in return, gave the state workers an extra day off, every month, with pay.

The failure to curb growth in state spending is due mostly to the ironclad union protections for public employees enacted by Jerry Brown in the 1970s. Since that time, the unions have wrapped their tentacles around the state treasury so tightly that no one would even dare to try to reduce their pay, or even slow down the increases in their pay, even while the national economy is plummeting and hundreds of thousands in the private sector are losing their jobs, even while the state itself is headed off a fiscal cliff and the only remedy Democrats can think of is to raise taxes on the very families that are now losing their jobs. The public employee unions control the Democrats like puppets and they have tripped up every governor seeking reform, up until now.

Gov. Schwarzenegger has managed to do what few have even dared in the past - he's enacted real cuts, real reductions in the state payroll that will help to alleviate California's fiscal woes, as well as share the pain that's been omnipresent in the private sector for years.

Michael Steele: Repairing The Republican Coalition

2009-02-05T21:36:00.001-08:00

Last week, the Republican National Committee elected Michael Steele to the post of Chairman, and in so doing took an important step towards returning from the political wilderness. By electing a minority, as well as a more non-ideological candidate, the RNC has shown a willingness to try and learn some lessons from successive electoral defeats that have driven the Republicans to the brink of irrelevance in the federal government.

It was a little more than 4 years ago that a Democrat Senator from Georgia named Zell Miller came out with a book titled “A National Party No More”. In this book, he argued that with the Democrats all but driven out of the South, they could no longer claim to be a national political party. Today, the one could be justified in giving the Republican Party the same diagnosis. The Party has only 3 Senators and zero Congressmen from the 6 states that make up New England. On the West Coast, the Party has zero Senators and only 1/3 of the congressional seats.

The reason that the Party has ceased to be competitive in these areas is that it has ceased representing a political philosophy that can be competitive in these regions. The Republican coalition of the last generation has broadly consisted of pro-business interests (think Northeast and West Coast), libertarian-leaning individuals, and religious cultural conservatives. While there is obviously geographical overlap, the pro-business interests generally played well in the northeast and on the coasts, the Party’s libertarian streak helped it to win in the Mountain states, and the religious conservatives helped the Party take over the South. In order to be dominant nationally, political parties must usually be broad-based. This means that they will generally consist of several factions that come together to promote certain goals. Such arrangements necessarily entail compromises between the various factions. However, when one faction becomes too powerful, it can push the Party to promote a more narrowly focused agenda, thereby alienating members of the other factions. In many ways, this has been the fate of the Republican Party. The rise to dominance of the ‘Southern’ wing in Republican Party, along with Republican abandonment of their traditional small-government, fiscal conservatism, has caused the Party to lose ground on the coasts and in the Mountain states. Meanwhile, the Party’s seemingly inflexible positions on certain issues such as immigration have resulted in the Party enhancing its anti-minority reputation.

Michael Steele is precisely the type of person that the Republicans need to help lead them back from the wilderness. As the former Lieutenant-Governor of a ‘blue’ state, he has the credentials to help shape a new Republican message that will enable the Party to broaden its appeal and create the ‘big-tent’ that will be necessary for the Party to become nationally dominant once more. As a minority, he can help the Republicans learn to reach out to diverse groups of voters and possibly eventually begin to shed their image of being the anti-minority Party. While Michael Steele is not necessarily the new Ronald Reagan, his election suggests that new, revitalizing forces are at work within the GOP. Friday, January 30, was a good day for the long-term health of the Republican Party.

Support a Fallen Hero

2009-01-28T14:02:00.000-08:00

I recently got an email from Crime Victims United, and reading it both angered and saddened me. Last year, a police officer in Tucson, Arizona named Erik Hite was shot in cold blood while attempting to apprehend a man with an assault rifle. Officer Hite’s killer opened fire on law enforcement officers in six different locations in Tucson in an hour long shooting spree before he was arrested.

After being shot in the head, two of Officer Hite’s fellow officers attended to him as he lay on the ground before he could be airlifted to the hospital. Officer Hite died the next day, leaving behind a wife, 1 year old daughter and adult son serving in the military. Officer Hite, who was 43, spent 21 years serving in the Air Force and served the Tucson Police Department for four years before his murder.

Now, however, a punk rock band named “Awful Truth” is using a copyrighted photo from the Arizona Daily Star taken of Officer Hite suffering on the ground after being shot as the cover of its album entitled “Kill a Cop for God.” The album is named after the band’s song by the same name that glorifies Officer Hite’s killer.

Singer David Stine, of Awful Truth, does not apologize for the band’s use of the photo and says he has no regrets. "That's what punk rock is all about," he said. "It's loud, offensive music - key word offensive. If you don't think it's funny then you don't have to laugh, you don't have to look at the album, you don't have to listen to the song." Apparently he thinks there is something funny about Officer Hite’s suffering.

In reality though there is nothing funny about Officer Hite’s murder and there is certainly nothing funny about a song called “Kill a Cop for God.” Officer Hite, like the many other brave men and women working in law enforcement all across this great land, dedicated his life to keeping others safe. Every time an officer leaves their home they know they might not return to their family later that day, but they continue to do what they do because theirs is a higher calling. We are told in the Bible, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” Officer Hite exhibited this greatest kind of love, laying down his own life in the cause of protecting his fellow man from harm.

But Awful Truth’s actions are not just disrespectful, they are illegal. The photo was copyrighted, so the band could not use it without the consent of the Arizona Daily Star. Please consider lending your support to the effort to honor Erik Hite’s memory and protect copyright laws by signing this petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/SueTruth/petition.html

California Fiscal Crisis: The Cost Of Ideologically-Driven Government

2009-01-22T20:45:00.000-08:00

While Obama was being sworn in this week promising “Change We Can Believe In”, the California legislature led by his fellow Democrats seemed hopelessly mired in familiar dysfunctional practices. While the rest of America is being forced to tighten its belt and come to terms with its unsustainable financial practices of the last 15 to 20 years, the Democrats in the legislature seem unwilling to admit that they will need to do the same.

While the Democrats may try and blame Republican ideological aversion to raising taxes for the current crisis, the Democrats apparent ideological aversion to cutting spending shares at least an equal share of the blame. Over the last 8-9 years, government spending by the state of California has risen by over 80%. This massive increase in spending could be understood if California was financing substantial overseas military commitments, or if there had been a massive increase in the state’s population. The fact that neither of these eventualities have occurred undermines the view that the state is facing a revenue problem rather than a spending problem, despite the fact that the current crisis was triggered by a substantial drop off in tax revenues. On the surface, fiscal prudence might seem to dictate that Republicans abandon their reflexive opposition to tax increases. However, given the massive increases in state spending that have occurred over the last few years, one is justified in wondering whether the state would behave any more prudently with the extra revenue than it has in the past. Contrary to Democrat insinuations, reducing spending on various programs to say, 2005 levels, is not necessarily an assault on the state’s ability to maintain adequate service levels.

The current crisis is not being resolved, because the Democrats in the state legislature are refusing to abandon their ideological predisposition to raising taxes and government spending. While the Democrats have pushed and prodded for more government spending over recent years, the state has lurched from one budget battle to the next. While one can perhaps understand the Democrat’s reluctance to anger their supporters and cut spending, their dominant position in state government coupled with the currently damaged Republican brand means that they are going to be the political party in control of this state for the foreseeable future. This implies that the Democrats could afford to balance the budget through spending cuts, without likely incurring a substantial political cost. It is tough to imagine various unions abandoning the Democrats and throwing their weight behind Republicans in the next election cycle, simply because the Democrats cut some favored programs.

In short, the Democrats deciding to in effect govern through ideology rather than through basic fiscal common sense has put the state in a very difficult position. While the Republican’s ideology often prevents them from supporting tax increases (an opposition that they will likely have to soften sometime in the name of fiscal responsibility), the Democrats ideology virtually guarantees an endless upward cycle of increased taxing and spending. That the ideology of the dominant political party in this state prevents it from using this crisis to rein in out-of-control state spending means that California’s perennial budget battle/crisis will likely be a feature of the political landscape in this state for a long time to come.

The Madoff Affair (The Limits Of Regulation)

2008-12-27T22:29:00.000-08:00

Over the last 3 weeks, the world has been treated to the spectacle of a former head of NASDAQ admitting that he defrauded investors, possibly by as much as $50 billion dollars. While financial fraud is certainly nothing new (the current financial crisis has brought to light copious amounts of it), the scope and magnitude of this fraud is unparalleled in U.S. history. In addition to putting an exclamation mark on what has been a disastrous and embarrassing year for the financial services industry, the Madoff affair also illustrates the boundaries of what regulation can accomplish as well as illuminating what the individual citizen must do on their own. In addition, this affair illustrates the importance of trust in financial matters, and what can happen when it is abused.

Much of the regulatory structure currently in place is designed to frustrate attempts to mislead or defraud investors, specifically the small investor. In this case, however, it was not the small, unsophisticated investor who got swindled. The victims of this fraud were famous names like Steven Spielberg, and sophisticated investors like Mort Zuckerman. Madoff used the fact that he was the former head of NASDAQ, as well as the fact that he was well-known in certain circles, to engender the trust necessary to induce people to place their money (and their client’s money) with him. His returns, while generally consistent in all types of markets, were merely the result of what he described as a giant Ponzi scheme. Of course, Ponzi schemes tend to eventually collapse, and Mr. Madoff’s was no exception.

Although, journalists, politicians, and others will undoubtedly use this incident to buttress calls for wider and more sweeping regulation, this fraud is not a failure of regulation. To be sure, the current financial crisis has exposed many flaws in the existing regulatory framework that will need to be corrected. However, Bernard Madoff committed fraud, which is already illegal. Clearly, either he thought he could get away with it, or he was not deterred by the existing penalties already on the books. The fact that he took advantage of the well-to-do (as opposed to the small investor) says more about the failure of these individuals and institutions to ask the right questions and do the appropriate due diligence, than it does about the adequacy of the current regulatory regime. There were many who did look at Madoff, undertook appropriate due diligence measures, decided not to invest with him, and are very much relieved today that they did not.

Modern financial regulation exists to provide for the orderly conduct of financial transactions, and to help protect the financial interests of those who are not in a position to be able to protect their interests alone. Many of the individuals and hedge funds that were victimized by Madoff, on the other hand, were in a position to protect themselves and failed to do so. While regulation can help to deter and frustrate efforts to commit crimes, regulation cannot completely stop someone who is determined to do something that he knows is illegal. A regulatory environment that would be able to prevent someone such as Madoff from swindling sophisticated investors would need to be so intrusive to be effective that it would likely effectively eliminate anything resembling free market capitalism in the financial sector. It is only individuals and institutions taking it upon themselves to conduct appropriate due diligence that will ultimately prevent the next Bernard Madoff.

Bailout For U.S. Automakers (The Wrong Medicine For The Wrong Industry)

2008-12-13T17:13:00.000-08:00

Despite the best efforts of Republicans in the Senate, it appears likely that some sort of government assistance will eventually be provided to the Big 3 automakers in Detroit (even if they have to wait until Obama takes office). While the subject of a bailout for the automakers has certainly been controversial, the question as to whether Congress would be able to resist the enormous political pressure that was sure to be brought from the auto industry and the unions appears likely to eventually be answered in the negative. While some have attempted to use the bailout of the financial sector to justify a bailout for the American auto industry, the two issues are not really comparable.

Simply put, the automakers are simply not good candidates for a government bailout. Despite protestations that allowing one or all of the Big 3 to go bankrupt will inflict massive economic damage on the country, such an outcome will not be nearly as catastrophic as the bankruptcy and liquidation of a major U.S. financial institution such as Citi, Bank of America, or Wells Fargo. Unlike financial institutions, where confidence in solvency is a key factor in an institution’s ability (and that of the entire financial system) to survive, the collapse of GM would not result in a system-wide crisis of confidence that would imperil say, Toyota. On the other hand, the collapse of a major bank like Citi could reverberate around the globe and cause a financial panic that might imperil the ability of even semi-healthy institutions to survive.
Furthermore, the automakers and financial institutions have very different economic problems. The financial industry was doing well when the economy was strong, but has been heavily damaged by its poor lending decisions now that the real estate bubble has collapsed and the economy has softened. In response to the crisis, banks and others have changed their lending practices. When the lending excesses of the last few years are eventually worked out (with no small amount of help from the American taxpayer), many of the currently-imperiled companies will be fine. The Big 3 automakers, on the other hand, have fundamentally unsustainable business models. They have enormous “legacy costs”, partly due to overly generous health and pension benefits to retirees that were made back when the Big 3 ruled much of the automobile universe. Furthermore, current workers enjoy generous benefits courtesy of the power of the United Auto Workers. Several years ago, one wag commented that GM was a benefits company that happened to make cars, rather than a car company that happened to pay benefits. The weight of this financial burden, as well as other poor decisions that have been made, has resulted in the Big 3 struggling in economic goods times as well as bad ones. If one or more of the Big 3 are allowed to go bankrupt, a bankruptcy judge will be able either sell off assets to companies that will be better able to manage them, or force a massive and painful restructuring that may allow the companies to eventually survive as economically viable auto producers. On the other hand, throwing public money at Detroit will merely reduce the incentive for management and the unions to make the radical changes necessary for these companies to become economically viable again.

While the collapse of one or more of the major U.S. banks could result in a significant economic contraction (resulting from a reduced supply of credit), the collapse of one or more U.S. automakers will not have anything approaching a similar impact. Unlike financial institutions, many of whose problems will be resolved by working their way out of the results of past lending practices, along with an aptly timed economic recovery, the automaker’s economic problems are structural in nature. Consequently, a bailout of Detroit is unlikely to be temporary and is more likely to result in “Aid To Big 3” becoming a permanent line item in the federal budget. For these reasons, a bailout for the U.S. automakers is a mistake that Congress should not be making.

"Cold Cash" Is Out

2008-12-07T17:30:00.000-08:00

A bit of good news in an otherwise disappointing election year: Republican candidate Ahn Cao has ousted Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson. In an election that was delayed by Hurricane Gustav, Cao has finally been declared the winner in an aggressive push by Republicans to win Louisiana’s second congressional district and get rid of the disgraced Democrat William “Cold Cash” Jefferson.

Jefferson was indicted last year on charges of bribery, money laundering, and misusing his congressional office and staff to enrich himself. “Cold Cash” Jefferson is best known for being caught with $90,000 in dirty money hidden in his freezer, but this incident is hardly the highlight of Jefferson’s career, which includes allegations of accepting $400,000 in bribes paid through a company maintained in the name of his family members. In May 2006, the FBI raided Jefferson's congressional offices in response to allegations of corruption – yet he was reelected later that year. The reign of “Cold Cash” is emblematic of an entrenched political class that sees itself as above the law.

Cao’s victory over Jefferson is more important than gaining one Republican seat in Congress – it sends a message that the voters are paying attention and ready to punish malfeasance. Congratulations are due to Congressman-elect Cao, and to the voters of Louisiana’s second congressional district. Your time is done, Jefferson. Time to cash out.

McClintock Wins CD 4...Finally

2008-12-04T16:06:00.000-08:00

It has been one month since the historic Novebmer 4th election, and finally the 4th Congressional District has a Congressman. The disputed northern California House race was decided late yesterday when Democrat Charlie Brown conceded to Republican Tom McClintock. It has been surprising that it has taken a month to declare the district for a Republican, given CD 4 has never been a district the GOP has had trouble winning.

Brown stated that with "more than 370,000 ballots tabulated, the outcome is no longer in question." McClintock’s victory margin is less than 1,800 votes. CD 4 is the seat of the retiring Congressman John Doolittle and stretches from the Sacramento metropolitan suburbs north and east of the city to Lake Tahoe and then north to the Oregon border. McClintock, a sitting state Senator in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties, over 400 miles from his new congressional district, may be the first person to win a US House seat while actively representing a constituency in the opposite corner of a state. McClintock became known to voters throughout California from repeatedly running statewide.

It's nice to finally have a congressman named in CD4 - it's too bad we couldn't be celebrating this victory a month ago...

Statism and Neglect

2008-12-04T14:12:00.000-08:00

Socialism has crept into America in the form of misguided bailouts for some of the most ineptly managed companies in the world, at a price tag of over $7,000 per household. Now every bloated pretense of a business is lining up for its handout, most recently the major US automakers. We are left with a De Gaulle-style socialism: state-funded corporations with zero accountability for how tax dollars are spent.

A government audit yesterday found that the Treasury Department is already failing its duty to oversee the $700 billion bailout of the financial sector. So far the banking system has used taxpayer money to purchase $290 billion in bank stocks in order to increase lending. But in its report to Congress, the Government Accountability Office says the Treasury has no mechanism in place to monitor where those funds are going. This bailout marks the greatest corporate theft of public assets in the nation's history.

YRFS Unanimously Endorses Lori Ann Cline

2008-11-25T12:02:00.000-08:00

Contact: Christopher Angle FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tel.: 916-771-8579
E-mail: ChristopherAngle@lycos.com

YRFS ENDORSES LORI ANN CLINE FOR VICE CHAIR NORTH

Young Republican Federation of California, Sacramento Chapter, Unanimously Endorses Conservative Candidate

The Young Republican Federation of California, Sacramento Chapter (YRFS), unanimously endorsed conservative candidate Lori Ann Cline for CRP Vice Chair North this week at the YRFS governing board meeting.

“I have known Lori Ann Cline for years” said Jaime Huff, YRFS President, “and I know no one more committed to the health and success of the California Republican Party or the Northern region than Lori. Her record and service to the Party and its conservative ideals speaks for itself.”

YRFS is a conservative organization committed to making the Republican Party the majority party in the State of California through activism and support of conservative Republican candidates and volunteer recruitment.

Lori Ann Cline is a 5th generation Northern Californian committed to providing leadership and support to the 19 County Central Committees within the Northern region. She has pledged to build Republican strength within the Northern Counties, increase party membership, and support the election of Republican candidates who hold strong conservative ideals.

###

If you'd like more information about the candidate, or to schedule an interview with Lori Ann Cline, please call Christopher Angle at 916-771-8579 or e-mail christopherangle@lycos.com.

The Detroit Bailout

2008-11-24T22:06:00.000-08:00

Major U.S. automakers visited Capitol Hill last week to plead their case for an industry bailout. General Motors Corp., Chrysler LLC, and Ford Motor Co. consumed nearly $18 billion in cash last quarter and analysts say GM and Chrysler could run out of cash by the end of the year. Now GM is requesting $10 to $12 billion in federal loans to avoid bankruptcy. Ford wants $7 to $8 billion. And Chrysler is asking for $7 billion. Their argument to the Senate Banking Committee is that the failure of any of them would doom the already-struggling economy.

Congress should resist this plea for a handout. No company is “too big to fail.” The failure of suboptimal firms is part of the creative destruction that clears the way for better, more efficient market players. The American taxpayers should not have to pay for the mismanagement of CEOs and union contracts that are to blame, in part, for the Big Three’s lack of competitiveness.

In 1980, the federal government loaned $1.5 billion to Chrysler to avoid bankruptcy, but Congress should not look at this previous loan as an acceptable precedent for future bailouts. In 1980, the United States was still in the midst of a perilous Cold War and subject to high probabilities of military conflicts domestic and abroad; maintaining a strong auto industry (which may be called upon to manufacture tanks and other military vehicles) was not merely an economic priority but a matter of national security. In fact, that same year, the military bought thousands of Dodge pickup trucks to enter military service as the Commercial Utility Cargo Vehicle M-880 Series. At that time, Chrysler was considered an important factor in the nation’s military readiness and ability to repel a Soviet invasion. We live in a totally different world today.

Today, automakers are asking for government assistance to breathe life into a dying system under the auspices that it will save American jobs. But Americans are already suffering under the weight of government failure where the public sector has already intruded generations ago. Social Security and Medicare are headed speedily for fiscal ruin. Congress should focus on reviving these government fiefdoms before rushing to conquer a new one in the auto industry.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proposed a bill last week that gives $25 billion in aid to the Big Three, but there are few protections in this bill to curb the irresponsible practices that brought on the trouble in the first place. Our elected officials should reject this flawed and audacious proposal. No more bailouts, no more loans. It’s time to face the music.

Holiday Mail for Heroes Through the Red Cross

2008-11-24T13:15:00.000-08:00

The American Red Cross and “Holiday Mail for Heroes” are planning on delivering One Million Cards to Service Members and Families

The American Red Cross and Pitney Bowes Inc. are teaming up to send holiday cards to service men and women in the United States and around the world. From Tuesday, November 11 until Wednesday, December 10, the public is invited to send holiday cards with their message of thanks and cheer to a special post office box. The Red Cross and Pitney Bowes will then screen cards for hazardous materials, sort and package the cards, and deliver them to military bases and hospitals, veteran’s hospitals, and other locations during the holidays.

Holiday cards should be addressed and sent to:
Holiday Mail For Heroes
P.O. Box 5456
Capitol Heights, MD 20791-5456

Cards must be postmarked by December 10 , 2008. Cards received after this date will be returned to senders. For more information, please visit Redcross.org/holidaymail. You can also leave a message on the Red Cross Service to the Armed Forces Facebook Wall.

