January 15-16, 2009
Jan 15 04:06 He's Kidding, Right??? Jan 15 11:47 Has Geithner's Ship Sailed??? Jan 15 12:48 The Coleman-Franken Recount Trainwreck? Jan 15 18:44 Strengthening Families, Job Creation High Priorities for Gov. Pawlenty Jan 16 03:40 Speaker Kelliher Says Cutting Taxes Makes Deficit Worse Jan 16 04:44 President Bush's Final Address To Nation A Smash Jan 16 11:24 Sen. Clark's Take on SoS Address Jan 16 14:26 When the Going Gets Tough, The Tough...Adjourn?
He's Kidding, Right???
Former Rep. Tom Davis, (R-VA), has written an op-ed charting the GOP's pathway back to the majority. In other words, the man who helped bring about the GOP's demise is now counselling us on how to regain what he helped lose. Here's one of his recommendations:
Second, remind ourselves the first principle of conservatism is not tax cuts or free trade or even smaller government. It is prudence, and prudence should be our guide. Prudence dictates we take seriously the concerns of those who elect us and tailor our policy proposals to counter the government-mandate-heavy ideas bound to emerge from the other side.The first principle of conservatism is liberty. That can't be achieved with a government that isn't limited. A government that is too big limits liberty. It's that simple.
I don't recall Rep. Davis complaining about the amount of earmarks in the Transportation Bill. I don't recall Rep. Davis voting against oversized budget bills.
Here's something else that Rep. Davis said that's worth examining:
Prudence dictates we build on the No Child Left Behind Act and get serious about education reform. Americans demand top-notch schools, and it is our constitutional duty to ensure this happens. Yes, constitutional. We've reached an age where we can't, in practice, provide for the common defense or compete economically without an educated citizenry. We should maximize local control,so long as local control is working. We need to measure, and we need to see that failure is addressed. Remember, it's about the students, not the institutions.This is dangerous thinking. The United States Constitution doesn't anticipate education being a federal responsibility. In fact, the Tenth Amendment implies that it shouldn't a federal responsibility because it isn't among the enumerated responsibilities listed in the US Constitution. That's the concept of federalism. I'd be surprised if Rep. Davis is vaguely familiar with that concept.
Without even realizing it, Rep. Davis displays a centralized government mindset. For example, Minnesota's constitution mandates that state government provide for education funding. While control isn't as distant as the federal government, it isn't local, either. It's best described as in between control. It's just distant enough to take many education issues away from local school boards.
The fact that a state's constitution talks about its responsibilities necessarily means that the federal government wasn't assigned responsibility for it.
Here's another thing that Rep. Davis said that's worth examining:
With the heavy lifting out of the way, we indulged in more trivial pursuits, and this led to trouble. We talked to ourselves and not to voters. We became more concerned with stem cell policy than economic policy, and with prayer in schools rather than balance in our public budgets and priorities. Not so long ago, it was easy to paint the Democrats as the party of extremists. Now, they say we're extremists, and voters agree.What really happened wasn't that we only talked with other Republicans or that we indulged various interest groups. What really happened was that Republicans serving in Washington didn't listen to people living outside Washington. Had they listened, they wouldn't have gotten on the wrong side of the immigration issue. If they'd listened, they wouldn't have gotten on the wrong side of the bailout issue.
To be clear, I'm talking about the bailout of the auto industry.
The truth is that the GOP started taking the approach that it knew what was best. That led legislators in key positions of power to ignore We The People. It's one thing to take a constituent's solutions with a grain of salt. It's another to ignore things that We The People have identified as problems or worries.
Finally, the thing that's hurt the GOP the most is that they haven't talked about problems in terms that make things personal. For instance, DC-based Republicans didn't talk about health care reform as part of making small businesses profitable. DC-based Republicans didn't explain that the PATRIOT Act was passed so that the intelligence community could share information it gathered with law enforcement.
I'll bet that it wasn't explained, outside the Right Blogosphere at least, that the intelligence community couldn't share information it gathered with law enforcement because of something now nicknamed the Gorelick Wall.
We stopped making the most compelling arguments for our policies. We got complacent. Once that started, we thought we'd forever be the majority party.
Now it's time to rebuild. Rep. Davis is welcome to help in the rebuilding. It's just that he doesn't have credibility on the issue of party building.
Posted Thursday, January 15, 2009 4:08 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 15-Jan-09 05:16 AM
Or, unfortunately, Rep. Davis is not communicating effectively. Reading between the lines between the lines, I can see where he has something of a point. You express it much more clearly, that we have to, as "A. Friend" from the movie "Disclosure" urges, "Solve the Problem." It does no good to talk about ideology, or to condemn the other side, or get sidetracked by their devilish dirty diatribes. You have to connect with the people and speak common sense to common knowledge. All else is vanity.
Has Geithner's Ship Sailed???
Praise for Obama's picking Timothy Geithner to be our next Treasury Secretary was abundant. Most people rightly thought that he'd sail through confirmation. It now appears that Mr. Geithner's ship might have sailed . NRO's Byron York had this to say about Mr. Geithner's troubles:
Documents released by the Senate Finance Committee strongly suggest that Geithner knew, or should have known, what he was doing when he did not pay self-employment taxes in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. After his failure to pay was discovered, first by the IRS and later during the vetting process, Geithner paid the federal government a total of $42,702 in taxes and interest.The NYTimes' Caucus Blog reports this as Geithner's initial explanation :
The IMF did not withhold state and federal income taxes or self-employment taxes, Social Security and Medicare, from its employees' paychecks. But the IMF took great care to explain to those employees, in detail and frequently, what their tax responsibilities were. First, each employee was given the IMF Employee Tax Manual. Then, employees were given quarterly wage statements for the specific purpose of calculating taxes. Then, they were given year-end wage statements. And then, each IMF employee was required to file