5th Year for Operation Christmas for Our Troop

2008-11-23T10:54:00.000-08:00

The California State Legislature & Yellow Ribbon America Launches 5th Annual Operation Christmas for Our Troops and Their Families
* * *

Goal is to deliver Christmas support to over 300,000 of California, Arizona and Nevada’s military membersand their families here and serving throughout the world

IRVINE, CALIF – The California State Legislature and Yellow Ribbon America have launched its fifth annual Operation Christmas for Our Troops and Their Families, a statewide and national non-partisan holiday effort to give support to America’s deployed and at home military members and their families. The effort, which supports the National Guard, Reserve and Active Duty deployed and at home military members and their families, began in November 2004 and has grown every year since. It is not just the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guard members that are affected when they are deployed and away from home but also the families who are left behind. According to the Pentagon, this is the largest Christmas Holiday effort for both our nation’s military and their families.

Over the last four years with the help of thousands of our fellow Californians, Operation Christmas for Our Troops and Their Families has collected over 247,000 donated items such as food for various Unit Christmas parties, bikes, toys, DVDs, games, all types of gift cards as well as financial donations for military families in need and for the Family Readiness programs offered by all branches of service in California’s National Guard, Reserve and Active Duty Components.

This year our statewide goal is to deliver Christmas community support to over 300,000 of California, Arizona and Nevada’s military members and their families here at home and serving throughout the world. Through the generous donations from all of California’s communities we will be able to give gifts to military families especially the children of America’s military to help them through the emotional difficulties of the holidays while their loved ones are far from home. “Operation Christmas for Our Troops V” will provide support from local communities, which helps bring all Americans together to support their local military and their families. Locals Helping Locals -- local businesses, residents, churches and community groups focusing their resources on helping their military members and their families located in their own community. That’s what the Yellow Ribbon America (YRA) Campaign is all about.

Because the Christmas shopping list is so large, Yellow Ribbon America, which manages the volunteer effort and project coordination, is already in FULL-TIME Community Outreach mode for Operation Christmas for Troops & their Families V. They have been doing events from Sacramento to San Diego with our YRA volunteers, local California Troops and their families generating support for the military units, families and those who have emergency needs.

For more information on how to participate or donate, visit www.YellowRibbonAmerica.org.
On behalf of Yellow Ribbon America and the California State Legislature we wish to thank you for being part of the largest Christmas Holiday Community outreach effort in the nation for both America’s military members and their families.

Brad White
Chief Elf
National Chairman
Operation Christmas for Troops & Their Families V
YRA / Yellow Ribbon America
3972 Barranca Parkway, Suite J #251Irvine, CA 92606-0441
Office (714) 454-1150 / (949) 334-4041 Fax
www.YellowRibbonAmerica.org

"Uniting Communities to assist America's Military and their Families."

Third Annual Christmas Party and Toy Drive with Yellow Ribbon America

2008-11-23T10:43:00.000-08:00

Christmas Greetings!

It's that time of year: the Third Annual Yellow Ribbon America's Christmas for our Troops Toy Drive and Christmas party with YRFC Sacramento! Please join YRFC Sacramento and Yellow Ribbon America on December 3rd for a celebration of Christmas and a collection of toys for children of troops abroad. We will be collecting as many new, unwrapped toys as possible to distribute to ALL branches of the military, including the men and women of reserve units.

Last year turnout was impressive, and we hope this year's showing will be even better! Please take a moment out of your very busy schedule to help support the families of the men and women who are unable to be with their loved one this Christmas season.If you are unable to attend, but would like to donate, please post here I will make arrangements to get the toys where they need to go.

Event details are as follows:
Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Time: 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM
Location: Vallejo’s
Address: 1100 “O St., Ste 8,
Sacramento, CA 95814
Website: http://www.vallejosrestaurant.com/

To find out how to become more involved with Yellow Ribbon America or to make a donation, visit: http://www.yellowribbonamerica.org/

Yellow Ribbon America has been supporting our hero’s since 2003. They do many other wonderful things to support our military in addition to the Christmas cheer they spread!Please pass this email along to anyone you think may be interested in attending or donating to this wonderful organization. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time.

I look forward to seeing you all on December 3rd. For more information, contact the organizer of the event, Tanisha Henson via Email: t.v.henson@hotmail.com or respond to this post.

Thank you and Merry Christmas!

Anti-democratic Democrats

2008-11-23T10:37:00.000-08:00

One of the fundamental supports undergirding a liberal constitutional democratic system is the implied legitimacy of decisions not to ones liking, provided that the proper procedures were followed in making them. Since Proposition 8 passed, several groups (including 44 Democrat members of the state legislature) essentially declared their disagreement with this concept in calling on the California Supreme Court to overturn this constitutional amendment. As frustrated as these opponents of Proposition 8 might be, the California Supreme Court cannot simply overturn this proposition without seriously damaging (if not destroying) the idea that the people of California have the right to amend their constitution as they see fit. While judicial activism is certainly not new (the left has been using it for nearly two generations to advance its agenda), overturning this amendment would represent one of the most brazen acts yet of judicial supremacy. An act of this magnitude would justify one in questioning whether California could still be considered a liberal constitutional democratic republic.

While there are legitimate questions as to whether allowing the people of California to amend the constitution through initiative is the best way to maintain a stable legal system, it is still a legal process in this state. While Proposition 8 was passed through this system, it is to be admitted that a constitutional definition of marriage may not be the best solution in that it robs society of flexibility on the issue. However, the fact that so many Democrat groups are willing to openly declare a decision taken by the people of California within constitutional parameters to be fundamentally illegitimate is troubling. Such an act calls into question their fundamental commitment to the principles of a liberal constitutional democratic republic. Whether or not same-sex marriage ultimately becomes culturally accepted in the way that civil rights for African-Americans have is not likely to prove fatal to the democratic-republican form of government in this state. That a significant fraction of the population would come to see the principles undergirding this form of government as illegitimate is far more likely to result in its demise; and is therefore much more problematic for the future of California.

Republicans-The Road Back

2008-11-15T14:11:00.000-08:00

After being soundly beaten on November 4th, the Republican Party finds itself in a very dangerous position. Historically, political coalitions have tended to react in one of two ways to similar situations: either they thoughtfully reexamine themselves and change course, or they decide to hold course and become more shrill and extreme as they continue to lose elections. The latter course seems to turn off voters and tends to result in a downward slide towards permanent minority status.

If the Republicans are to avoid this fate, they will need to assess themselves calmly and rationally. One problem for the Republicans is that they became ideologically rigid instead of pragmatic in some ways, and did not hold to their conservative principles in others. This combination resulted in the alienation of many who might otherwise have supported them. One word that is continually applied in criticisms of the Bush Administration is ‘incompetence’. For four years in Iraq (prior to the surge), the Administration’s mantra was ‘stay the course’. While ideologically correct, this was another way of saying that the Administration did not have a coherent plan. Another example is that the Administration held roughly to an ‘all free markets all the time’ ideology. While a commitment to the free market is a desirable characteristic in a government (or a Party), the ideological rigidity of the Administration seemed to blind it to the recognition that financial markets sometimes need sufficient, effective, and proactive regulatory regimes. On fiscal issues, on the other hand, one could argue that the Administration was not ideologically rigid enough. The Administration and a Republican Congress put forth the view that tax cuts are a cure-all for the economy and that Reagan showed that “deficits don’t matter”. The result of this combination was series of tax cuts and a free spending Congress, which resulted in a rather large federal budget deficit. The end result of these and several other mistakes is that the American people lost faith in the Republican Party to effectively deal with the nation’s problems.

In order to return to power, the Republicans need to convince the country that they are capable of governing. The good news is that much of the Republican message still resonates with the electorate. This is evidenced by the fact that the Democratic ticket had some challenges getting elected, despite the massive political winds that were in its favor. Meanwhile, the Republicans need to recognize and embrace a pragmatism with which certain moderate Republicans such as Colin Powell tend to hold their positions. While many conservatives understandably chafe at being constrained by centrists such as Powell, it is people like him who are able to sympathize with many conservative aims and yet temper some of the ideological rigidity that can lead to poor decisions. Even Reagan compromised with Democrats to accomplish certain things, all while fighting them on other things. Fiscally, the Republicans need to return to their roots as the Party of small, limited, and efficient government. In fighting to hold the line on spending as Newt Gingrich did, the Republicans can reestablish their credentials as the Party of small, fiscally responsible government.

As we look ahead, there are many challenges facing this country. Social Security and Medicare are two examples of issues that do not have pure free market solutions that fall neatly within the conservative ideological framework. By combining the fiscal conservatism of a Gringrich, the pragmatism of a Powell, and the optimistic vision of a Reagan, the Republican Party can offer meaningful solutions to the problems of today and reestablish its reputation for competence which will allow it to return to power.

Eye of the Tiger

2008-11-14T08:15:00.000-08:00

I just finished watching Rocky III. Rocky Balboa is the quintessential Republican. He has no instinct for self-pity. When life is looking bleak, he just works harder. He sometimes loses, but he rarely complains.

Rocky III begins in the honeymoon of a miraculous title win where Rocky becomes the heavyweight champion of the world. He becomes wealthy, comfortable, and estranged from the deprivation that, early in life, had forged his steel determination to win. When he is suddenly faced with the shallow existence that has overtaken him, Rocky is shaken to his core and promptly defeated by an up-and-comer. Only after he gets back to his roots and remembers who he is, can Rocky come back to the ring and defeat his opponent. In short, Rocky must remember why he sought the championship in the first place.

After a stinging defeat on Election Day, the Republican Party is in much the same place. We have been dealt a humiliating loss, not because our opponents were stronger but because we forgot ourselves, because we lost any sense of a reason to fight.

To win back Congress and the White House, the GOP must get back to its roots. We must remember why we seek election victories in the first place. The virtue in limited government, economic freedoms, and individual responsibility – that is our eye of the tiger. In the years ahead, Republican candidates should work harder than ever to win, but to also keep in mind that Republicans should not win for winning’s sake. We win to affect government and better society through the institution of our values. In the words of Mr. Balboa, “That’s how winning is done!”

Early Political Games

2008-11-10T17:59:00.000-08:00

In his first news conference as a president-elect, Barack Obama promised that a “particularly urgent priority” of his administration would be to pass an economic stimulus plan which includes a second round of stimulus checks.

An odd announcement from a politician promising a pragmatic approach to the economy – given the failure of last year’s checks to stimulate economic growth. Less than 20 percent of the money in last year’s checks was spent or used to stimulate the economy; the bulk of those funds went into Americans’ savings accounts or was used to pay down debt. It is now generally accepted that the stimulus checks failed to have any meaningful impact on job creation or any other measure of economic recovery. So why propose more of the same?

The simple answer is that Obama has a high price to pay for his messianic campaign promise to rescue the economy and deliver real benefits in proportion to his soaring rhetoric. He risks being outflanked on the left by Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate and now stands to compete against this own guarantees for a heavily subsidized American economy. People want immediate results, unencumbered by the unpleasant realities that limit the government's actual ability to jumpstart the economy.

While not especially helpful to the economy, stimulus checks show a sign of immediate action - a political necessity for Obama right now. Given his disregard for their past performance (or non-performance), it is clear that the president-elect is already playing politics, attempting to cash the bad checks he wrote all year long by leaving free money in your mailbox.

Albert Einstein once said the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. But apparently sanity is not on Obama's list of "particularly urgent priorities," compared to racking up some quick political points at the beginning of his term.

An Open Letter to Obama

2008-11-05T17:47:00.000-08:00

A long post but well worth the read...

This letter was written by a man in East Texas as an open letter to Senator Obama. He really does exist and says anyone can email his letter around, just don't change it. If you know someone who holds to the theory that the rich have life easy and need to be taxed more send it to them. This man tells it like it is!

*************
Mr. Obama,
Given the uproar about the simple question asked you by Joe the plumber, and the persecution that has been heaped on him because he dared to question you, I find myself motivated to say a few things to you myself. While Joe aspires to start a business someday, I already have started not one, but 4 businesses. But first, let me introduce myself. You can call me "Cory the well driller". I am a 54 year old high school graduate. I didn't go to college like you, I was too ready to go "conquer the world" when I finished high school. 25 years ago at age 29, I started my own water well drilling business at a time when the economy here in East Texas was in a tailspin from the crash of the early
80's oil boom.

I didn't get any help from the government, nor did I look for any. I borrowed what I could from my sister, my uncle, and even the pawn shop and managed to scrape together a homemade drill rig and a few tools to do my first job. My businesses did not start as a result of privilege. They are the result of my personal drive, personal ambition, self discipline, self reliance, and a determination to treat my customers fairly.

From the very start my business provided one other (than myself) East Texan a full time job. I couldn't afford a backhoe the first few years (something every well drilling business had), so I and my helper had to dig the mud pits that are necessary for each and every job with hand shovels. I had to use my 10 year old, 1/2 ton pickup truck for my water tank truck (normally a job for at least a 2 ton truck).

A year and a half after I started the business, I scraped together a 20% down payment to get a modest bank loan and bought a (28 year) old, worn out, slightly bigger drilling rig to allow me to drill the deeper water wells in my area. I spent the next few years drilling wells with the rig while simultaneously rebuilding it between jobs. Through these years I never knew from one month to the next if I would have any work or be able to pay the bills. I got behind on my income taxes one year, and spent the next two years paying that back (with penalty and interest) while keeping up with ongoing taxes. I got behind on my water well supply bill 2 different years (way behind the second time... $80,000.00), and spent over a year paying it back (each time) while continuing to pay for ongoing supplies C.O.D. Of course, the personal stress endured through these experiences and years is hard to measure. I do have a stent in my heart now to memorialize it all.

I spent the next 10 years developing the reputation for being the most competent and most honest water well driller in East Texas. 2 years along the way, I hired another full time employee for the drilling business so that we could provide full time water well pump service as well as the well drilling. Also, 3 years along the path, I bought a water well screen service machine from a friend, starting business # 2. 5 years later I made a business loan for $100,000.00 to build a new, higher production, computer controlled screen service machine. I had designed the machine myself, and it didn't work out for 3 years so I had to make the loan payments without the benefit of any added income from the new machine. No government program was there to help me with the payments, or to help me sleep at night as I lay awake wondering how I would solve my machine problems or pay my bills. Finally, after 3 years, I got the screen machine working properly, and that provided another full time job for an East Texan in the screen service business.

2 years after that, I made another business loan, this time for $250,000.00, to buy another used drilling rig and all the support equipment needed to run another, larger, drill rig. This provided another 2 full time jobs for East Texans. Again, I spent a couple of years not knowing if I had made a smart move, or a move that would bankrupt me. For the third time in 13 years, I had placed everything I owned on the line, risking everything, in order to build a business.

A couple of years into this, I came up with a bright idea for a new kind of mud pump, a fundamentally necessary pump used on water well drill rigs. I spent my entire life savings to date (just $30,000.00), building a prototype of the pump and took it to the national water well convention to show it off. Customers immediately started coming out of the woodworks to buy the pumps, but there was a problem. I had depleted my assets making the prototype, and nobody would make me a business loan to start production of the new pumps. With several deposits for pump orders in hand, and nowhere to go, I finally started applying for as many credit card as I could find and took cash withdrawals on these cards to the tune of over $150,000.00 (including modest loans from my dear sister and brother), to get this 3rd business going.

Yes, once again, I had everything hanging over the line in an effort to start another business. I had never manufactured anything, and I had to design and bring into production a complex hydraulic machine from an untested prototype to a reliable production model (in six months). How many nights I lay awake wondering if I had just made the paramount mistake of my life I cannot tell you, but there were plenty.

I managed to get the pumps into production, which immediately created another 2 full time jobs in East Texas . Some of the models in the first year suffered from quality issues due to the poor workmanship of one of my key suppliers, so I and an employee (another East Texan employed) had to drive across the country to repair customers' pumps, practically from coast to coast. I stood behind the product, and made payments to all the credit cards that had financed me (and my brother and sister). I spent the next 5 years improving and refining the product, building a reputation for the pump and the company, working to get the pump into drill rig manufacturers' product lines, and paying back credit cards. During all this time I continued to manage a growing water well business that was now operating 3 drill rig crews, and 2 well service crews. Also, the screen service business continued to grow. No government programs were there to help me, Mr. Obama, but that's ok, I didn't expect any, nor did I want any. I was too busy fighting to make success happen to sit around waiting for the government to help me.

Now, we have been manufacturing the mud pumps for 7 years, my combined businesses employ 32 full time employees, and distribute $5,000,000.00 annually through the local economy. Now, just 4 months ago I borrowed $1,254,000.00, purchasing computer controlled machining equipment to start my 4th business, a production machine shop. The machine shop will serve the mud pump company so that we can better manufacture our pumps that are being shipped worldwide. Of course, the machine shop will also do work for outside companies as well. This has already produced 2 more full time jobs, and 2 more should develop out of it in the next few months. This should work out, but if it doesn't it will be because you, and the other professional politicians like yourself, will have destroyed our country’s' (and the world) economy with your meddling with mortgage loan programs through your liberal manipulation and intimidation of loaning institutions to make sure that unqualified borrowers could get mortgages. You see, at the very time when I couldn't get a business loan to get my mud pumps into production, you were working with Acorn and the Community Reinvestment Act programs to make sure that unqualified borrowers could buy homes with no down payment, and even no credit or worse yet, bad credit. Even the infamous, liberal, Ninja loans (No Income, No Job or Assets).

While these unqualified borrowers were enjoying unrealistically low interest rates, I was paying 22% to 24% interest on the credit cards that I had used to provide me the funds for the mud pump business that has created jobs for more East Texans. It's funny, because after 25 years of turning almost every dime of extra money back into my businesses to grow them, it has been only in the last two years that I have finally made enough money to be able to put a little away for retirement, and now the value of that has dropped 40% because of the policies you and your ilk have perpetrated on our country.

You see, Mr. Obama, I'm the guy you intend to raise taxes on. I'm the guy who has spent
25 years toiling and sweating, fretting and fighting, stressing and risking, to build a business and get ahead. I'm the guy who has been on the very edge of bankruptcy more than a dozen times over the last 25 years, and all the while creating more and more jobs for East Texans who didn't want to take a risk, and would not demand from themselves what I have demanded from myself. I'm the guy you characterize as "the Americans who can afford it the most" that you believe should be taxed more to provide income redistribution "to spread the wealth" to those who have never toiled, sweated, fretted, fought, stressed, or risked anything. You want to characterize me as someone who has enjoyed a life of privilege and who needs to pay a higher percentage of my income than those who have bought into your entitlement culture. I resent you, Mr. Obama, as I resent all who want to use class warfare as a tool to advance their political career. What's worse, each year more Americans buy into your liberal entitlement culture, and turn to the government for their hope of a better life instead of themselves. Liberals are succeeding through more than 40 years of collaborative effort between the predominant liberal media, and liberal indoctrination programs in the public school systems across our land.

What is so terribly sad about this is this: America was made great by people who embraced the one-time American culture of self reliance, self motivation, self determination, self discipline, personal betterment, hard work, risk taking. A culture built around the concept that success was in reach of every able bodied American who would strive for it. Each year that less Americans embrace that culture, we all descend together.

We descend down the socialist path that has brought country after country ultimately to bitter and unremarkable states. If you and your liberal comrades in the media and school systems would spend half as much effort cultivating a culture of can-do across America as you do cultivating your entitlement culture, we could see Americans at large embracing the conviction that they can elevate themselves through personal betterment, personal achievement, and self reliance. You see, when people embrace such ideals, they act on them. When people act on such ideals, they succeed. All of America could find herself elevating instead of deteriorating. But that would eliminate the need for liberal politicians, wouldn't it, Mr. Obama? The country would not need you if the country was convinced that problem solving was best left with individuals instead of the government. You and all your liberal comrades have got a vested interested in creating a dependent class in our country. It is the very business of liberals to create an ever expanding dependence on government. What's remarkable is that you, who have never produced a job in your life, are going to tax me to take more of my money and give it to people who wouldn't need my money if they would get off their entitlement mentality asses and apply themselves at work, demand more from themselves, and quit looking to liberal politicians to raise their station in life.

You see, I know because I've had them work for me before. Hundreds of them over these
25 years. People who simply will not show up to work on time. People who just will not work 5 days in a week, much less, 6 days. People always looking for a way to put less effort out. People who actually tell me that they would do more if I just would first pay them more. People who take off work to sit in government offices to apply to get free government handouts (gee, I wonder how things would have turned out for them if they had spent that time earning money and pleasing their employer?). You see, all of this comes from your entitlement mentality culture.

Oh, I know you will say I am uncompassionate. Sorry, Mr. Obama, wrong again. You see, I've seen what the average percentage of your income has been given to charities over the years of 2000 to 2004 (ignoring the years you started running for office - can you pronounce "politically motivated"), you averaged less than 1% annually. And your running mate, Joe Biden, averaged less than ¼% of his annual income in charitable contributions over the last 10 years. Like so many liberals, the two of you want to give to the needy, just as long as it is someone else's money you are giving to them. I won't say what I have given to charities over the last 25 years, but the percentage is several times more than you and Joe Biden. Combined (don't you just hate Google?) Tell me again how you feel my pain....

In short, Mr. Obama, your political philosophies represent everything that is wrong with our country. You represent the culture of government dependence instead of self reliance;
entitlement mentality instead of personal achievement; penalization of the successful to reward the unmotivated; political correctness instead of open mindedness and open debate. If you are successful, you may preside over the final transformation of America from being the greatest and most self-reliant culture on earth, to just another country of whiners and wimps, who sit around looking to the government to solve their problems. Like all of Western Europe. All countries on the decline. All countries that, because of liberal socialistic mentalities, have a little less to offer mankind every year.

God help us...

Cory Miller, just a ordinary, extraordinary American, the way a lot of Americans used to be.

P.S. Yes, Mr. Obama, I am a real American...
www.cmillerdrilling.com

Today's Silver Lining

2008-11-05T16:40:00.000-08:00

Last night, Barack Obama was elected President because the Republican Party is suffering from an identity crisis. To the very end, John McCain campaigned hard and the Republican National Committee and local GOP committees contributed significantly in grassroots "get out the vote" efforts."

Nonetheless, by most measures, Democrats won the night. Obama defeated John McCain in every state that Democrats carried four years ago, including Pennsylvania, which McCain had worked hard to pry away. Obama also made inroads into GOP territory, winning Ohio, Colorado, Indiana, and Virginia; the latter two voted Democrat for the first time in more than 40 years. Obama won swing states of Florida, Iowa, and New Mexico, which backed George Bush in 2004. Democrats picked up at least five seats in the Senate, including ones in Virginia and North Carolina that had been held by Republicans for decades. Overall, it is difficult to see this election as anything but a smarting defeat for Republicans.

But there is a silver lining. Defeat can be healthy for a political party. Defeat prompts us to reassess our practices and our principles. There is a reason John McCain lost multiple states that George Bush had won.

Two days before the election, a friend and fellow Republican confided in me that he would not be voting in the presidential election. To him, nonvoting sent a message, a message that he was dissatisfied with the Republican White House and congressional majorities over the last eight years and that the GOP should not take his vote for granted – we have to earn it. We have to earn votes all year long – not simply “get them out” on Election Day. As a party, we must earn votes by embracing those values which distinguish the Republican Party from non-Republican ideas.

Let’s face it, in the last eight years, the GOP in Congress and the White House has abandoned much of what the GOP stands for. Federal spending has outpaced economic growth at a rate unseen in more than half a century, leaving us with a national debt of $10.5 trillion (up more than 80 percent from the start of the year 2000 when the debt was $5.6 trillion). Overregulation of the U.S. mortgage markets was responsible for this year’s financial crisis, yet the President’s only solution was to expand government intrusion even more, proposing a $700 billion bailout plan for major financial institutions at taxpayer expense – in effect, socializing our mortgage and financial markets.

Let us take this election defeat as a cathartic new beginning, however bitter that medicine tastes. As a party, we must earn votes by embracing those values which distinguish the Republican Party: free markets, personal and economic freedoms, individual responsibility, and, above all, unconditional honor and integrity. The day we abandon those values, no amount of “get out the vote” spending will turn out a Republican victory – because without those values a Republican victory means nothing.

Voters Have Spoken; Will Republicans Hear the Message?

2008-11-05T13:11:00.000-08:00

I have been sick all week, literally, with the thought of our country being run by a man who believes that redistribution of wealth leads to economic prosperity, who thinks pulling troops out of a region brimming with terrorists will make us safer, and who encourages unethical behavior in our election process by supporting groups like ACORN. I was devastated when I saw the large public mandate that sent him to the White House. I watched audience members cry as President-Elect Obama gave his victory speech last night and wanted to scream at them “wake up, Americans, this is the wrong choice!” But then it dawned on me: my party didn’t give them a choice.

Defenders of freedom and personal liberties, protectors of borders and American lives, proud patriots who put God before country and country before self – Republicans are the ones who are charged with picking a qualified candidate and giving the American electorate a choice. But we didn’t do that this time around. Instead, we gave them much of the same big government and intrusive politics which lost us seats in 2006. The reason I know this? Because the Republicans had the lowest turn out since Nixon – that was 30 years ago. We did not give our own supporters a real choice in this election, and our consequence will be four years of socialism.

As we accept our punishment let’s never forget who we are and what our mission must be: cleansing our party of those who do not follow our principles and winning back a majority through real reform and change.

The Republican Party is a broad based party with many different points of view, but while we can appreciate our internal differences we cannot forsake the basic ideals on which this party was founded. The Republican Party that I am a proud member of believes in freedom of the electorate, limiting government that keeps us safe but stays out of our lives, personal responsibility of citizens, and strong family values. Let us focus on finding candidates to run who stick to those principles, and replace those who do not.

Republicans were sent a message yesterday, and that was “stick to your values!” We lost our way when we had the majority (we didn’t keep a lid on spending, we didn’t even defund NPR!) However, today marks an opportunity, a chance to get our bearings, reassess our goals, and focus on the future. Now, more than ever, we need to remain steadfast in our devotion to what this country stands for, and be prepared to recapture government when the majority gets buyers remorse.

Another Great Depression?

2008-11-02T18:06:00.001-08:00

With financial markets in pure panic and the world economy faltering, some are asking whether the U.S. is on the brink of another Great Depression. While WWII was the defining event of the “Greatest Generation”, that generation was arguably more traumatized by the Depression era than by the war. With 25% unemployment at one point, the Depression touched every American in a way that even the war did not. While the war ended in 1945, many who grew up during the Depression carried the psychological scars from that experience with them for the rest of their lives. These scars often manifested themselves in the tendency of many of these individuals to hang on to anything that came into their possession. In addition, the Depression permanently changed the American form of government in that it resulted in the acceptance by the electorate of an activist federal government to an extent unimaginable prior to that time period.

So is the U.S. about to experience another period as traumatic and psychologically damaging as the Depression? There are several reasons for optimism that the current crisis will not be as traumatic. Firstly, the Fed (and Congress) seem determined not to repeat the mistakes of the 1930’s and are flooding the financial system with cash, whereas the 1930’s Fed pursued a contractionary monetary policy. Secondly, whereas countries of the world in the 1930’s put tariffs on each other’s products thereby restricting international trade abroad and employment opportunities at home, there does not currently seem to be the political will for such extremely restrictive trade policies. Since the 1930’s, the proportion of the U.S. labor force employed in services that do not have competition from imports has risen dramatically, which reduces the likelihood that significant political pressure for highly restrictive trade policies will materialize. Thirdly, even an unemployment rate of 25%, while still highly disruptive (though also fortunately highly unlikely), might not prove to be as psychologically damaging as it was in 30’s. The reason for this is the fact that most of the families in the 30’s were single income households, whereas today they are 2 income households. A family in the 30’s with an unemployed breadwinner was without any visible source of support. Today, a 25% unemployment rate would mean that while many families would lose their homes (thereby putting further downward pressure on home prices), they would likely still have the money to eat. Finally, there is also a social safety net in place as a result of the Depression which would likely prevent any return to the soup lines seen in the 30’s.

While this crisis is similar in many ways to the Depression, the differences that do exist mean that the ultimate outcome of the government’s policy responses cannot be predicted with complete certainty. The fact that the government is taking such an active role in crisis management early on means that at least some of the economic pain is likely to be mitigated, which will also have the effect of reducing political pressure for a massive expansion of the welfare state. Consequently, while this crisis may leave an impact on the American psyche, it does not appear destined to be as deep or as enduring as the impact of the Great Depression two generations ago.

Redistribution of Wealth

2008-10-30T22:25:00.000-07:00

In the last presidential debate, Barack Obama told a tax-burdened plumber that his economic philosophy is to “spread the wealth around.” This includes raising taxes on high-earners and giving tax breaks to people who do not pay taxes (by sending them checks). In essence, Obama has offered a trade with low-income voters: free money for your vote.

There is an idiom that a democracy lasts only until its people realize that they can vote themselves money – and once a democracy crosses that point, it inevitably declines. The realization that people can vote for handouts develops like a collective, social consciousness, and a disease that gradually poisons an otherwise healthy democratic nation.

The eighteenth-century historian Alexander Fraser Tytler wrote: “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.” It is believed that Tytler based his observation on the rise and fall of numerous ancient republics, including Greece and Rome.

These are ominous words to be sure, given the current economic crisis and one candidate’s success at the polls despite having offered zero economic development policies except to raise taxes and “spread the wealth around.” That is not to say that a decline of American democracy is inevitable. Tytler’s theory is based on a posthumous view of ancient city-states, and it is impossible to overestimate the greatness and resiliency of the American people. However, the appeal that Obama has gained as a class warrior, and the openness with which he espouses a redistribution of wealth, remains a serious cause for concern.

Barack Obama is close to the White House, with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress and a casual espousal of socialist policies. As such, an Obama presidency can do the country incredible harm, through establishment of massive entitlement programs, tax increases, and overregulation. But even more important, an Obama win validates a deeply flawed and toxic philosophy of redistribution of wealth.

Redistribution of wealth assumes a small and limited world, where one can increase his prosperity only by taking from somebody else’s. This zero-sum view ignores the potential for genuine wealth creation and breeds a kind of systemic envy and divisiveness. Great for political candidates. Terrible for civilization. This November, please vote no on redistribution. America is better than that.

Proposition 11: Fix the Process

2008-10-25T16:19:00.000-07:00

On Election Day, Proposition 11 will be on the ballot. Prop. 11 shifts authority over the drawing of political boundaries from the Sacramento politicians to a citizen commission. Under the current system, the Legislature adjusts the boundaries of these districts every ten years to account for changes in population; a process called “redistricting.” Redistricting affects districts for the state Legislature (Assembly and Senate), State Board of Equalization, and the U.S. House of Representatives. The purpose of redistricting is to establish districts that are “reasonably equal” in population, as well as ensuring fair elections and representation of local communities. Yet by entrusting legislators to draw their own districts, this process creates an obvious conflict of interest – It allows politicians to write their own political fortunes into the law.

Legislators abused that power in the 2001, when districts were drawn to lock in a large majority of Democrat or Republican voters in each district to deliver “safe” seats to each party. Essentially, legislators used voter registration data to lump in a large majority of voters of the same party into each district so that each party is virtually guaranteed its share of seats in the Legislature and Congress. This practice – known as gerrymandering - undermines competition from potential challengers for public office simply to protect the incumbents who redrew the boundaries. What are its other effects? Well, that is open to dispute.

One camp believes that the resulting assortment of "safe" Democrat and Republican districts leads to a polarization of the Legislature filled with extreme partisans, both conservative and liberal, resulting in gridlock and dysfunction at the statehouse. Because most Democrats run in a district that is overwhelmingly Democrat, there is no need for the candidate to appeal to conservative voters and, consequently, the most liberal candidate wins. The inverse is true for "safe" GOP seats. By allowing a citizens commission to redraw the districts so that they are more balanced, supporters of Prop. 11 believe it would produce more "competitive" districts which, in turn, would elect more moderate candidates.

But there is a different school of thought. Prop.11 opponents claim the measure would do very little to create competitive districts or elect moderate candidates. First, demographers can make the case that people tend to "vote with their feet" and cluster together ideologically (Anyone think we can create a district in San Francisco where a Republican can compete?). Given that birds of a (political) feather flock together, it may be impossible to create a large number of competitive districts. Second, even if competitive districts were created, opponents claim that elected officials would not necessarily become more moderate because they still have to win in a partisan primary - not to mention that a more competitive race would likely make campaigning more expensive and, thus, more reliant on financial support from the state party.

I lay this argument before you only to make the point that it doesn't matter. Those who argue about whether or not Prop. 11 would create competitive districts or a moderate Legislature are missing the point. Prop. 11 should not be about engineering a specific outcome in elections. It should be about making the process fair and responsible. In short, Prop. 11 is about good government.

Currently, there is a ridiculous conflict of interest in Sacramento, where legislators literally draw their own districts. This process is an affront to democracy and contradicts even grade school-level commonsense. The Legislature has guarded this authority for decades because it means power - not power for a specific party or even power for extremists over moderates, but power for the specific individuals who make up the legislative leadership: the power to get reelected and, after term limits, assist in the highly exclusive process of handpicking a replacement.

Prop. 11 is not the first attempt to fix this problem. Numerous propositions have been floated on the ballot before and they have all failed, frankly, because people don't understand redistricting very well. It is a fairly obscure issue and, if dragged into a speculative argument about whether or not competitive districts or moderate candidates will ensue, the average voter loses interest. The truth is nobody really knows what kind of Legislature we will get if Prop. 11 passes. But what we do know is that the current system is deplorable. So let's focus on that.

So far, the argument has been over predictions of the outcome. But any time that somebody can predict the political outcome of our election system, you know there's a problem. The real debate should be about process. Is the current redistricting system a good process? Of course it isn't. So let's fix that. And once we have a fair and reasonable redistricting process, let the chips fall where they may.

American Exceptionalism

2008-10-18T13:57:00.000-07:00

Earlier this year, Barack Obama gave a speech in Berlin, calling himself a "citizen of the world" before a crowd of 200,000 adoring Germans. I wondered, is he running for President of the United States or king of the world? Maybe Obama would make a better secretary general of the United Nations. He’s certainly running like one. What troubles me is the prospect that, as President, would he govern like one? What separates John McCain from Barack Obama is one of the most important concepts underlying American cultural identity - exceptionalism. Is America exceptional? Or is it, like any other "citizen of the world," ordinary and subordinate to the opinion and judgments of other nations? These questions confront every President and they should confront the voters this Election Day.

American exceptionalism - the belief that the United States and its people differ from other nations of the world because of its values and political and social institutions - is tangible in every period of American history and defines our role in the global struggle for justice, freedom, and human rights. People who believe in American exceptionalism believe the United States differs from other nations as an association of people who came from numerous places throughout the world but who hold a common bond in the belief in certain values - like democracy, the rule of law, private property, and constitutional government. It is the single most powerful agent in the evolution of the United States as an ideological entity.

The experience of the Vietnam War and the cultural upheaval of the 1960s and 1970s weakened the perception of American exceptionalism. Following Vietnam, many Americans suffered a crisis of confidence in the moral legitimacy of U.S. foreign policy, and began to question our purpose in history; tumultuous cultural change (while in some cases for the best) ultimately undermined American confidence in the absolute moral truths that guide our nation. In short, people began to doubt or even cease to believe that the U.S.A. was an extraordinary nation with a special role to play in history. It became, instead, a rudderless ship without a single distinguishable value or principle to set the course through troubled waters.

President Jimmy Carter's self-proclaimed mission was to restore the "moral compass" to the making of U.S. foreign policy. Yet, despite repeated appeals to exceptionalist rhetoric, Carter consistently bowed to the judgments of other nations before defending American interests abroad, a tendency later echoed in Senator Kerry's 2004 debate pledge to subject American policies to a "global test." Carter failed to revive American self-confidence and, particularly during his last year in office, following the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the seizing of American hostages in Iran, he was widely criticized for contributing to the sense that the United States was in decline.

Carter's successor, Ronald Reagan, changed course for the nation by drawing sharp contrasts (in "a banner of bold colors") between America and its adversaries. Reagan described our country as "a land of hope, a light unto nations, a shining city on a hill." He was a true believer in the exceptional nature of his country and conducted himself as the leader of an extraordinary nation with a special place in history. In foreign policy, he condemned the Soviet Union, in no uncertain terms, as an evil empire and an enemy of human rights, liberty, and justice, so long as it harbored and spread communism throughout the world. By condemning global evils while our “global partners” stood silent, Reagan reminded the American people of what makes the United States exceptional.

Is Barack Obama ready to stand up for the U.S.A. against the tide of world opinion? I’m not sure. He’s basing much of his campaign on his own status in the court of world opinion.

No bake sales!

2008-10-17T16:41:00.000-07:00

Recently, Davis Senior High School has enforced strict rules governing student organizations and bake sales.

They are no longer allowing bake sales for fundraisers. School officials state these bakes sales violate federal health laws.

Wow.

I highly doubt the feds will come raid an illegal bake sale put on by the Chess Club at Davis High.

I get that anything baked in a home kitchen cannot be monitored for health code violations, therefore a public institution should not sale these items based on that premise. However, it seems a bit trite to enforce such a strict ruling of federal law at such a local level.

We all know what we're getting when we buy a cookie at a bake sale, we are full aware that federal health codes were probably not followed. These codes are in place to protect us from harm at a level we can't monitor.

Most of the time we do not see the process that our food goes through before it gets to our mouths. We rely on the fact that there are rules that are enforced by the government. If we could monitor these processes I'm sure we would. That's why these laws were put into effect in the first place.

For school officials at Davis High to actually enforce federal health codes for school fundraisers is silly. Like I said before, most people that buy food from a bake sale know there is a high probability that the baker did not wear a hair net; however, they purchase the cookie to support the organization.

Less government involvement please. If the feds aren't knocking down the doors of the bakes sales, let them bake and sell!

Proposition 8

2008-10-13T15:46:00.000-07:00

In less than a month, California voters will go to the polls to decide whether to constitutionally define marriage in this state as being between 1 man and 1 woman. This proposition, however, is about more than just whether gay marriage should be legal. It is also about whether or not the definition of marriage is something that should be constitutionally mandated, as opposed to being defined through the legislative process.

Unfortunately, 4 overzealous judges on the California Supreme Court made gay marriage a constitutional issue when they decided that the people of California had been acting unconstitutionally for the last 160 years in not allowing homosexual couples to marry. Although popular imagination would have us believe otherwise, civil marriage is not a contract involving two individuals. It is a contract involving 3 parties: each of the individuals involved plus society (represented by the state). Recognized civil marriage involves society (the state) making the determination that a certain union is beneficial to society and deciding to confer certain benefits upon that union. If one is to say that gay marriage is a right, then it means that society’s approval of such unions is mandatory. Not only does this have interesting ramifications for freedom of conscience (if I am legally required to approve of your behavior, then am I truly free?), but it also denies the right of Californians to decide for themselves through their elected representatives the definition of a basic societal institution.

The decision of the Court to remove the definition of such a basic social institution from the legislative/electoral process undermines one of the great strengths of American society. One of the factors undergirding the strength of our society over the last 200 years is not just that we have been willing to try new ideas, but also that our governing system has been flexible enough to discard the ideas that don’t work rather than allowing them to become embedded in the system. Truthfully, nobody knows whether gay marriage will be beneficial for society or not, given that it is just now beginning to gain acceptance in various states (and a couple of countries). The potential problem for the people of California is that gay marriage could turn out to have a detrimental impact on society. While no one will likely complain if gay marriage turns out to be a societal positive, the Court’s declaring it to be a right will make a detrimental result from this experiment difficult to undo.

Of course, Proposition 8 will do exactly the same thing that the 4 justices have done in that it will define marriage into the California Constitution. While Proposition 8’s passage will also limit future flexibility on this issue, it should be supported simply because it will restore what the people of California voted for several years ago. If the justices respected the fact that their role is to maintain a system rather than change it, then a constitutional amendment defining marriage (one way or the other) would probably not be a good idea. The amendment of several state constitutions over the last few years is likely partly a preemptive strike against a judiciary that would take this issue out of the electoral process, rather than a belief in the inherent desirability of creating a constitutionally defined concept of marriage. Unfortunately, the California Supreme Court justices decided to effectively amend the California Constitution on their own. Proposition 8 is the only (albeit imperfect) mechanism to undo this power grab. Yes on Proposition 8.

Ax the Texting Tax in Sacto

2008-10-12T00:25:00.000-07:00

The Young Republican Federation of Sacramento has endorsed a NO vote on Measure O, also known as the "texting tax." This article appeared in this week's edition of the Sacramento Union.

By Eric Eisenhammer, Special Contributor to The Union
Published: October 8, 2008

There seems to be little that politicians will not tax. If they could find a way they would probably tax happiness or breathing. For now, politicians in the city of Sacramento are proposing a tax on text messaging and more.

To settle a lawsuit with local taxpayers, city officials agreed to place a measure on the November ballot asking voters to ratify a tax on cell phone service that had never been approved by the voters as required by the California Constitution.

However, in crafting what is now called Measure O, politicians got greedy and went well beyond cell phone service, extending the tax to texting and pretty much everything they could think of. Measure O will also extend the utility users tax to other types of communication now enjoyed tax-free: paging, instant messaging, toll free numbers, call waiting, caller ID, call forwarding, Internet communications and even communications not yet developed.

In the ordinance placing the texting tax on the ballot, the city states its intention to tax communication “to the maximum extent allowed by the law.” In other words, to squeeze every penny they can from beleaguered taxpayers.

Not only is this proposal to reap huge amounts of new revenue from city taxpayers bad public policy, the manner in which they are characterizing the proposal is downright deceitful. Rather than being honest with voters, the city of Sacramento is advertising this tax increase as a tax decrease. They are doing this by modestly reducing the rate of the tax (from 7.5 percent to seven percent) but grossly expanding the base of the tax to all the new types of communications set forth above. But make no mistake, this will result in tens of millions of dollars being taken out of the wallets and pocketbooks of Sacramento taxpayers that are not being taken now. By any rational measure, this is a tax increase and, to use a worn out phrase of late, no amount of lipstick can change this tax increase pig.

A fair question is whether our city leaders are deserving of more revenue. In answering that question, we pose another: How have Sacramento politicians managed the money taxpayers are currently giving them? Not well unfortunately. Recent news reports have uncovered millions of dollars of missing funds. A scam in city libraries has resulted in a loss of $1.3 million and two city officials have been charged with felonies in the scandal. In another disturbing example of mismanagement the city auditor discovered an additional $1.3 million of missing water meters. A scrap metal dealer has been charged with greasing the palms of city employees and a whopping 4,500 new water meters are unaccounted for.

In spite of their record, officials apparently hope they can bamboozle voters into supporting Measure O by calling it the “Utility User Tax Reduction and Fairness Measure.” Do not be deceived. Measure O implements a seven percent tax on a slew of communications now enjoyed completely tax-free. As for fairness, the tax is regressive, meaning it hits the poor the hardest as the poor spend the greatest share of their income on their phone bill.

Sacramento politicians don’t need more taxes, they need to get their house in order. Sacramento residents are already struggling with rising prices on food and gas and falling home equities. We don’t need more taxes.

Eric Eisenhammer is a tax policy analyst at the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Original article: http://www.sacunion.com/pages/education/articles/10673/
Campaign site: http://www.notextingtax.com/
Facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=27818238156&ref=mf

Let's Hear it for Strong Republican Women!

2008-10-09T17:14:00.000-07:00

Governor Sarah Palin has taken the Republican ticket by storm! With her strong ethics, conservative values and family devotion, she should be every woman's role model.

I was privileged to volunteer with the McCain campaign at the Palin fundraiser in Burlingame, California last weekend and was amazed at the out pour of support I saw for our Vice Presidential nominee. I met a man who saved for months in order to afford one ticket, saying "I couldn't bring my whole family because I just don't have enough, but I wanted to make sure we contributed because I believe it's that important." I met another gentlemen who up to this point had never been politically active, or ever even given to a campaign, who had written a song for Governor Palin and is taking the time and trouble to get it recorded - that man's name is Scott Feamster and he is exactly the type of person we need in the Republican Party.

It takes a rare person of truly incredible character to provoke this type of reaction in people, and that person is Sarah Palin. I am asking all YRFS members to do as much as possible between now and Election Day (only 25 days away!) to ensure that we elect Senator McCain and Governor Palin to the White House! Otherwise, we'll have to stare at Democrats for four long years....

YRFC of Sacramento Holds First of Three-Part Financial Lecture Series

2008-10-04T17:53:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday, September 23rd, YRFC President-Elect and Personal Wealth Consultant Chris Angle presented the first lecture of a three-part series on financial freedom entitled Saving Money: The Key to Building Wealth.

This series was designed by Angle personally to show others how to attain and manage wealth and achieve financial independence! For the average person, wealth is a matter of choice, and in this first lecture, Angle advises on what choices are best for a financially successful future. The lecture outlined how one can save money, even on a merger income, invest that savings, and manage assests to ensure financial stability.

The second lecture will build on the first and will be offered as a public service, free of charge, in November. Please stay tuned to the blog for most information.

The Democrats Fundamental Problem

2008-09-28T19:52:00.000-07:00

As we enter the last stage of the presidential campaign, we are about to witness the Democrats quadrennial attempt to overcome their fundamental problem with the American voter. This problem is basically that they are a Party representing European values running in an American election. In representing a Party whose values are fundamentally at odds with the average voter, the Democrat candidates for President must manage to appeal to two groups (the Democrat base and the average voter) who have different values. When seen in this light, some of the extreme political policy gyrations and flip-flops that have characterized recent Democrat presidential campaigns (Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama) can be seen as attempts to square this circle, as opposed to some personality deficiency in the candidates themselves.

Unlike the majority of Americans, the Democrat base does not view America as necessarily a force for good in the world. Whereas most Americans see the U.S. as basically a good country that sometimes does the wrong thing, the Democrat base appears to see the U.S. as a morally suspect country that occasionally does the right thing. Because the “Blame America First” crowd views the U.S. as morally deficient, its initial reaction to any problem in the world is to ask what the U.S. did wrong to precipitate it. The view of America held by a significant fraction of Democrats appears to have much in common with that of some anti-American Europeans.

Another area where the Democrats are out of step with the American mainstream is religion. Americans are much more religious than people in Europe. Given the history of immigrants coming to the U.S. while fleeing religious persecution, it is not surprising that religion has played an active role in shaping the history of this country. However, an influential segment of the Democrat base consists of people whose view of traditional religion ranges from benign mistrust to outright hostility. Several Democrat pressure groups appear to have the removal of religion and religious influence from the public square as their goal. While Americans as a people have shown no general tendency towards theocracy, they have tended to view religion as worthy of having a place in the public square. Consequently, the attacks on religious sensibilities have put the Democrats in an adversarial position relative to society as a whole.

Finally, the Democrats appear to have adopted European sensibilities and views on items ranging from trust in bureaucratic government institutions to produce social good, a general distrust of the free market, use of the tax code and laws to engineer specific outcomes in society, a general distrust of the voters intelligence, a distrust of the military, and a faith in the power of negotiated solutions to solve each and every international crisis. While the natural inclinations of Democrats may guide the U.S. to the proper course in a given situation, the inclinations themselves are in contrast to those of the average American voter. The fact that the Democrats stand to gain from this year’s election is a reaction to the corruption of Republicans and failings of the Bush Administration, rather than a fundamental shift in the views of the voters. That a Republican ticket of two proven reformers could actually beat the political odds in this election is evidence of this assertion. As long as Democrats continue to espouse European values, they will continue to fight an uphill election battle nationally. When the Republicans finally reform themselves, they will likely find a country ready to grant them the governing majority that should be naturally theirs.

Sarah Palin

2008-09-14T20:16:00.000-07:00

When John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, he clearly shocked the political world and energized his own campaign. While the reaction of the GOP has been ecstatic and excited, whether she ultimately helps or hurts McCain remains to be seen. While many may feel that the media has pounced unfairly on the question of her inexperience, it is actually a legitimate question. The fact that the same media has brushed aside questions regarding Obama’s lack of experience does not make the ones about Palin’s inexperience any less valid. Given McCain’s age and the strain that the Presidency puts on the individual, the voters must face the real possibility that he may not live through two terms. That makes his choice of V.P. extraordinarily important, and voters need to seriously consider whether she is, or ever will be, ready to be President.

Some political pundits have also rightly pointed out that picking Palin is a risky move for McCain. Questions regarding her readiness to serve could cast doubts on McCain’s judgment as well as blunt one his most effective attacks against Obama, namely that Obama’s lack of experience disqualifies him for the White House. However, given the state of the Republican brand in this election cycle, McCain needs to take some risks if he is to win. By announcing that he was picking an unknown woman for his running mate right after the Democrat convention, he took the focus off of Obama’s convention speech and got the news media focused on his campaign. In addition, by picking a woman as his running mate, he ensured that the Obama/Biden ticket was not the only historic ticket on the ballot.

Whether or not Palin is enough to tip the election to McCain, there is little doubt that she will be good for the long-term health of the Republican Party. Her choice as V.P. will help to counteract some of the perception that exists that the Republican Party does not take women seriously. A choice such as this could help Republican’s narrow the gap between themselves and the Democrats where female voters are concerned. In addition, the choice of Sarah Palin features prominently someone who took on the GOP power structure and won. This will help to show voters that the Republicans have not been so captured by entrenched special interests that anyone who challenges those interests gets run out of the Party. Contrast this with the treatment that Joe Lieberman received from the Democrats when he was effectively run out of the Party for bucking their orthodoxy on Iraq. If the Republicans are serious about retaking Congress and becoming the permanent majority Party that they deserve to be, then they need to return to their Reagan, western-libertarian, fiscally responsible roots. Giving someone like Sarah Palin national exposure is a good start.

Election and Event Update

2008-09-12T16:34:00.000-07:00

McCain Campaign Update

California is now in play! I just returned from the Republican Leadership Committee meeting and was thrilled to hear that there is a poll (expected to be released tomorrow) that shows McCain only 4.7 points behind Obama in California! That means that now, more than ever, we are a state officially in play! McCain needs our help to deliver California for the GOP this November. Please take a moment to read through the activities planned in Sacramento County below and let's continue to make the Democrats have buyer's remorse!

Palin/Biden Debate and Appreciation Party

On October 2nd Senator Biden will face the Barracuda, Governor Palin, in the first Vice Presidential Debate! There will be a debate watching/volunteer appreciation party at the McCain Headquarters in Sacramento (3464 El Camino Avenue, Suite 150, Sacramento; behind Walmart). Please mark your calendars and plan to attend; more details to follow.

Northern California Event

Our Northern California McCain Chair, Frank Hilliker, has been in discussions with Andrea Jones, McCain's hard working California Campaign Manager, to plan an event for McCain in Northern California. Many volunteers will be needed to make this happen; when I have specific details I'll pass them on to you.

An American Carol - Finally a Republican Movie!

For anyone who has watched a Michael Moore movie and wanted to throw eggs at the screen, this movie is for you! An American Carol is a spoof off Michael Moore's anti-American motion pictures. Based off the premise of A Christmas Carol, An American Carol takes a "fictional" character (i.e. Michael Malone), an anti-American filmmaker out to abolish the Fourth of July, and subjects him to three ghosts who try to change his perception of the country. It is a witty comedy and a Republican must-see! The movie stars Jon Voight, Kelsey Grammer, Leslie Nielsen, Kevin Farley, Trace Adkins, Dennis Hopper and others. We want to make sure the movie theatres are packed opening weekend - so tell your friends and family to head to the movies on opening night: October 3rd! Also, YRFC will be having An American Carol movie night on October 3rd at the Regal Natomas Marketplace (showtime to follow). I saw the movie at the RNC and laughed until I cried!

Precinct Walking

Absentee ballots are being mailed out on October 4th and will probably arrive at most homes by October 6th. Door hangers will be available through the McCain Headquarters on October 4th. We need to organize volunteers to walk precincts in the hot spots of Folsom and Elk Grove that weekend. If you live in the area and want to help organize a walk, please let me know. Bryan Shroyer will be sending out precinct sign up sheets for every weekend between October 4th and the election, when I receive those I'll pass them along to you.

Voter Registration

Chris Angle is organizing our voter registration booth for the end of the month; details to follow. If you have an interest in setting up a voter registration booth in your community please let me know and I'll give you all the supplies you need. The deadline to turn in registrations is October 20th.

Yard Signs

McCain/Palin yard signs are in! If you would like to receive a yard sign you can pick one up at the McCain Headquarters.

Election Night Party

The hard working staff at the McCain Headquarters is organizing an election night party on November 4th! Please mark your calendars.

You Are Appreciated!

I attended an event last week where I had the privilege of hearing our State Party Chairman, Ron Nehring, address activists in our neighboring county. He said that the GOP could do well on the national and local level if party members worked for it. Chairman Nehring praised the efforts of the GOP activists, stating that it is the party volunteer who phone banks and precinct walks that make candidates a success. Please look at your calendars and see when you are free to help make history in California, and know that your efforts are appreciated at the highest levels of our state party!

Russia, Georgia, and the West

2008-09-06T10:55:00.001-07:00

The Russian attack on Georgia last month, and what can only be charitably described as its delay in following through with its agreements under the ceasefire, brings into focus that Russia is not the partner that many in the West believed it to be. The speed and coordination of the attack (and the detailed planning that it required) refutes the Russian claim that it was merely responding to Georgian genocide in the breakaway Georgian provinces. Georgian troops had not been in action long enough in those provinces for Moscow to have had the time to plan and coordinate such a crushing response. As foolish and ill-advised as the Georgian incursion into those provinces was, the absence of any serious Russian attempt to use international institutions to mediate the conflict further reinforces the view that Russia had been looking for an excuse to attack for some time.

Although this attack has been greeted with shock, it is yet another example of increasingly belligerent and unhelpful Russian behavior. Another such example is the Russian government’s seeming use of its controlling share in Gazprom (Russia’s largest oil & natural gas company) as an instrument of foreign policy to shut off (or implicitly threaten to shut off) natural gas supplies in an attempt to influence the behavior of certain countries. Russia’s resumption last year of routine strategic bomber flights (with bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons) shows Russia’s desire to project its power in a manner reminiscent of the Cold War. Finally, the statement by one Russian official that any country hosting part of the U.S. missile defense system (i.e. Poland) is a legitimate target for nuclear attack, further indicates that Russia is not a country that the West can reasonably view as a responsible partner.

What all of this means for the West is that it must finally recognize that Russia is not going to be a stable Western-style democracy in the near future. Although disconcerting to admit, the West will simply have acclimate itself to that reality. It also means that any hope that Russia is ever going to constructively work with the West to get Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions is probably unwarranted. While talk of a new Cold War may be premature, NATO’s diplomatic and defense efforts must now be refocused on managing and containing Russia as far east as possible. Although resurgent, Russia is still not as militarily or economically as strong as it likes to portray. Since Russia’s nuclear arsenal means that it cannot simply be ignored, working to weaken Russia diplomatically through various measures should be one general foreign policy goal of the next administration. The dependency of the Russian resurgence on the price of oil & natural gas is another argument for a comprehensive U.S. energy policy that includes drilling for oil & natural gas offshore, in Alaska, and at other points in the U.S. mainland, while continuing government initiatives to encourage the production and use of alternative forms of energy. In 2007, roughly a third of Russia's GDP was from oil & gas. By increasing the supply of oil & gas while lowering demand for those same fuels through increased use of renewable energy, the U.S. can likely lower the price of Russia’s commodities and weaken its geopolitical position. By weakening Russia’s geopolitical position, the U.S. can help to restrict Russia’s ability to be belligerent and perhaps induce it to adopt behavior more in keeping with current international norms.

The Implications Of An Attack On Iran

2008-09-01T15:16:00.000-07:00

One of the primary foreign policy challenges facing the U.S. in the last days of the Bush administration is what to do about Iran and its nuclear program. The fear of a nuclear-armed Iran and what it could mean must be weighed against the major risks and instability that an attack on Iran would inevitably cause. Up until now, negotiations with Iran over ending its nuclear program have produced nothing except more time for Iran to continue its uranium enrichment process. Negotiations have failed because there are limited options for leverage with Iran, and because Iran is determined to produce nuclear weapons since these would strengthen its foreign policy position immeasurably. If Iran were merely trying to develop a civilian nuclear program (as it asserts that it is doing), it would now be doing everything in its power to assuage the fears of the international community. That it is not doing this is reason enough to be very suspicious.

Negotiations have also failed, in part, because the West fails to understand the sort of regime that it is dealing with. This is a regime has stated repeatedly that abandoning its nuclear program is not an option. This is troubling due to the fact that the Iranian regime has been aggressive and destabilizing this region for an entire generation. From violating standard international law (i.e. having its “protesters” storm the U.S. Embassy in 1979), to attacking U.S. forces (Beirut 1983, Persian Gulf 1987, 1988, Saudi Arabia 1995, Iraq 2003-present), to having its proxies start wars (Lebanon 2006), as well as sponsoring several hijackings and bombings, the Iranian regime has maintained a continuous policy of aggression throughout the region for 30 years. This is not to mention that it has been making statements and giving every indication that a nuclear weapon in its hands would be dropped on Israel. Given the regimes history, it would be prudent to take it at its word.

However, what is complicating matters from the West’s perspective is that there are some risks involved with an attack on Iran which cannot be minimized. The first difficulty is the fact that we have troops in Iraq who will be in danger from Iranian-backed groups in the event of any attack on Iran. Furthermore, an attack will likely destabilize the Maliki government in Iraq and could conceivably reverse the gains that we have achieved so far on that front. In addition, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah, would likely open a military front against Israel leading to further destabilization of the region. Finally, the Iranians would likely start attacking oil shipments in the Strait of Hormuz (through which 40% of the world’s oil moves) thereby sending the price of oil much higher with all of the economic pain and dislocation associated with it.

Against this must be weighed the reality of Iran with nuclear weapons. For all of the trouble that Iran has caused over the past generation, it would be even more of a problem with its hands on nuclear weapons. It is not out of the question that the world could wake up one day to discover that Israel no longer existed. An Iranian regime with nuclear weapons could be expected to engage in nuclear blackmail on a regular basis against its immediate neighbors, against Europeans, and perhaps eventually the U.S. If a long term U.S. goal is stability in the region, there is no historical reason to believe that an Iran with nuclear weapons would be anything but an obstacle to that end. As difficult and expensive as a major war with Iran would be for the U.S., it is war that we would inevitably win if we put our resources and commitment behind it. It is unfortunate that the choice has come down to either war or accepting a nuclear-armed Iran. It is even more unfortunate that this problem could likely have been resolved much earlier at much less cost. However, a nuclear-armed Iran is not something that the civilized world can live with. As difficult as the sacrifices of such a course will be, they will likely be necessary to prevent a much greater calamity at some point in the future.

Governor Sarah Palin: A Real Role Model for Women

2008-08-29T15:23:00.001-07:00

I was thrilled when I learned that will-be President John McCain chose Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Governor Palin is an incredibly smart business woman, a devoted wife and mother, and a no-nonsense conservative. Her record as Governor shows her to be an activist for ethics and integrity in government.

Governor Palin can manage a state, a household, and still have time to be involved in her children’s sports activities and school events. She even runs marathons. As a lifetime member of the NRA, I wouldn’t mess with this woman!

She is exactly the kind of Vice Presidential candidate who can break down the barriers for other women to enter the White House. Brilliant choice, Senator McCain!

Proposition 11

2008-08-17T21:14:00.000-07:00

In November, the voters of California will go to the polls to decide whether or not to change the way legislative districts in this state are drawn. While few would dispute the inherent conflict of interest embedded in having legislators draw their own districts, it appears that this initiative is generating a considerable amount of controversy. Proposition 11, if enacted, would do the following:

1.) Appoint a commission comprised of 14 members. (5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, 4 independents).

2.) Each member must have voted in 2 of the last 3 general elections, and cannot have changed their party affiliation within the 5 years preceding their appointment.

3.) Three state auditors will take all of the applications for a commission seat and narrow it down to 60 names (based on analytic skill, impartiality, and something called “appreciation for California’s diversity”). The leaders of the legislature can strike 24 names from the list of 60. The State Auditor then selects 8 commissioners at random from the list, and the eight appointed commissioners choose the remaining 6 members.

4.) The commission will approve 3 final district maps to be submitted to the voters. Each final map must be approved by at least 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and 3 independents.

5.) The commissioners will be ineligible for 10 years after their initial appointment to hold public office at a federal, state, county, or city level in the state.

6.) Each final map will be submitted for approval to the voters. The map with the most ‘yes’ votes will be adopted.

It is understandable why the California Democrat Party is opposed to this commission. With an ironclad majority in both houses of the state legislature, they are guaranteed to have a significant say in how the districts are drawn. However, the reasons why so many Republicans would also oppose the idea are not as clear. Simply put, the Republicans are a permanent minority in the state government. Under the current system, there are only 3 possible groups that will be drawing legislative districts in this state:

1.) A moderate Republican governor and a Democrat-controlled legislature.

2.) A moderate Democrat governor and a Democrat-controlled legislature.

3.) A liberal Democrat governor and a Democrat-controlled legislature.

A Republican governor and a Republican-controlled legislature that would gerrymander districts to lock in a Republican majority as the Democrats have done with the current Democrat majority is simply not a possibility in this state. Under this proposed plan, at least 3 Republican voter/ commissioners will have to sign off on any district map coming out of this commission. Under the current system, the Republicans have virtually no say in 2 out of the 3 scenarios outlined above. Since Schwarzenegger will not be part of the next redistricting process, the Republicans would be gambling everything on the next gubernatorial election. If they lost, it would not be impossible that the Democrats could gerrymander themselves into the magic 2/3 majority in each house; effectively rendering the Republicans irrelevant as far as governing the state is concerned. That this plan effectively removes the conflict of interest inherent in politicians drawing their own districts is reason enough for the citizens of California to support it. That it gives three Republican voter/ commissioners an effective veto over the district map that is approved strongly argues for its support by Republicans.

Democrats and Drilling

2008-08-06T19:35:00.001-07:00

In light of $4.00/gallon gasoline, the continued Democrat opposition to drilling for oil & natural gas off of our coast and in Alaska is difficult to understand. While virtually no one doubts that there is potential environmental risk to offshore oil drilling, the fact is that drilling techniques for deep water drilling have become much more advanced in the last 20-30 years. When one thinks about how much offshore drilling is currently being done around the world, it is rather foolish to maintain the current restrictions on it. Although offshore oil rigs do cause some pollution, that the damage is relatively minor is evidenced by the fact that nations such as Britain and Norway have been drilling in the North Sea for a generation without destroying it environmentally speaking. In addition, although there is some (politically motivated) dispute over exactly whether or not there were major offshore oil spills resulting from Hurricane Katrina, the highest estimates of total oil spilled from both onshore and offshore facilities are approximately 2/3 of what was spilled in the famous Exxon-Valdez disaster of the late 80’s. Furthermore, these spills did not cause anything near the environmental damage that the Valdez one did, and were almost entirely cleaned up. If a massive hurricane like Katrina was unable to cause Exxon-Valdez-like damage, it is difficult to believe that environmental objections to offshore oil rigs located outside of hurricane zones have any real merit, given the technology and environmental regulations currently in place.

If restricting offshore oil drilling even with its environmental risks is foolish, not allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the pinnacle of irresponsibility. Environmental concerns regarding offshore oil spills contaminating hundreds of miles of inhabited coastline are not really relevant in ANWR. Since oil rigs in ANWR will not be floating on the ocean, any environmental damage will necessarily be local. Since oil is currently extracted from other locations in the U.S. in compliance with federal environmental regulations, there is no reason to suppose that the regulations will not be enforced here as well (especially since the drilling will be done on federal land). The fact that a few caribou will have their “pristine” view spoiled by these rigs should not be a pressing concern when American consumers are struggling to fill up their gas tanks to get to work or to heat their homes.

What should be a pressing concern is that the high oil prices are currently enriching unfriendly regimes, squeezing the American consumer, and inflicting economic damage at the same time. The fact that much of the oil from places like ANWR will not hit the market for another 10 years or so is irrelevant. Although it is a highly questionable assertion that oil prices will drop immediately in response to expectations of increased U.S. oil production, there is little question that the oil will exert a downward pressure on prices when it eventually does hit the market. Even if OPEC responds to increased U.S. oil production by cutting its own output in the hope of maintaining high oil prices, the fact that OPEC will be selling fewer barrels of oil (resulting in reduced revenue flowing to unfriendly regimes) is a good thing. Had we lifted existing restrictions on drilling off-shore and in ANWR 10 years ago, we would be in a much better economic and geo-political position now.

Although a ‘sustainable’ energy future where the U.S. is fully powered by renewable energy is an ideal that the government should continue to encourage through subsidies and other methods, it will likely take a technological leap that has not yet occurred to make it a reality. In the meantime, the U.S. needs a coherent energy policy that serves the national interest (i.e. one that enhances America’s economic well-being and security). That the Democrats are willing to back policies that hurt the nation’s economy and enrich our enemies at the same time calls into question whether they are responsible enough to lead this country.

Immigration And America's Right To Exist

2008-07-26T16:53:00.000-07:00

Given some of the arguments that have been advanced over the last year-and-a-half against curbing illegal immigration, it is worth taking note of the following statement:

'The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.'

The above statement is from article 1 of the Montevideo Convention that was held in 1933. This convention set out the rights and responsibilities of statehood, and is generally recognized as a statement of customary international law. Of particular interest is item ‘b’, and how it relates to the immigration debate currently going on in the U.S. The arguments against controlling the border that emanate from some groups imply that it is mean, racist, and fundamentally illegitimate for the U.S. to keep people out who want to come to this country. In making this argument, such groups are denying the right of the U.S. to maintain its territorial integrity (i.e. maintain a “defined territory”), which is tantamount to denying the right of the U.S. to exist as a state in the currently accepted definition of the term. When viewed in this light, many arguments against border control cannot be taken seriously. The U.S. is a legitimate creation, a recognized member of the U.N., and a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. As such, it has the same rights as every other recognized country.

This is not to say that a legitimate argument for increasing legal immigration cannot be made. Whether the American people will accept arguments favoring increased legal immigration and act on them remains to be seen. However, the people of the U.S. have made it clear in opinion poll after opinion poll that they want the border secure and controlled. Given that the U.S. is a target of terrorists who would like to kill as many Americans as they can, such a position is hardly unreasonable. The government has the duty to protect Americans in any way that it can, and to enforce laws that the American people through their elected representatives have enacted. That some people will be inconvenienced or denied accessing a better life than is available in their home countries is not the point. The American people through their government have the right to decide who gets to come into this country. To suggest otherwise is to de-legitimize America’s existence.

What To Do With A Tyrannical Judiciary

2008-07-12T16:14:00.000-07:00

After several disturbing decisions by the Supreme Court (and other courts around the country) over the last few years, one is justified in questioning whether the American people are their own masters any longer. Decisions such as the one on detainees that was handed down last month indicate that the judicial branch of government has become too powerful. When the majority of the Supreme Court can admit that it is inventing constitutional law with no fear of retribution or consequences, we have a problem. Very unpopular decisions in recent years have shown just how insulated the judiciary has become. Decisions such as ‘Kelo’ and the decision by the 9th Circuit Court to declare the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional were condemned by lawmakers on both the left and the right without any censure or sanction being taken against the justices who made them. Decisions such as these indicate that we are currently being ruled by justices who are confident that they are untouchable.

However, the options that are left to the people to reclaim their liberty are few and difficult to use. The standard option would be to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn an overreaching judicial decision. The first problem with this approach is that it is difficult to get an amendment approved. The second problem is that the amendment process is impractical when there are multiple justices from multiple courts repeatedly engaging in judicial activism, as is currently the case. A cynic might further contend that an activist justice who has overruled the Constitution (or law) in the past would not let a new amendment stand in the way.

A better option might be to amend the Constitution to provide for some sort of democratic review of judicial decisions. This body would have the power to overturn any judicial decision that it found objectionable. Many will protest that such a solution would upset the balance of power between the branches of government. This protest misses the point entirely. When a judicial decision can, in theory, override the combined will of 100 Senators, 435 congressional representatives, and the President, the balance of power has already been upset. How the democratic review should be provided can be legitimately debated. For example, the amendment might require that both houses of Congress vote to overturn a decision, or it might form a new elected body that does nothing but review judicial decisions. It would also likely be prudent to require a super-majority to overturn a decision in order to protect the Constitution from being endangered by the people in a fit of passion over a transitory issue.

Of course, such an option is not perfect, but it is likely better in the long run than maintaining the status quo where the people are subject to the arbitrary whims of untouchable justices. It is also better than having the elected branches of government simply ignore judicial rulings whenever it is convenient, as this would lead us to legal anarchy. It would have been better if the judiciary has stuck to its constitutionally prescribed role of interpreting the Constitution and laws instead of rewriting them. However, by continuing to expand its power, the judiciary has left us with few practical options. Either we accept that we are ruled by justices and continue to live under them, or we come up with a solution that allows for some sort of democratic oversight of the judiciary. Although the details of such a proposal would need to be carefully crafted, an amendment that put judicial decisions under some sort of democratic review would go a long way towards making the American people their own masters once again.

The Damaged Republican Brand

2008-07-08T19:36:00.000-07:00

With the Republicans currently predicted to move further into a minority position in Congress in the upcoming election, it is hard to remember that it was only 4 years ago that people were talking about a permanent Republican national majority. In this election cycle, having an ‘R’ in front of a candidate’s name is a liability in many places where it is normally an asset. There is no question that the general mismanagement of the Bush Administration in its second term has contributed heavily to the predicament in which the Party now finds itself. Although the first Bush term seemed to be the epitome of sound management, the second term has been a nightmare of incompetence coupled with a general lack of leadership. In the second term the Administration has mismanaged Hurricane Katrina, refused to veto spending (until the Democrats were in charge), generally showed a lack of imagination regarding strategy in Iraq, and attempted to nominate an individual to the Supreme Court who nobody had ever heard of, just to name a few things. The Administration has spent the second term reacting to events and has often seemed to be drifting and floundering.

However, if the difficulties of the Bush Administration were the only problem, the Republicans could wait until it was gone and resume pushing their agenda. However, the Republicans in Congress with their free-spending ways and their various scandals managed to alienate both the fiscal conservative small government wing and the social conservative religious wing of the Party at the same time. In addition, the Republicans have not used the time since their defeat in 2006 to show the public that they have reformed and deserve another shot at leading the country.

If the Republicans are to repair the damage to the Party’s image and return to majority status, they are going to have to have to remind people why they voted for Republicans in the first place. It will not be enough to simply not be Democrats. As unpopular as Bill Clinton was in 1994, it took a positive agenda from the Republicans to sweep them into power. One potential problem for the Party going forward is that the Democrats are starting to make some inroads with the Republican base. In 2006, the Democrats actually ran some pro-life candidates for Congress, which is something they had not really been willing to do in the past. In addition, Obama is currently talking about maintaining Bush’s “faith-based” social initiatives, and some evangelicals are taking positions in support of various anti-global warming initiatives. Although the disdain of the Democrat elite for religious conservatives and their ideas should prevent a wholesale evangelical defection from the Republicans, the fact that some of them are giving the Democrats a second look could pose a problem for the Party.

To return to majority status, the Party will need focused leadership that it appears to be currently lacking. The Party will have to return to its roots of promoting smaller government and fiscal responsibility. In addition the Party’s program will have to emphasis competence as well as ideology. In other words, the Party will have to start talking about ways to make government more efficient and effective, as well as making it smaller. Although it will take a focused effort to get everyone in the Party on message, the result should be a rebranded Party capable of convincing the public that it deserves to govern.

Our Judicial Masters

2008-07-05T15:11:00.000-07:00

It has been an interesting couple of months for the judicial system around the country, and troubling for those who believe that judges should follow the Constitution and precedents as opposed to passing laws from the bench. First, the California Supreme Court managed to find a right to same-sex marriage in the California Constitution; something that nobody suspected existed for the prior 150 years. Then, the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that it was effectively amending the Constitution unilaterally by granting constitutional rights to non-citizen detainees. Finally, the Court usurped a state’s authority to decide what constitutes a capital crime within its borders by striking down a Louisiana law making child-rape a death penalty offence. These decisions, and others like them, call into question the role of the judiciary in our government. Specifically, has the judiciary become too powerful, and are we truly still the democratic republic that the Founders intended?

At the founding of the Republic, the judiciary was set up to be insulated as much as possible from public pressure in order to protect its independence. In Federalist Paper #78, Hamilton argued that the liberty of the people could never be endangered by the Supreme Court because it did not have the power of the ‘sword’ (President) or the ‘purse’ (Congress). Hamilton was responding to critics who argued that a completely independent judiciary would pose a danger to liberty and the Constitution. Although a strong and independent judiciary is an important pillar on which the Republic rests, the last 50 years have shown that Hamilton may have erred in discounting its dangers. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with allowing the courts the last word, the Left in this country has used the court system to grant “interpretations” more suitable to advancing its agenda. The acquiescence of the other two branches of the federal government (as well as their counterparts in state government) to judicial power grabs has been that judicial rulings and the rule of law have become synonymous in the mind of the public.

Clearly, Hamilton never expected that the other two branches of government would simply roll over and surrender their power to the judiciary as they have done. Hamilton’s argument also indicates that he did not believe that the other branches of government were required to simply obey whatever the Supreme Court dictated, if it contravened the Constitution. Even Abraham Lincoln stated in his first inaugural address that if “the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court……… the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal”. These recent decisions, and others like them (i.e. Kelo), indicate that many judges believe that the Constitution (and law) is whatever they decide it to be. The judges can be forgiven for thinking this way, since they have been making activist decisions for nearly two generations without paying a price. Even decisions such as ‘Kelo’ or the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, both of which were roundly condemned by lawmakers on both the left and the right, did not result in a single judge being censured or removed from the bench. Until we the people (or our elected representatives) come up with a way to fight back against a judiciary that is overreaching, we will not truly be our own masters.

Milton Friedman: Too Controversial For A University?

2008-06-22T00:21:00.000-07:00

This week, the Wall Street Journal reported that roughly 8% of the full time faculty (over 100 academics) at the University of Chicago signed a letter of protest over the fact that the University intends to construct a Milton Friedman Center to teach economics. The academics seem to be disturbed by Friedman’s conservative ideology, which is anathema to most of them. Apparently winning a Nobel Prize in ones field does not win one a pass from these individuals. The additional fact that 3 Nobel Prize winners are among the proposed faculty for the new center has not served to dampen the opposition either. Their primary stated fear is that the center will become, in the words of one professor, “a right-wing think tank”. The protest that this proposed project has elicited brings to light a much deeper problem, namely that of an intense left-wing ideological bias at our universities, and its impact on freedom of thought, expression, and conscience.

For any conservative who has ever attended a public university, the idea of a “right-wing think tank” anywhere on campus sounds as bizarre as an “openly atheist Roman Catholic Seminary” in the Vatican. The simple fact is that the public universities in this country, while always liberal, have moved far to the left over the last 40 years. Qualified conservative scholars are routinely denied tenure, while conservative student groups must sometimes contend with various forms of discrimination, and in certain cases have had their free-speech and due process rights infringed upon. Some individual cases of repression are so egregious that a certain non-profit organization called FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) has stepped in to defend student’s rights. This non-partisan organization spends much of its time combating “speech codes”. These codes negatively impact conservatives mostly, as they tend to be the ones with the most politically incorrect opinions. One indication of how far to the left the university system has gone is that someone as liberal/left as Alan Dershowitz finds it necessary to support this organization. Mr. Dershowitz is the lawyer who argued Al Gore’s case in front of the Supreme Court, and once indicated that it would be patriotic to defend Osama bin Laden in front of an American court. He is also on the board of editors of FIRE’s ‘Guides to Student Rights on Campus’ project. If the university system discriminated against minorities in the same manner as it discriminates against conservative thought, it would lose much of its state and federal funding, and deservedly so.

The fact that there is a center going into the University of Chicago that gets the campus leftists up in arms is a good thing. A university will most benefit society when it is a place where various diverse viewpoints (not only left-wing ones) are given a public hearing and argued by their proponents. Too often, university faculty viewpoints consist only of those found at the Democrat National Convention. If American universities had adequate representation of all strains of American political thought, then repression and violations of student’s rights would likely not occur as often as they do. An added benefit would be that America’s elite, which is produced by the universities, would have thinking that is more in line with average Americans than it currently is. That a center to honor one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century would elicit such protests is an indication of how deep the problem is at the University of Chicago. This center will undoubtedly contribute to making the University of Chicago more balanced politically, and bring it more in line with what a public university ought to be.

The Supreme Court: A Bad Decision At A Bad Time

2008-06-18T19:38:00.000-07:00

On June 12, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling that stated that non-citizens detained at Gitmo have the right to challenge their detention in civilian courts (known as the right of habeus corpus). The 5-4 decision was well articulated and made ample use of constitutional and legal case history. It was also spectacularly wrong, and may prove to be one of the more disastrous decisions the Court has made.

The primary problem with this decision is that it creates a new constitutional right for non-citizens out of thin air. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, admitted as much in his decision when he stated that it has never been held that non-citizens detained by our government have rights under the U.S. Constitution. The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution, not to effectively pass new amendments by inventing rights. The concern expressed in the majority opinion that denying the detainees the right to challenge detention in civilian courts would allow the President and Congress “the power to switch the Constitution on and off like a light switch” is invalid, since nobody is arguing that U.S. citizens should be denied this right. Now that the Court has decided that non-citizen detainees actually have rights under the U.S. Constitution, one can be sure that lawyers of certain ideological persuasions will set about trying to expand those rights.

The practical impact of this decision is that it will seriously hamper our ability to meet threats militarily in the future. It is not hard to imagine hordes of lawyers filing briefs on behalf of future detainees and clogging up the court system. Imagine if the tens of thousands of POW’s held by the U.S. during WWII had obtained this right? It is not difficult to imagine military commanders being second-guessed in civilian courts by judges and lawyers without the necessary qualifications to pass such judgment. It is true that this war on terror has brought up uncomfortable legal questions that are not easy to resolve. However, engaging in judicial activism by creating rights for non-citizen enemies and inserting a cumbersome civilian court system into a process that requires speed, discretion, and sound judgment is not the answer.

Newspapers: No Longer an Unbiased Source of Information

2008-06-03T13:57:00.000-07:00

Happy Election Day!

Today is the day that Californians...all predicted 20% of them...will go to the polls to vote in their respective primaries. For most races in California, today marks the end of the election. Our districts are so gerrymandered that we already know who the winner of the general election will be based on who wins the primary. The whole thing is so predictable, it's a wonder that we can get any voters energized to go to the polls at all.

Perhaps that is why the print media has taken up the cause of endorsing in elections - to get the electorate motivated to vote. Although, that's the less sinister view. It is my opinion (note I'm referencing an opinion and not stating it as fact) that print journalism, in an effort to influence elections, has completely lost all credibility as a reliable news source.

I am so tired of opening up a paper (figure of speech, I read my news online) every election cycle and seeing that the LA Times has endorsed in all local races, and that the Mercury News want voters to vote no on all the initiatives. When did it become acceptable for an "unbias" news source to express opinions on matters like elections? Editorializing (and restricting that commentary to an Editorial section) is one thing, but for a paper to endorse a candidate is completely out of line. I believe these endorsements hurt candidates more than it helps them - because as a conservative who is skeptical of media as it is - I always question the candidacy of those they endorse.

It is my hope that this November at least one paper resists the temptation to "endorse" a candidate, and restore at least a little of my faith in print journalism.

Same-Sex Marriage Ruling: Damage To The System Of Government

2008-05-25T18:17:00.000-07:00

Thursday, March 15, 2008 was a historic day. It was the day that 4 judges told the voters of California that they had no right to decide the question of marital definition in this state. In making this ruling, the judges struck a blow against democracy, and a blow in favor of arbitrary rule by a judicial elite. This decision did nothing less than undermine the concept of rule of law and that of a written constitution.

One of the ties that has bound American society together for over 200 years is the idea that the law should be followed and respected for its own sake. Undergirding this respect is the idea that nobody is above the law, the belief that the law applies equally to everyone, and most importantly that the law is legitimate because it is derived from the consent of the governed. The constitutions of the various states are seen as legitimate because the people (or their elected representatives) voted on them.

Over the last 158 years, nobody suspected that same-sex marriage was a right guaranteed by the California Constitution. Consequently, the people of California can be forgiven for suspecting that perhaps these 4 judges substituted their personal desires in place of the Constitution. The fact that 3 other judges did not find such a right further reinforces this suspicion. Decisions such as this one can prompt some uncomfortable questions to be asked, such as the following:

1.) What good is having a written Constitution if any 4 judges can arbitrarily decide that it says whatever they want it to say?

2.) What good is voting for an initiative if any 4 judges can arbitrarily overrule it?

3.) If judges are simply going to pass laws from the bench, why do we need legislatures, Governors, and initiatives?

Questions such as these are not unreasonable, given the power that these judges have usurped. A decision such as this one is not surprising, given that it is merely the latest in a long line of activist decisions by judges that have been made around the country in recent years. Questions such as the examples above call into question our entire governing structure, and indicate a certain loss of faith in that structure. A loss of faith leaves people susceptible to buying into an alternative system that may seem to work better, but might in fact be worse. Examples of what can happen when people lose faith in their governmental structure can be seen all over the world.

A judiciary that can unilaterally rewrite the Constitution is one that is effectively above the Constitution. Any decision that can prompt questioning of the governmental system inflicts societal damage far beyond whatever damage the actual legalization of same-sex marriage may or may not cause. There are no easy answers as to how to repair the systemic damage that decisions such as this one have inflicted. What is clear is that the judiciary has become too powerful when can effectively usurp the authority of the other two branches of government and pass laws from the bench. The legislatures and governors around the country, as well as Congress and the President, need to take action to curb the power of judges. If they don’t, arbitrary judicial rulings such as this one could erode faith in the system to the point that the American people will be willing to trade in this system for another one.

The Democrats And The Rule Of Law

2008-05-21T19:27:00.000-07:00

One of the primary ties that bind free and democratic societies together is a shared commitment to the rule of law. Underlying this commitment is a shared presumption that rules are set in advance, and outcomes are accepted as legitimate as long as they were made within the rules that were in place at the time, regardless of the consequences.

In light of the Democrats primary fight which appears now to be winding down, one could be forgiven for questioning whether a commitment to rules is a core value in that Party. When it became clear that a protracted nomination fight was going to occur, many Democrats began to look for ways to short-circuit the process for a desired candidate or outcome. For example, in keeping with their internal rules, the Democrats decided to strip Florida and Michigan of their nominating delegates as punishment for moving their primary dates forward. Although Hillary conceded at the time that her primary victories there would not mean anything, she now wants to see those delegates reinstated. That those delegates were stripped legitimately coupled with the fact that Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in one of those states does not seem to bother many Clinton supporters. A further proposal by some fairer- minded Democrats to hold a revote in those states as a way of being fair and allowing those delegates to count, was always impractical. In addition, some Party elders became fearful of the damage to Party unity the protracted primary fight was doing and began to push for sanctions against states that did not bring their primary dates forward. They wanted the primary fight ended one way or the other.

Although it appears that the process may play out according to the original rules, the Democrats still could end up seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan. Whether or not this happens, the fact that so many Democrats were willing to jettison the rules whenever it suited them is worrying. It indicates that the idea that rules should be followed even when the outcome may be undesirable in a given circumstance is not a deeply held Democrat value. This is not meant to cast judgment on the Democrats method for choosing a presidential candidate. Whether their system is adequate is for them to decide at a later date. However, basic fairness says that changes to the rules and the system should not be made in the middle of a primary contest. This also says that their tendency to believe that judges should make changes to laws from the bench to ensure a “correct” outcome is not something that they will abandon anytime soon. America needs its two major political parties to be committed to the rule of law. That one of the major parties is only tenuously committed to this bedrock principal is not a good thing for America.

Ron Nehring: Another War Won

2008-05-08T11:45:00.000-07:00

Long ago are the days of fire and brimstone politics, where leaders would govern through rhetoric and fear of an opposing view. The days when pounding of fists, making of threats, and screaming at the top of ones lungs denoted leadership. Today, effective political heads govern by intellect and outmaneuvering their opponents. Yesterday, we saw just how adapt our California Republican Party Chairman, Ron Nehring, is at outmaneuvering an opponent.

Don Perata, a man who scoffed at the war waged by the California GOP, has learned how effective our CRP operation can be under intelligent and controlled management. It’s not by chance that the heavily opposed Term Limit measure that would have kept Perata employed in our State Capitol was defeated, just like it is not a coincidence that the recall of Senator Jeff Denham was “called off.” Winning those wars has retired corrupt legislators and saved our two-thirds vote protection in the Senate. As a taxpayer, I for one am thankful for that protection. Our CRP is the last roadblock between Democrat goals and our pocketbooks.

Our CRP governing board is doing a superb job of juggling the many responsibilities thrown at them during this historic election cycle. The YRFC of Sacramento is committed to helping in that effort through grassroots activism and would like to give recognition where it’s due – thank you Chairman Nehring.

Restoring Private Property Rights

2008-04-26T13:33:00.000-07:00

On June 3, the voters in California will go to the polls and cast a vote as to whether or not to restore private property rights in this state. This issue is far more important than who will be the next President, because it goes to the heart of what America is all about. Since the infamous Kelo decision, the private property owner has been at the mercy of local political winds, as to whether or not his property would be able to be obtained by another private entity through government coercion. Prior to Kelo, the government’s power of eminent domain could only be used to take property for public use such as roads, libraries, etc. The idea that government can seize private property for the benefit of politically connected people echoes of feudalism, where the peasants were at the mercy of the lords. After the Kelo decision, government (local, state, and federal) has become the lord who can take your property and give it to various supporters. The fact that the government must give the property owner some compensation does not mitigate the fact that one can be forced to give up property involuntarily. This does not even take into account the fact that government compensation can often fall below the true market value of the property.

The fact that government uses eminent domain to clear up blighted areas and provide other benefits is not the point. Government decisions always provide benefits to somebody. The question is whether or not we want government to have the power to force private citizens to part with their property involuntarily for something other true public purposes. It is clear that the California Legislature will not do its duty and correct this problem. Proposition 98, “The California Property Owners & Farmland Protection Act”, deserves your support.

The Tax Code and Freedom

2008-04-13T16:39:00.000-07:00

It is the end of tax season again when Americans and American businesses spend $250 to $300 billion dollars for no other purpose than to make sure that they have complied with the law. As in other areas of the law, the tax code long ago became too complex for the average person to understand. With deductions and credits for everything from children to purchasing the correct automobile, an entire army of tax preparers, CPA’s and lawyers are kept employed.

In pre-literate societies, entire populations have been kept subjugated because they could not read. A complex, byzantine tax code effectively robs people of their literacy and leaves them open to manipulation. In what way can people be truly free when they need outside assistance to understand what it is they are supposed to do? True freedom comes from clear laws that are easy for the public to understand. Examples would be a 65 mph speed limit, no murder except in self defense, and no stealing. These laws are easy to understand, and it is very easy to avoid breaking these laws. The tax code on the other hand is so convoluted and unclear that an amateur who attempts to comply without professional assistance is risking violating some arcane tax rule, even if he is not trying to avoid paying what he owes. Vague laws are the playground of tyrants and the enemy of freedom. A tax code that is convoluted to the point of vagueness restricts the freedom that Americans can enjoy.

The solution to this morass is to either institute a flat tax, or to do away the income tax in favor of a consumption-based tax. Either move would expand freedom in that it would either be easy for Americans to calculate their tax burden themselves, or would relieve them of the necessity of having to do so. The simplicity and transparency would also make it difficult to impossible for politicians to reward their supporters secretly by making beneficial changes to the tax code, which would make the governing process more accountable. In the case of a consumption-based tax, compliance would likely go to near 100% as businesses would double as government tax collectors, like they do now in the case of state sales taxes. All things being equal, increased compliance would result in more money going to the government and would have the added benefit of not requiring the government to maintain a compliance bureaucracy as it does now.

In summary, the current tax system is too convoluted and restricts freedom. A simplified tax system would add more freedom to American society in that the average honest American could rest assured he or she was in compliance with the tax code without having to pay a third party. An open society with clearly demarcated rules and laws is one in which freedom flourishes. It is time to bring increased freedom to Americans and simplify the tax system.

Financial Crisis and Government Regulation

2008-04-05T13:23:00.000-07:00

On Monday, March 31, the Bush Administration proposed the broadest overhaul of financial oversight since the Great Depression. The administration’s plan, which is largely in response to the current financial crisis, is of such magnitude that it is likely to elicit criticism from many quarters. In addition, it is such an ambitious reform package that it will take years to implement. Broadly speaking, the reforms will reorganize much of the financial oversight infrastructure so that it is compatible with current realities. In addition, however, many firms on Wall Street will be subject to increased regulation and oversight than they were in the past.

As conservatives, our initial reaction is to oppose regulation that interferes with the free market. We tend to be for less government interference and more freedom for individuals and firms. In this case, however, many of the firms that will face increased regulation engaged in activities that contributed to the current crisis. For example, generating and/or purchasing sub-prime mortgage loans that have gone bad has resulted in damage to many financial firms, including major ones such as Countrywide and Bear Stearns. The Bear Stearns meltdown led the Federal Reserve to take emergency action and engineer a sale of the company to JP Morgan (and put up $29 billion of taxpayer dollars to back Bear Stearns assets in the process). Bank of America, itself hurting from the subprime mortgage crisis, is in the process of purchasing Countrywide. It is difficult to understate the magnitude of this crisis, which has brought the financial system under severe strain. Some would even argue that the system has come perilously close to collapsing in recent weeks. Like roads and bridges, a functioning financial system is part of the infrastructure that makes a sophisticated market economy possible. As such, a stable financial system is a quasi-public good that benefits all market participants. Given that most free market conservatives would agree that the government has a role in providing and maintaining roads as means of promoting commerce, some government regulation of the financial sector should be seen in the same manner.

This is not to say that each and every reform that has been proposed will lead to financial market stability. Nor is it to say that every one of the proposed reforms is good or desirable. What is certain is that the recent crisis was brought about by market participants engaging in activities that although irresponsible, were not necessarily illegal. The far-reaching consequences of these irresponsible actions shows the need for increased regulation. Freedom demands that people (and firms) act responsibility. When irresponsibility becomes the norm, then freedom must be restricted. This is precisely what has happened in the financial sector, and why increased regulation and oversight of this sector is a good idea.

The Unbelievable Eliot Spitzer

2008-03-22T23:28:00.000-07:00

The recent scandal involving Eliot Spitzer is yet another example of a man brought low by incredible arrogance. How a man who was possibly to be a future Democrat presidential candidate could throw it all away for so little is beyond the comprehension of most of us. Perhaps after Bill Clinton, he assumed that such indiscretions were a prerequisite for the Oval Office. Although he obviously did not expect to get caught, simply taking such a huge risk for so little gain indicates that the man lacked the judgment necessary for an important position in any organization, let alone the Presidency of the United States.

Overall, it is probably fortunate for the country that he ended up destroying himself. Although he did uncover fraud and bring to the forefront some unethical practices on Wall Street which needed to be addressed, he was also someone who was willing to provide driver’s licenses to illegal aliens and to legalize same-sex marriage. Although he ultimately failed in implementing these policies due to their unpopularity, his danger as a nominee for President should not be understated. The nominee for President from one of the major political parties generally always has at least a small chance of actually winning, even if the political winds are blowing against him. A President Spitzer, with his lack of regard for tradition (same-sex marriage), national security & citizenship (driver’s licenses for illegal aliens), and his recent unbelievable lack of judgment, is a potential headache that the country can be glad it has now avoided.

Voting For The Veep!

2008-03-08T16:01:00.000-08:00

Now that McCain has won the Republican nomination, he is facing what may be the most important decision of a McCain presidency: who to pick for his V.P. Such a decision, while always important, does not normally take on the central significance that it does in McCain’s case. At 72, McCain would be the oldest President to ever assume office. Given his age and the strain that the office puts on those who endure 8 years of it (look at before & after pictures of Bush and Clinton), it is a very real possibility that McCain may not survive two terms in office. Consequently, a vote for McCain will come with the implicit understanding that one is also effectively also voting for his V.P. for President. Therefore, it is incumbent upon McCain to pick a V.P. who the country feels is ready and capable to assume the office of President. Sometimes presidential candidates will choose running mates who may appeal to a segment of their base for electoral purposes, but are in no way really ready or capable of actually being President. An example of this would be Dan Quayle. If he is to win, voters will have to be satisfied with McCain’s choice of V.P. A choice like Dan Quayle could doom McCain’s candidacy. Although it doesn’t often happen, this will be one election where people will be also voting for the V.P. for President as well.

Castro Resigns: Time To Rethink The Embargo?

2008-02-28T19:18:00.000-08:00

For as long as Fidel Castro has occupied a spot in the American consciousness, one expected a more pronounced and flamboyant departure from the scene. It was long surmised that either Fidel would die in office, or he would be deposed by masses of protesters and soldiers storming his residence. The news that a frail old man was stepping down from a position that he had held since the late 50’s struck one as almost anti-climactic. Of course, the lack of euphoria undoubtedly comes from the knowledge that nothing in Cuba will change in the short-term. However, given that Raul Castro is 76 years old, the world is not facing another 50 years of a Castro running Cuba. Even now, Raul has been some making vague noises about quasi-market and quasi-democratic reforms, although it remains to be seen how serious he is about reforms.
With Fidel in retirement, the time has come to rethink the U.S. economic embargo on Cuba. A relic of Cold War, the embargo was intended to weaken Fidel’s grip, and force him from power. In this, it clearly failed. This is not to say, however, that the embargo should be lifted immediately and entirely. However, a lifted embargo would be of benefit to the U.S. on the following ways.

1.) Increased influence in Cuba.
As a result of the embargo, the U.S. has next to zero influence in Cuba or on Cuban policy. On the diplomatic front, an unfriendly Chavez regime in Venezuela has been making trouble for years in the region. Opening up to trade with Cuba will give the U.S. some influence, where now it has practically none. Just as important, such a move will dilute some of Chavez’s influence. From a longer term strategic perspective, this is a victory for the U.S.

2.) Increased business opportunities for American firms.
Another side-effect of the embargo is that international trade that is conducted in and with Cuba is handled by Europeans, Canadians, Chinese, etc. By removing the embargo, American firms would be able to compete and obtain to some business that would otherwise go to firms from other countries. Although Cuba would never be a large trading partner, a trading relationship with Cuba would have a beneficial impact on the U.S. economy.

3.) Promoting democracy.
The argument that opening up to Cuba will make it easier to promote democracy is not necessarily an easy one to make, given the experience with China. The U.S. has been trading with China for years, and it is not clear how much the goal of a democratic China has been helped by this process. The ruling Communist Party has thus far been able walk the line between market reforms without political reforms. Whether they will be able to continue to maintain their hold on power following this path remains to be seen. Cuba, however, is much smaller than China. U.S. investment in Cuba would have a much bigger impact on the Cuban economy than U.S. investment has had in China. Consequently, the U.S. would in theory be in a much better position to push for political reforms, than it is in China.

Economically, Cuba and America both stand to gain from a lifting of the embargo. However, any removal of various sanctions should be piecemeal and contingent on certain reforms being implemented. The U.S. should be careful not to let its commercial interests override its human rights and political interests, as it has in the case of China. Any argument that weakening the embargo will strengthen the regime in Cuba must face the fact that nearly 50 years of the embargo has not led to the desired result. In short, the U.S. currently has limited options in pursuing its interests in Cuba. Reduction and/or removal of the embargo would expand these options. Consequently, it is timing to start discussing the lifting of the embargo.

The State Fiscal Crisis

2008-02-08T21:16:00.000-08:00

We are entering a new year, and it appears that the state is heading for yet another fiscal crisis. At this time, there appears to be at $14 billion dollar shortfall between what the state will take in and what it will spend. Given the financial difficulty that the state always appears to be flirting with, one cannot escape the nagging feeling that something has gone fundamentally wrong.

Although it is tempting to blame the current occupants of the legislature for the predicament in which the state finds itself, the reality is that the problem is closer to where we (the voters) reside. Roughly 85% of the state budget is pre-allocated before the legislature ever starts arguing. The people of California through various initiatives, along with the federal government, have managed to tie up the state budget. The most egregious of these initiatives is Proposition 98, which mandated that 40% of each dollar of tax revenue be allocated to education whether it needs it or not. With the automatic spending formulas that are currently in place as a result of these initiatives, education takes up nearly 50% of the state budget. The process is largely on auto-pilot, and the legislators have limited flexibility to craft reasonable budgets. The automatic spending formulas have resulted in a structural deficit that defies a permanent solution.

Clearly this method of auto-pilot ballot box budgeting has not worked and desperately needs to be reformed. Schwarzenegger has proposed dealing with the structural deficit through a constitutional amendment requiring automatic spending cuts when revenues fall. Although this solution is better than nothing, it does not go to the heart of the problem. It injects another level of automation into a process that desperately needs less.

The fundamental problem with budgeting through initiatives is that it is asking people (the voters) to make financial decisions with no overall context as to how this individual spending item that they are being asked to approve impacts the entire state budget. Furthermore, most voters do not have the time to obtain the context that would be necessary to make a wise spending decision. The theory behind representative democracy is that we elect people to make decisions for us that we do not have the time or the expertise to make for ourselves. We, the voters, then judge the representatives on the outcome. By creating spending mandates at the ballot-box, we have short-circuited this process and landed in our present predicament.

Repairing the damage will require an initiative repealing previous voter-approved spending mandates, as well as a constitutional amendment prohibiting the creation of new mandates through the initiative process. Such an effort will require a serious, well-funded, voter educational effort to precede it, since any such initiative will face massive resistance from entrenched special interests. Such a fight, although difficult, is absolutely necessary if California is to break out of the cycle of structural deficits and fiscal crisis’ that have characterized the last few years.

Problems with California’s Republican Base

2008-01-29T20:31:00.000-08:00

The Republican Party is in a struggle to win over voters in California. With a poor public image in the state, a platform that lacks consistency with public perception, and a disconnect for what Californian’s really care about, the Republican Party must reform itself in order to appeal to the majority and make California a Red State once again.

1.) The Republican brand in California is toxic.

As uncomfortable as it may be to acknowledge, the two statewide Republican officeholders were elected despite the ‘R’ in front of their names. Many Republican activists look at Schwarzenegger as a fake Republican, which is also how many of the states voters see him. This is a major reason why they accepted him. Although some may blame the CRP’s current predicament on the unpopularity of the Bush administration (and there is some truth in this), the fact is that the Party has built its poor image over years. For example, Proposition 187 could probably have been handled in way that did not leave the Party with such a strong anti-immigrant, anti-minority image. The Party has also missed opportunities to repair that image, such as choosing the more conservative Bill Jones instead of Rosario Marin to run against Barbara Boxer. In addition, some in the Party behave as if their only goal is to run certain groups such as the Log Cabin Republicans out of the Party, which doesn’t help us appear even remotely tolerant. Finally, Republicans seem ready to oppose any and all new spending, which although not necessarily unreasonable given the fiscal problems that the state is having, makes us seem like we don’t care about funding programs that help people (i.e. education, Medi-Cal, etc.). The sum of all of this is that many people see Republicans as mean, intolerant, greedy, anti-immigrant, anti-minority, and aloof. What is worse is that we only engage in limited, half-hearted attempts to change that perception. Until we are successful in changing this perception, the ‘R’ in front of a candidate’s name will remain a liability in this state.

2.) The activist base needs to come to grips with the fact that they cannot turn this state ‘red’.

Over the last 35 years, the activists have walked precincts, spent money, engaged intra-party machinations, fought over control of various committees and argued endlessly over various points in the platform. The result on a statewide level have been 3 governors (at least two of which were/are regarded by some Republicans as RINOS), a two year span of control in the state senate, and a smattering of other statewide offices. Currently, the Party appears as out of step with the voters of California as it has ever been. Some conservatives, however, appear more concerned that moderates have too much influence in the Party. Activists need to accept that a conservative Republican Party envisioned by many of us will never become the majority party in this state. We must be willing form a faction within a broader-based Republican Party, not be the entire Republican Party. The Republicans are currently like a company with a fundamentally defective product in a competitive market. Many of the activists seem to believe that with enough money, precinct walks, phone banks, redistricting, etc., the Republicans can become the majority party in California. In the late 70’s and into the 80’s and 90’s, Ford and GM discovered that advertising will not compensate for a fundamentally flawed product. In the political market that is California, a Republican Party that is narrowly based on its conservative wing is a flawed product. Money and advertising won’t change that.

3.) The Republican Party platform should be consistent with what voter’s really care about.

If I were to summarize the Party’s platform in this state, it would consist of no new taxes, less business regulation, and spending restraint. The Party does not seem to like to talk about things like health care and the environment, even though these are things that voters care about. Schwarzenegger does speak on these issues, which is one reason that his approval ratings are reasonable healthy. Unfortunately, issues like health care and the environment do not have ideologically pure free market solutions. Consequently, the Party stays silent and chooses to let individual members and legislators speak for themselves. The result is that the public hears a hodge-podge of unintelligible positions and concludes that what matters to them does not really matter to the Republican Party. Unless the Party comes forward with a coherent plan to solve these problems, it cannot expect to be listened to or be relevant in the state.

Summary:

The problems facing the CRP are difficult, and will not be solved in one election cycle. The conservative wing of the Party must decide whether it wants to be ideologically pure, or whether it wants to win elections. The choice facing conservatives is whether we want to join together with those who are half right, or let those who are totally wrong continue to win elections. Only by accepting that moderates are real Republicans too, and working with them, can we produce a political product that will work statewide. Many of us will have to accept that some of our ideas will no longer have as prominent a position in the Party platform. This is not about “selling out” ones principals. It does a political party no good to “stand by” all of its policies, only to lose election after election. Politics in a democratic republic is about what is possible. A Party that will not adjust any of its policy prescriptions in the face of repeated electoral defeat will continue to be irrelevant………………and deserves to be.

Proposition 93

2008-01-19T15:51:00.000-08:00

In a couple of weeks, California voters will go to the polls to decide whether or not to approve Proposition 93. The primary impact of Proposition 93 would be to amend term limit rules for the legislature in the following manner:

1.) Legislators would be allowed to serve for 12 years in the legislature, instead of the current 14 years.
2.) Legislators would be allowed to split their time between the Assembly and the Senate in any manner in which they see fit.

Currently, legislators are allowed to serve 3 terms in the Assembly (2 years each), and 2 terms in the Senate (4 years each). Many legislators complain that the time it takes to learn to be an effective legislator does not allow them much time to use those learned skills before being termed out. They are then left with the choice of entering another line of work, or running for a seat in the other legislative house and spend more time learning another process and skill set. Allowing the legislators to specialize in either the Assembly or the Senate would give them time to be effective, which should ultimately benefit their constituents.

One problem that many conservatives see with this reform is that it would allow Fabian Nunez and Don Perata to hang on to power. That is undoubtedly one major reason why many Democrats support the reform. It is also understandable that many of us would like to see Nunez and Perata sent packing. However, there is no question that term limits could have been better implemented in the beginning, and need to be reformed. The complaint from legislators that they don’t have enough time to learn the job and be effective is legitimate, no matter how self serving it may seem on the surface. As emotionally unsatisfying as it may be to see Nunez and Perata continue in their positions, it does not change the fact that Proposition 93 is a good reform. It deserves to be adopted on February 5th.

The Bush EPA and Federalism

2008-01-14T19:01:00.000-08:00

On December 19, the Bush EPA denied California a waiver under the Federal Clean Air Act that would have allowed the state to move forward with its plan to curb vehicle emissions. Under the Federal Clean Air Act, the states are given the right to impose a stricter emissions standard than the federal minimum, as long as the state in question obtains a waiver. In denying the waiver, the Bush administration argued that it was in the process of formulating a nationwide standard, which would be more efficient than a patchwork of state laws. Although this position is probably correct from the standpoint of economic efficiency, it is constitutionally questionable and goes against historical precedent. The constitution says nothing about economic efficiency, or about national environmental standards. Since the Civil War, the general legal view has been that federal law takes precedence over state law when there is a direct conflict between the two. In practice, federal regulations have historically been viewed as a minimum standard, rather than a maximum standard. States have been allowed to have stronger regulations than the federal government if they choose. Arguing that the federal government can dictate one exact environmental standard for the entire country is exactly the sort of heavy-handed, big government, one-size-fits-all regulation that we federalists like to rail against. Although many Republicans would rather see a less stringent standard than what California is attempting to implement, the Governor and the legislature do have the right to insist that the state adhere to a stricter standard than the federal minimum. In order to increase state’s rights relative to the federal government, federalists must be prepared to back the state in fights with the federal government. This holds true, even when we disagree with the state on the specific issue in question. Now that the Governor is suing the EPA for refusing to allow the state to proceed with its emissions standards plan, the federalists among us should be supporting his action.

Bush Plan For Subprime Mortgages

2007-12-23T17:58:00.000-08:00

A couple of weeks ago, the Bush administration unveiled its much anticipated plan to stem the financial fallout from the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Although the plan was merely a nonbinding agreement with the financial industry, market reaction to the plan indicates a faith that it will be implemented in some form. With real estate values falling and defaults and foreclosures rising, the market was eagerly looking for something that would stop the bleeding. What it got was a plan to freeze rates for 5 years on some adjustable mortgages that were due to increase over the next few months. The plan is very narrow. Only those who can make the payments on their current mortgage, but not at the higher rates, will qualify for relief. Those who can make the higher payments and those who cannot make the current lower payments will not qualify. The thinking behind the plan is that if the rates are frozen, those borrowers who might otherwise be forced into foreclosure at the higher rates will be able to stay in their homes. With fewer homes going into foreclosure, there will be fewer homes on the market to push home prices downwards.

Although the financial markets seem to like the plan (the stock market moved higher in response), there are several potential problems with the plan. Firstly, there is the logistics problem of determining who qualifies. Secondly, although the plan is non-binding, it heads in the direction of injecting the government into what is essentially a private contract matter. The government coming in and changing a contract to the benefit of one party, absent fraud, would set a bad precedent that has repercussions far beyond this present crisis. Even this non-binding agreement may have an uncertain legal future as investors who bought the soon-to-modified mortgages may sue to prevent their being modified. Thirdly, there is always the danger that any plan will go too far in bailing out people who made bad decisions. A bail-out of this sort would merely encourage investors and speculators take more risk next time, with an even more problematic result.

Even with all those problems, the plan is theoretically sound. Fewer foreclosed homes on a declining housing market will reduce the downward pressure on prices. Although the impact is uncertain, the plan theoretically would reduce the losses that banks will have to take on bad real estate loans. Finally, the plan has political benefits. If the administration had no plan, it, and by extension Republicans, would be chastised for doing nothing about this crisis.

Make no mistake. This plan will not solve the crisis as the market seems to think. The plan is far too limited for that. In addition to homeowners, a severe market correction will also hurt banks that ignored prudent lending standards. In response to the crisis, many banks are returning to fundamental lending standards, which is good for the overall long-term health of the financial system. As long as the crisis does not threaten to collapse the banking sector, the government plan should stick to persuasion and let the market sort out the mess that it created.

The Second Amendment: Misinterpreted for 200 years?

2007-11-24T18:23:00.000-08:00

Recently, the public was informed that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments as to whether or not Washington D.C.’s 30 year old ban on the private ownership of handguns is unconstitutional. While a verdict upholding the ban will not automatically result in government agents going door to door confiscating private firearms, it will open the door to potential gun bans in certain liberal areas of the country (i.e. perhaps California). The question before the Supreme Court is whether or not the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to private gun ownership, or whether one must be part of a state militia to be able to privately own a gun.

The arguments will partly focus on a 1939 case that was heard before the Supreme Court. In that case, which focused primarily on the legality of a specific sawed-off shotgun, the court decided that since a sawed-off shotgun (defined to have a barrel less than 18 inches in length) had never been used in any organized state militia, people had no constitutional right to own one. Although the courts decision seemed to support the view that only members of organized state militias can own guns (as many proponents of gun bans would like to show), the court also looked at what historically had constituted a militia. In its decision, the court stated the following:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

This statement leads to some interesting implications.

1.) The court states that the militia was historically comprised of “all physically capable males”, which would imply all physically capable citizens today.
2.) These men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves, which implies direct private ownership of the weapons.
3.) They were to have weapons, “of the kind in common use at the time”, which would imply that citizens have the right to weapons commonly used by military bodies. In our own time, this would imply assault rifles, in addition to various rifles, shotguns and handguns.

Simply put, the court upheld the assertion that private citizens can own guns, because the citizens could be called up to act as a militia in times of state or national crisis. The view that only current card-carrying members of an organized military body can own guns supplied by that military body is a view that has never been an interpretation of the 2nd amendment. If the Supreme Court upholds the gun ban and endorses this view, it will be turning its back on 200 years of constitutional interpretation. In effect, it will be stating that we have been misinterpreting the Constitution from the founding of the republic until now. It is worth noting that the decision in the 1939 case was unanimous. Let’s hope that this court will be equally emphatic in upholding this basic constitutional right.

Thankful Thoughts at Thanksgiving

2007-11-21T20:10:00.000-08:00

In late summer, three hundred and eighty-seven years ago, approximately a 120 passengers and crew crammed themselves onto a chancy boat in an attempt to cross the Atlantic Ocean. These people were leaving England for the New World, where they intended to start a new life. That these people would gamble everything they had for the opportunity to start a new life under harsh and unfamiliar conditions is incomprehensible from our 21st century vantage point. However, without this sacrifice and others like it, we would not be where we are today. Thanksgiving is a time of reflection, and so the following is a partial list of some things that I am thankful for, in no particular order.

1.) I am thankful that I had the good fortune to be born in the late 20th century.
2.) I am thankful that I was born in the United States, and not Somalia.
3.) I am thankful for the military and economic power of the United States, which protects me and gives me opportunities not available to everyone in the world.
4.) I am thankful that I live in a country where my destiny is determined by my own efforts and not who my parents were.
5.) I am thankful that there are people who are willing to die to protect my way of life.
6.) I am thankful for my health which allows me to pursue my dreams.
7.) I am thankful for the productive and engaged citizens, without whom this country would not be what it is.
8.) I am thankful for good and meaningful friendships.
9.) I am thankful for a loving wife, without whom my life would be incomplete.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYBODY!!!

MoveOn.org To The Rescue?

2007-10-06T21:23:00.000-07:00

With some pundits predicting a Republican bloodbath in next year’s elections, a potential bright spot has appeared on the horizon in the form of MoveOn.org. The organizations radical tendencies were on display when they took out a full page ad in the New York Times on September 10 to assassinate the character of General Patreaus, the U.S. commander in Iraq. MoveOn.org’s influence over the Democrats was illustrated a few days later when Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and 25 other Democrat Senators refused to vote to condemn the ad. The fact that the resolution to condemn MoveOn got 72 votes is an indication that some Democrats understand that following MoveOn.org’s agenda will put the Democrats back out into the political wilderness. Therefore, the Republican’s should work hard to connect MoveOn.org with the Democrats in the mind of the public. However, the Republicans must be careful to not spend too much time fighting MoveOn, and ignoring the other issues that the electorate cares about. If MoveOn.org stays quiet, it could easily blunt an electoral strategy based on attacking it. However, if MoveOn is vocal, it could be one of the best weapons in the Republican arsenal. Although a Republican platform does not appear to have a strong chance of beating the Democrats at this time, it should be able to easily beat MoveOn.org.

Some Good News From Iraq

2007-10-06T21:17:00.000-07:00

While no one was looking, over the past 2 months there have been a couple of pieces of good news to come out of Iraq. On September 11th, there was an international conference of Iraq’s neighbors, attended by representatives of 21 countries and organizations. In attendance were representatives from Iran, Syria, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Bahrain, Egypt, the Arab League, Organization of Islamic Conference, the United Nations, the UN Security Council five permanent members and G8 states. The fact that all of these foreign governments were willing to send representatives to Baghdad is an indication of the progress that has been made in establishing security on the ground.
Another piece of good news was that various tribes in the Sunni region of the country have had some success in fighting Al Qaeda and restoring some stability in various parts of the country. The fact that one of the leading sheiks was killed a couple of weeks ago notwithstanding, it seems that the U.S. has found an effective way of bringing some stability to parts of the country that seemed hopeless a year ago. In addition, the killing of this sheik is not likely to endear Al Qaeda to members of his tribe who will likely continue fighting to drive Al Qaeda from Iraq. The success of the tribes and the conference are milestones on the long journey towards normalcy for Iraq.

Health Care Reform: A Missed Opportunity For Republicans

2007-09-22T16:45:00.000-07:00

The special session on health care reform that the Governor has called is likely to result in some sort of health care reform that many Republicans oppose. It is unfortunate that things have worked out the way that they have. The Republicans are the permanent minority in this state, and the issue of health care reform illustrates why.

People are dissatisfied with the health care system in this state, and for good reason. Costs continue to rise each year, and many are worried that they are just one serious illness away from bankruptcy. Furthermore, costs can be expected to go up even further as the population ages, and increases the demand for medical services. Some polls have put the public dissatisfaction with the current health care system at 70%. The response to this angst from the Democrats and the Governor is to produce two competing health care plans. Meanwhile, the response from the Republicans has been to oppose both plans without offering a credible alternative, thereby signaling to the electorate that Republicans think the current system is just fine.

This is not a viable strategy if the Party hopes to move out of its permanent minority status in this state. It is understandable that Republicans would be uncomfortable responding to a problem that does not have an obvious market-based solution. However, it is a simple fact is that increased health care costs will require some sort of government intervention and spending. There are certain diseases (such as diabetes) for which it is simply not profitable for private insurance companies to cover. Many of these diseases are starting to impact an increasing percentage of the population. It is not good policy or politics for the Party to tell these people that they will simply have to do without healthcare, because that is the way of the free market.

This is not to suggest the Party should move to support a plan for universal socialized medicine. Socialized medicine has generally produced inferior quality healthcare, where it has been tried. However, a plan that provided basic subsidized care to certain population segments, while allowing people to purchase private health insurance would allow the free market to work while providing a safety net. The Governor’s plan, for all of its faults, attempts to do this.

A politically viable path for the Republicans might be to offer a plan that includes government spending on health care coupled with offsetting spending cuts in other areas. By forcing the people to choose between health care spending and spending for special interests, the Republicans could position themselves as the Party fighting for the people against the special interests. Even if their plan did not pass, the fact that it was out there would give the Republicans some leverage with which to negotiate a compromise bill with the Governor. Just as important, they would be a part of the debate.

Unfortunately, there is no Republican plan. There is just the Democrats plan and the Governor’s plan. The Governor’s is the better of the two, but it is far from ideal. The reality is that some version of the two plans will likely pass with minimal Republican input. It did not have to happen this way. With an alternative plan in their hands, the Republicans could have worked with the Governor and perhaps crafted a better plan. The fact that they did not do this and have thereby reinforced their image as an out of touch Party that does not really care about people is a real shame.

Foreclosure Moratorium: A Good Example of a Bad Idea.

2007-09-03T00:14:00.000-07:00

As if the sub-prime mortgage mess that is currently roiling the financial markets were not bad enough, the California legislature has taken upon itself to discuss an action that would make a wave of foreclosures look like a minor inconvenience by comparison. I am speaking, of course, about the proposed 6-month foreclosure moratorium that is currently being discussed. Although the specter of families getting thrown out of their homes is painful to contemplate, a moratorium on foreclosures would create more problems than it would solve.

The foreclosure process on homes is a critical component of lending decisions. A banker is willing to make a loan several times larger than the borrower’s annual income, because he knows that he will be able to sell the home and get the depositors money back. In other words, there is an escape hatch if the borrower either refuses or is unable to make the payments on the loan. A moratorium would short-circuit this process. It would mean that a lender would only have rights to get his loan paid back if the borrower decided to sell the home on his own. However, without the right to force a sale, it is unlikely that another bank would be willing to lend money to someone to purchase a given house, unless that person could come up with a 70%-90% down payment on the home. Given the current prices of homes in California, there are not too many people who would be able to do that. In order for a home to become affordable in a situation where home loans were not easy to obtain, the price level for California real estate would have to decline substantially. A moratorium would have the effect of increasing the decline in real estate values, sharply increasing the interest rates on home loans, and perhaps, in an extreme case, even effectively shutting down the housing market for a time.

Even a moratorium that was limited to 6 months in duration would have some long lasting effects. Firstly, the fact that the government had taken such an unprecedented move could make lenders wary, fearing that the government could again make such a move in the future. Political risk management, a discipline more often applied by businesses operating in underdeveloped countries with unstable governments, would take on added importance in California. Secondly, lenders would begin to price the risk of a re-imposed moratorium into their interest rates, which would make post-moratorium mortgage rates higher than they need to be.

In summary, a moratorium would have long lasting negative effects. The fact that many people were put into mortgages that they could never afford is unfortunate in some cases, and an outrage in others. Increased oversight and regulation of the mortgage industry going forward may be the proper response to this problem, depending on what is proposed. It is not impossible that perhaps certain mortgage products should be highly restricted, if not outright banned. However, a moratorium on foreclosures would make a bad situation much worse, and is entirely the wrong solution for the problem that is currently being faced. This is an idea that should be tossed into the wastepaper basket.

Republican Direction

2007-08-09T19:53:00.000-07:00

A couple of weeks ago, I attended a mixer where the Republican candidates for the 10th and 15th Assembly Districts gathered to introduce themselves to the assembled activists. Among the ideas that were espoused at the event was one which the Republican Party in California would do well to take note. Paul Hegyi, a candidate for the 10th Assembly District, asserted that the Republicans in California are spending their time content to oppose what the Democrats are doing, rather than presenting a coherent alternative plan regarding the issues facing our state.

Paul is right. We as Republicans in California have no positive agenda that people can get behind. On issue after issue, we are stuck telling people what we will fight to oppose. Although this is a natural position for a Party structurally mired in the minority, people want to be led by a Party with ideas. For example, instead of being content to oppose the Democrats and the Governor on the environment, we should be pushing some sort of renewable energy/energy independence plan of our own as part of a national security theme. On health care, we get outmaneuvered by the Democrats who want to socialize medical industry and the Governor who is pushing a quasi market-based universal health insurance plan. Instead of using the Governor’s plan as a starting point to push a market based plan more in line with Republican values that can at least come close to providing universal health coverage, we act as if the only alternative to the Democrats and the Governor is the status quo. On the economy, our message of holding the line on taxes does resonate with the voting public. However, we don’t seem to be able to articulate a coherent plan of reducing onerous business regulations that would make it easier to do business in California, as a method of increasing employment opportunities for Californians.

If we are to eventually become the majority Party in California, we have to do more than just create more competitive districts. We have to give people a reason to vote for us. In 1994, the Republicans took control of Congress for the first time in 46 years because they gave people a reason to vote for them. Putting together the Contract With America was a stroke of genius. It put down a few key points that were short and easy to understand. It created an agenda under which every Republican candidate for Congress could run behind.

The Republican Party in this state needs something similar. We need a vision for the state that can define us as a Party, and is easy to understand. The list needs to be fairly short. Sixty policy points are far too many to be effective. If we cannot offer a coherent alternative plan to the Democrats, we consign ourselves to permanent minority status. The process of putting together a coherent vision that can compete with the Democrats statewide will be a long one. It will take more than one election cycle. It took Gingrich 16 years of planning and maneuvering to engineer a Republican majority in Congress. We had better get started.

Medicare Funding Crisis

2007-07-22T15:23:00.000-07:00

After reading the report from the Medicare Trustees, one is left with the impression that the funding outlook for the Medicare Program is one of crisis. Unlike the Social Security Trust Fund which is expected to be exhausted by 2041, the Medicare Trust Fund will be exhausted by 2019. Like Social Security, the Medicare Trust Fund takes in dedicated payroll tax revenue, and pays out benefits. Unlike Social Security at this time, Medicare is also partly funded by tax revenue from the general fund. Currently, the payroll tax revenue along with the current mandatory transfers from the federal budget are together greater than the benefits that are paid out. This surplus is invested in Treasury Bills which brings in interest income (also paid by general fund tax revenue) to The Fund. Currently, dedicated payroll tax revenues cover about 99% of the benefits. However, this imbalance is expected to grow over time as the population ages, with dedicated payroll tax revenue covering 79% of the promised benefits in 2019 when the Trust Fund is exhausted. If the promised benefit levels are to be maintained, the general fund will have to step in and make up the difference.

As with Social Security, Medicare is entirely funded with tax revenue at this time (either through payroll taxes, general fund transfers, or interest income on the Fund’s Treasury Bill assets). Currently, Medicare consumes 3.1% of the American GDP, with this percentage expected to grow to 11.3% by 2081. Although Medicare seems certain to be a significant and growing burden on the federal budget for the next 2 or 3 generations, bringing in private money from outside government could help reduce this burden. This can be done by investing the surplus assets in a portfolio of corporate bonds and some stable common stocks. By exchanging Treasury Bills for corporate bonds, the return on the assets in the trust fund could be increased. Furthermore, the interest income from the bonds would be paid by corporate America and not by the American taxpayer.

However, it must be admitted that the gap between dedicated tax revenues and promised benefits will eventually be so great that even shifting the assets in the Trust Fund will only have a limited impact. The only other tools left to close the funding gap are to cut benefits and/or raise various taxes. With people living longer, the age at which one can collect Medicare benefits will have to be raised, realistically. A system that was put in place when life expectancies (and medical costs) were much lower will have to be adjusted to the fact that people are living longer and consuming more in the way of medical services. If people were to work until 70 and stay on an employer’s health insurance, this would reduce the cost to Medicare and would provide Medicare with 5 years of extra payroll tax revenue from an average worker.

Even taking these measures will not close the gap, entirely. Consequently, it is likely that payroll taxes will have to be raised on all Americans, benefits will have to be cut, or other general fund spending will have to be cut. However, the sooner that we undertake some action to put Medicare on a more solid financial footing, the less will be the disruption down the road. Putting Medicare on a solid footing will require sacrifices from all Americans. It is time for us to accept the reality of what Medicare has become, urge our representatives to come up with a comprehensive plan to ensure that our elderly will continue to have access to medical care.

Social Security Reform

2007-07-08T12:26:00.000-07:00

After reading the current summary of the 2007 current Social Security Trustees report, one is left with the impression that the situation is problematic, though manageable. The summary indicates that in 2017, the projected benefit payouts will exceed the projected payroll tax revenue to pay for them. In subsequent years, the shortfall will be made up by dipping into interest revenue that is generated by the assets in the Social Security Trust Fund (Treasury Bills). Since the only assets that the Trust Fund holds are Treasury Bills, the interest income that The Fund receives comes from general fund tax revenues. By 2027, it is projected that the payroll tax revenue plus the interest income into The Fund will not be enough to pay out promised benefits, and that the trust will have to start liquidating its asset base to make up the shortfall. This means that The Fund will sell the Treasury Bills that it holds either to private investors or back to the Treasury. This will result in a further burden on the general fund. By 2041, the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted, and the payroll tax revenue will only be enough to pay for 75% of the promised benefits at that time.

The good news is that for retirees at that time, Social Security will still exist (something is better than nothing). The bad news is that 2041 crop of retirees will get back much less than they pay into the system. Many of the solutions that have been proposed to put Social Security on a sounder fiscal footing include raising the return on the assets in the trust fund (by investing the money in the stock market) to raising the retirement age, etc.

Although many conservatives favor some form of privatized social security (i.e. private accounts and stock market investment), the concerns that some have voiced over these solutions are legitimate. For one, allowing people to make their own investment decisions about their retirement may satisfy a libertarian streak in many of us, but it is not necessarily the way to a sustainable retirement safety net, which is what Social Security is supposed to be about. In the late 90’s, many investment managers who had a much better understanding of investments (and who should have known better) were ruined because they were caught up in the excitement of the market that seemed to be able to only go up. If these people could make ruinous financial decisions, how much easier will it be for an individual to make similar mistakes and ruin his entire life in the process?

That being said, that does not mean that Social Security should be left with only 1 asset class in the trust fund. One of the main problems with Social Security is that it is only funded with tax revenues, either directly through payroll taxes or through interest income from its Treasury Bill assets (which are funded by tax revenue from the general fund). In order to bring Social Security onto a more solid financial footing, it will be necessary to raise the return on the surplus assets sitting in the fund, while at the same time bringing some private funds from outside the government into the trust fund. This can be done by investing the surplus funds that are currently coming into Social Security in a portfolio of solid corporate bonds and a few safe blue chip stocks. Even investing the money in the bonds of certain other countries would result in a more fiscally sound Trust Fund, because the money that would be paying interest to The Fund on these bonds would not be coming from the U.S. taxpayer. If private accounts were to be allowed, the investment options for individuals would have to be highly restricted and limited to only 2 or 3 highly safe options. These 2 or 3 options could be managed by a team portfolio managers employed by the Trust Fund.

In addition to these measures, the retirement age needs to be increased. When Social Security was founded, the average life expectancy was around 68 and the retirement age was 65. Now, the average life expectancy is closer to 78, and increasing. This means that people are collecting benefits on average 10 years longer than they were when the program was founded in 1938. We cannot ignore this fact. Consequently, any reform must include a provision that increases the retirement age by some amount.

In summary, the Social Security system needs to be reformed if future retirees are not to see their benefits cut dramatically and if the system is not to be a drain on the federal budget. Putting the surplus funds into alternate investments (other than Treasury Bills) in the short-term and increasing the retirement age can help. The argument that diverting Social Security funds into investments other the Treasury Bills will result in an increased budget deficit today is true, but irrelevant. That Social Security will be a burden on the federal treasury at some time in the future may be unavoidable. However, by diverting funds into alternative investments today, it is possible that we could reduce the impact on the federal budget tomorrow.

Schwarzenegger Health Care Plan.

2007-06-17T12:40:00.000-07:00

The Governor’s plan is designed to make sure that all Californians have affordable health insurance. One advantage that this plan has over some other universal health coverage proposals that have been made over the years is that it does not simply ignore economic realities and does not attempt to create a state run health care system. In many ways, it attempts to work within the market framework. For example, it recognizes that current insurance purchasers end up paying the costs for services provided to the uninsured (who use emergency rooms) and Medi-Cal recipients (whose costs are often not fully covered) through higher premium rates for health insurance. The plan attempts to eliminate this shift in costs by requiring health insurance the way auto insurance is currently required, and by increasing the amount that Medi-Cal will pay out for various medical services. Also, the plan does provide for some incentives to encourage people to make healthier choices, which in theory should both reduce the need for medical services and the cost of health insurance. In addition, the plan attempts to create streamlined processes to reduce some of the overhead costs associated with providing medical care.

However, the plan also requires that insurance companies guarantee coverage and limits what they can charge based on age and health status. This is effectively a price control which will tend to push insurance costs higher as insurance companies pass on the additional cost of insuring people that they previously would have dropped from coverage. Another problem with the plan is the requirement that employers above 10 employees provide health insurance as a benefit to their employees. The state’s regulatory environment has already caused many businesses to flee the state, and this new mandate is not likely to bring them back. Furthermore, this requirement will disproportionately negatively impact small businesses that don’t offer health insurance, and that are trying to compete with their larger, more established, rivals that do offer it.

Overall, this plan is better than some attempts that have been made to provide universal health coverage. However, there are several cost drivers that the plan does not really address, such as the high cost of medical malpractice insurance (resulting from lawsuits), the fact that many doctors have left the state or retired, and the closing of emergency rooms, among other reasons. In fairness, the plan does mention the closure of emergency rooms, but it does not really offer a solution. It is certain that medical costs are going to continue to increase as the population ages. Without adequately addressing these issues, the plan will be putting a costly burden on businesses (with the accompanying negative economic consequences), and ultimately a burden on the taxpayer.

Cheap Alternative Energy

2007-05-09T20:27:00.000-07:00

Although we as conservatives have generally been lukewarm to the concept of alternative energy in the past, the time has come for us to embrace it fully. Oil is currently fueling some of our primary enemies and geo-political rivals, namely Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. Reducing or eliminating our dependence on oil in the Western world will force the price of this commodity downward and will reduce the flow of petro-dollars to Iran and other unfriendly regimes in the Middle East and around the world. Currently, the insurgents in Iraq are killing our troops with munitions financed in some way by oil, and Iran has been able to create trouble all over the Middle East for a generation because of oil revenues.

In the past, there has been talk of weaning us off of our dependence on foreign oil through reduced usage and increased U.S. production. The idea was that by reducing consumption and increasing production inside the U.S., we could drive down the price of oil and survive another oil embargo. However, this idea is no longer addresses the reality of the situation in which we now find ourselves. The world is now so interconnected economically that an oil embargo against the U.S. would be difficult to enforce and maintain, anyway. Furthermore, turning off the oil spigot in an attempt to hurt the U.S. economy through high oil prices would end up hurting a country like Iran that depends heavily on oil revenues much more than it would hurt us. It is also worth noting that Iran has practically no refinery capacity and that it must import much of its gasoline from the West. Turning off the oil spigot in an attempt to strangle the U.S. would ensure that Iran would literally run out of gas, and likely topple the current regime as well.

The reality of the situation is that in order to drive down the price of oil and eliminate it as a major source of funding for unfriendly regimes, we need to find a cheaper alternative form of energy (i.e. cheap solar power, for example) as soon as possible. The increasing oil demand from China and India as those countries develop means that any attempt to drive down the price of oil through increased U.S. production and conservation will likely have a minimal impact. Once a cheaper alternative form of energy is widely available, the free market should spur an economic conversion away from oil, thereby driving down its price and Iran’s oil earnings along with it. Given the national security implications of this issue, we in the conservative camp should support the drive for cheap alternative energy in any way that we can, including the use of government funded technological research to bring it about, if necessary.

Sunni Sheiks Against Al-Qaeda

2007-04-02T20:21:00.000-07:00

Recently, there have been reports coming out of Iraq that could signal a turning point in the Iraq war. What I am referring to is the turning against Al-Qaeda insurgents by various sheiks in the Sunni triangle. In a region where tribal loyalties trump everything else, this development should not be overlooked. It appears that al-Qaeda has managed to alienate some of the tribesmen by random violence that has killed many members of various tribes. The fact that many of the al-Qaeda linked insurgents are foreigners has not helped matters. By turning many of sheiks into the arms of the central government in Baghdad, certain segments of the Sunni population have ceased their willingness to support the insurgency. Turning a population against an insurgency is perhaps the most important element in winning a counter-insurgency type of war. One cannot ultimately prevail in a war, if the people in whose name one is fighting turn against the struggle and those who are waging it.

However, we must not forget that this is Iraq. There are conflicting loyalties and shifting alliances that could yet undermine our position and our attempt at creating a stable government capable of resisting Iranian influence. The government could alienate some of the more radical Shia groups with concessions to Sunnis, for example. Or perhaps, the Shia-dominated government could make a mistake and turn certain sheiks back into al-Qaeda sympathizers. However, the fact more in the Sunni community are rejecting al-Qaeda and urging people to fight against it is the latest in a series hopeful signs that perhaps we are starting to win this struggle.

Al- Sadr’s Departure…….. And What It Could Mean.

2007-02-19T16:03:00.000-08:00

In the last couple of weeks, Western new outlets have received reports that Muqtada al-Sadr has left Iraq. Most speculation has put him in Iran, although Iran continues to deny that he is there. What is certain is that al-Sadr has at the very least gone into hiding. Considering that Mr. al-Sadr’s militia, the Mahdi Army, has fought two serious pitched battles with U.S. forces since we invaded Iraq, his sudden exit from the scene is a potentially significant development. This is not to mean that we have necessarily turned a corner in Iraq (many other touted ‘turning points’ have proven to be false hope), but what it does mean is that there has been a fundamental shift on the political front; one that could be significant in the coming months because of what it indicates.

1.) Despite the fact that Al-Sadr’s militia was soundly beaten in two pitched battles with our forces, he still felt personally secure enough to remain in Iraq and take a prominent role in the events shaping that country. His flight shows that this is no longer the case. Although al-Sadr can still exert some control over his forces through various means, the fact that he is no longer in the area means that his ability to direct events has been reduced, and that he is more marginalized politically than he has been at any time since we invaded Iraq.
2.) Al-Sadr’s flight also indicates that he does not think that he has enough support within the Shi’ite community to prevent either us or the Iraqi army from dealing with him the hard way. This is a very important development. Previously, the U.S. had always refrained from doing anything that would incite the Shia (including taking out Al-Sadr). It now appears that al-Sadr’s enemies within the Shia community have had some success in marginalizing him, and this is a positive development.
3.) If it can be conclusively proven that al-Sadr is in Iran, this will be one more reason for Iraqi Shia enemies of al-Sadr to be suspicious of Iranian intentions, and create another obstacle to increased Iranian influence.
4.) It appears that al-Sadr was being protected by people at the highest level of the Iraqi government until recently. It also seems that Syria was a key player in pressuring the prime minister to remove his protection of al-Sadr, which indicates that Syria and Iran are not on the same page on everything. Although this may or may not turn out to be significant in the long run, any friction between Syria and Iran is a positive development.

Whether al-Sadr’s self removal from Iraq significantly impacts events on the ground will not be known for several months, at the earliest. Whether this event was a turning point or a missed opportunity will not be known for years, until historians start to dissect this war. However, in a conflict that has not provided us with much positive news in the last few months, al Sadr’s exit should be seen as the best news to come out of Iraq in quite awhile.

YRF of Sacramento Endorsements

2007-01-22T17:53:00.000-08:00

On Thursday, January 25th at 6pm the YRF of Sacramento will be holding a board meeting to formally endorse for the CRP Executive Board and Regional candidates.

Only board members can vote, but all members are welcome to attend the meeting or call in using the conference call number:

Conference Call Number: 605-772-3045, Access Code: 916279#
Address: 980 9th Street, Suite 2120, Sacramento, CA 95814

We will also be discussing the Hospitality Suite for the CRP Convention scheduled for Friday, February 9th at 9pm. There will be more information posted here to update you once the details of that event are known.

Thanks and Good Luck to all the candidates!

Bolton Resigns: The U.N. Should Be Scrapped

2006-12-06T09:23:00.000-08:00

The news has just come out that Mr. John Bolton has resigned as U.N. ambassador. As disappointing as this is, it was inevitable after the Democrats gained control of the Senate. Bolton’s nomination was always going to be difficult, given that there were even some Republicans who opposed letting his nomination out of committee for a floor vote in the Senate (Bolton became ambassador due to a recess appointment by President Bush). John Bolton’s “brusque” style was what was needed in the U.N., an organization that has forfeited the right to be taken seriously. Some, such as myself, saw in Bolton’s nomination an opportunity to discover whether the U.N. was capable of reforming itself with “brusque” U.S. leadership. The answer to that question has been a resounding “No”!
That the U.N. has become a bad joke in recent years is beyond serious dispute. From the Oil for Food scandal to the body electing Libya to chair the Human Rights Commission to the son of the Secretary General taking what were effectively bribes, the U.N. resembles a failed Third World kleptocracy rather than the “last best hope for mankind” that some in this country prefer to see it as. The fact that there was never any concerted effort to get the Secretary General to resign (as the membership of a responsible organization would do under similar circumstances) tells me that the organization is beyond any realistic hope of repair. That there needs to be an organization similar to the U.N. in the world is, I think, fairly obvious. The world is so small that there needs to be a clearinghouse where diplomats can meet, forge alliances, and coordinate responses to international problems. There are many ways such an organization can be structured and run, however any new organization at least needs to have a higher membership requirement than merely the fact that a country exists. The WTO is an organization that countries aspire to be a part of, and are willing to make sacrifices to meet the membership requirements. An organization with the appropriate membership requirements would be a more serious one. It would not solve all of the problems, because nations do act in their own self-interest. Russia, China, and the U.S. would often end up on the opposite sides of issues. However, such an organization would undoubtedly be a substantial improvement on the U.N. as it currently exists.

Announcing our Christmas Bash

2006-11-30T23:17:00.000-08:00

YRFS's Christmas Party this year will be held in conjunction with Toys for Troops to collect toys for the children of soldiers who are currently serving overseas during the holidays.

When: Thursday, December 7th at 5:30pm - 7:30pm
Where: Gallagher's (1201 K Street in downtown Sacramento)
What: Cocktails with friends and toy collections for children

Please bring an unwrapped child's toy to Gallagher's on December 7th and listen to a soldier who recently returned from the conflict overseas.

We look forward to seeing you!

Senate Leadership Challenge?

2006-11-27T18:13:00.000-08:00

In the long, and somewhat boring, days of recess, juicy leadership battles are about the only things that folks gossip about (other than who got what job and how much more that person will be making than those 'truly' talented people who have been at the Capitol 5 minutes longer...)

As we all know, Daucher lost, opening up what I believe could be a heated battle by Senate Republicans over leadership roles. Since Ackerman couldn't deliver on "his girl's" race, his effectiveness will be called into question. Of course, we all know that Daucher's loss is no more Ackerman's fault than Machado's loss is Plescia's fault, but that didn't stop Assembly GOP-ers from cleaning house two weeks ago.

Only time will tell who has the votes to oust beloved Ackerman, but my guess that time is fast approaching.

Correa In the Lead

2006-11-17T13:47:00.000-08:00

Lou Correa (D) has a 282 point lead over Lynn Daucher (R) who has held the lead over Correa since Election Day.

If Daucher doesn't manage to hold on, Minority Senate Leader Dick Ackerman may find it difficult to defend a challenge to his leadership in the next coming weeks (especially given the fact that Daucher is Ackerman's hand-picked favorite for the Senate over Van Tran.)

There are still 2800 ballots left to count - this race isn't over yet!

Welcome to New Board Members

2006-11-17T13:34:00.000-08:00

YRF Sacramento is proud to announce our two newest board members:

Molly Metheny and Kristi Culpepper

Both women are dedicated Republican activists and we are delighted that they have decided to serve on the YRFS Board.

Thank you and Welcome!

Bush Was Right to Oust Rumsfeld

2006-11-09T08:19:00.000-08:00

On Monday, the Army Times, an independent newspaper (independent of the military that is) published an editorial urging President Bush to fire Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. Without question, Rumsfeld is a very smart man. He was very far-sighted in that he recognized after the Cold War that the military would not be fighting massive armies of tanks on the central plains of Europe, but would rather be fighting the types of asymmetric wars that we see in Afghanistan and Iraq. To this end, he and others like him urged the revamping of our forces, tactics and doctrine to be better suited to this sort of warfare. This revised military doctrine proved its worth with the speedy takedown of Saddam and the Taliban. However, the lighter footprint proved to be not as effective at nation-building. This is not to pile-on the administrations missteps. What we have been trying to do in Iraq and Afghanistan is unprecedented. There exists no set of instructions as to how to do this right. The closest examples that we have of Germany and Japan following WWII are of limited value because of the following:

a.) Both countries had been totally devastated and were tired of war (there may be some clue here as to why the Afghan campaign has gone better than the Iraqi one),

b.) They were both essentially Western countries with cultural values closer to our own than are either Afghanistan or Iraq.

c.) They were national societies, whereas Afghanistan and Iraq are tribal societies.

Many of the mistakes that have occurred in the war are not necessarily due to some deficiency that is peculiar to Rumsfeld. There would likely have been gross errors no matter who had been chosen as Defense Secretary. The problem comes in when the military begins to lose faith in the leadership of the Defense Secretary. When an organization loses faith in its leadership, the problems that result go much deeper than whether we should have sent more troops to Baghdad. An organization without effective leadership operates at reduced effectiveness. Although there is no evidence that Rumsfeld has completely alienated the military, the evidence that some in the military are beginning to lose faith in his leadership is increasing.

After the Abu Ghraib scandal, Rumsfeld offered to resign twice. Although many questioned the Presidents wisdom at the time, I believe that he was right not to accept Rumsfeld’s resignation in the wake of that scandal. In war, there are bound to be unpleasant incidents, and the President did not want to set the precedent of getting rid of a cabinet official every time something occurred. The danger if Rumsfeld had remained was that the discontent could spread to where the military begins to lose faith in the President, himself. The President enjoys a great deal of popularity within the military, which is critical when the nation is at war. Were the President to lose this goodwill as result of Rumsfeld staying on too long, there is no replacement whose competency would be sufficient to repair the damage. It is a good thing that the President finally took Rumsfeld up on his offer.

Why the Democrat Congressional Majority (if it happens) will be Short-Lived

2006-10-28T17:50:00.000-07:00

Over the last few weeks, we have been inundated by predictions that this election year will be a blood-bath for the GOP, and so it might. Different pundits have different ideas as to how bad it will be, and what a Democrat Congress will do. Although it appears likely that the GOP will lose at least one of the two houses of Congress, we Republicans can take comfort that any Democrat majority is likely to be short-lived. There are several reasons that one could discuss as evidence for this, but the one that I would like to discuss is the fact that the Democrats have become in effect a European political party.
This statement is not meant to be an insult, but is rather a statement of fact. The Democrat base has the following views that are more in line with Europe than with the U.S. The base……….

1.) Looks at the U.S. more as a source of the world’s problems as opposed to more a source of the world’s solutions.
2.) Thinks the U.S. should feel guilty because other countries are not happy with us.
3.) Sees national defense and military spending as a secondary concern.
4.) Looks at the U.N. as a serious organization.
5.) Believes that negotiation and application of ‘soft power’ can diffuse any crisis.
6.) Tends to look at business and free enterprise with suspicion.
7.) Tends to trust government solutions.
8.) Tends to have a pessimistic view of the economic situation of the average American.
9.) Sees the fact that some people are rich as a problem of fairness.
10.) Tends to look with suspicion or hostility on traditional displays of religion.
11.) Believes that terrorists should be accorded constitutional rights.
12.) Does not believe in the death penalty

By contrast, the average American……..

1.) Sees the U.S. as a major force for good in the world, despite its faults.
2.) Does not take the fact that other countries are unhappy with us as automatic proof that the U.S. has done something wrong.
3.) Sees national defense as a paramount concern, and has significant respect for the military.
4.) Is becoming less and less likely to see the U.N. as a serious organization.
5.) Believes that there are limits to the usefulness of negotiation and ‘soft power’.
6.) Sees business and free enterprise as a positive engine of prosperity.
7.) Tends to distrust government solutions.
8.) Tends to have an optimistic view of his economic situation.
9.) Sees the fact that the rich have more as evidence of what he can achieve.
10.) Tends to have a generic respect for traditional religion.
11.) Does not believe that terrorists should be given constitutional rights.
12.) Believes in the death penalty.

This list is by no means exhaustive, but it illustrates that the Democrat base fundamentally sees the world differently than the average American. Even on the question of Iraq, polls have shown that the average American has turned against the enterprise due to a perception of incompetence rather than the perception that we were evil for going in there in first place. Americans want a plan for victory, as opposed to the Democrat base that wants a plan for exit under fire. Americans don’t see their country as fundamentally morally deficient in international affairs, unlike the Democrat base. A political party whose base is so fundamentally out of step with the country it purports to represent cannot create a sustainable long-term national majority. Rather it is dependent for majority status on moments such as the one we are going through now, where the public is so disenchanted with the performance of the current administration that it is willing to give anything else, such as the Democrats, a chance.

Sacramento News and Review OpEd

2006-10-22T20:37:00.000-07:00

http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=oid%3A227348

No on Measures Q & R

By John Hrabe

Professional basketball represents the epitome of competition, where nothing more than athletic finesse and brute strength determines the winner and loser of each contest. Ironically, owners of the Sacramento Kings, a sports franchise built on athletic competition, are asking Sacramento County voters to approve two measures antithetical to economic competition. In the case of Measures Q and R, the stakes are much greater than which teams make the playoffs.
Measures Q and R will raise county sales taxes by $1.2 billion over the next 15 years and provide $500 million in corporate welfare to the Maloof family. Under Measures Q and R, purchases in Sacramento County will cost more: higher gas prices--even a higher-priced hot dog and soda at the new arena.
The Young Republican Federation of Sacramento is proud to oppose Measures Q and R because they contradict our Republican principles of limited government and free-market capitalism. As a party that professes free-market principles and individual responsibility, we must oppose measures that raise taxes to provide corporate handouts.
Movie theaters, bowling alleys, comedy clubs, bars, restaurants--all compete with the Kings for the same entertainment dollars in every family’s budget. Subsidizing a new arena punishes these local businesses twice.
First, these businesses lose revenue from a higher tax burden. Then, the businesses’ tax dollars are put to work against them by subsidizing their competitor’s new venue.
Additionally, no economic study has proven that sports arenas make a positive economic contribution to their region. Respected economist Allen Sanderson of the University of Chicago said it best: “If you want to inject money into a local economy, it would be better to drop it from a helicopter than invest in a new ballpark.”
Any claim of an economic benefit relies on the Kings remaining here in Sacramento--a guarantee Measures Q and R never make. As evidenced by the Maloofs’ departure from negotiations over parking revenue and the arena’s location, Sacramento faces a very real possibility that the county could build a new arena with no professional basketball team to play in it. Just as the Kings have thrived in competition, so too will Sacramento’s economy--if left to a competitive and free market.

Proposition 87

2006-09-25T21:54:00.000-07:00

PROPOSTION 87

Proposition 87 is a tax on oil that is produced in California to be used to reduce oil and gasoline usage by 25% through a combination of research and production incentives for alternative energy, alternative energy vehicles, energy efficient technologies, and for education and training. According to its proponents, it is supposed to raise $4 billion dollars over the next 10 years.
Although alternative energy development is a crucial component of a rational energy policy, there are several problems with this proposition. The first is that it intends to amend the state constitution with what is essentially a tax and a spending program. Constitutions are supposed to be used to codify the basic rules under which a society operates. Solidifying a transitory item (the necessity of budget items are inherently transitory) in a constitution risks not only solidifying a mistake, but also virtually ensures that this item will continue to exist long after its usefulness has been exhausted.
The second problem is the fact that a new bureaucracy is being created without going through the give and take of political negotiations. The Department of Homeland Security, for all of its faults, was created by a legislative process. By putting a proposition to the voters which has not gone through the process, we risk entrenching a bureaucracy, the operating rules of which, have not been sufficiently vetted.
The third reservation that I have concerns the prohibition on passing on the costs of the tax to California consumers. The prohibition to do this acts effectively as a price control. For example, there is no difference from the producer’s perspective whether he charges, say $2.65 per gallon of gasoline and eats a $.15/gallon tax (I am making up the tax rate for purposes of the example), or whether the government mandates that the producer charge $.15 below the current market price (assuming the price is $2.65/gallon). The economic effects of this tax will be similar to a price control, which is that producers will tend to produce less than consumers will demand at a given market price. Does this mean that we will have 70’s style gas lines if this tax passes? Absolutely not! However, we may see another pernicious economic effect: fewer jobs in California.
This could happen due to the fact that this tax is assessed on a per barrel basis (from California oil production). At this time, oil prices are as high as they are due to a confluence of several historical factors the specific combination of which is unlikely to be repeated. This combination is the rise of oil consumption in India and China as those economies begin to emerge, the high level of geopolitical instability, the fact that much of the oil production from the Canadian tar pits (and some other hard to reach sources of oil) have not yet come fully online, as well as the increased level of exploratory drilling has not yet produced results that can come online, among other reasons. Although some of these factors (the economic development in India and China) are more permanent, the fact that these economies are slowing should lead to a softening in prices over the short term. In the longer term, a stabilizing of the geopolitical situation, along with the more fully exploited alternative sources of oil should lead to an increase in the relative supply of oil. When this happens, what is to stop the oil companies from scaling back production of California oil and substituting oil from other places (that would not be taxed under this proposition)? What would happen to some California oil workers if this happened? Assuming this scenario played out, how difficult would this situation be to undo if it required the passing of a constitutional amendment? These concerns lead me to advocate a “NO” vote on this proposition.

Monthly Mixer!!!

2006-09-01T15:59:00.000-07:00

It's Party Time!

Come hang out with the best Party in Sacramento!

Where: Gallagher's Irish Pub
Location: 1201 K St
When: September 7th
Time: 5:30pm - 7:00pm

Our fearless leader has promised to do a traditional Irish Car Bomb in honor of the event!

Any questions? Write yrfs@writeme.com and one of our amazing board members will respond to you as soon as possible!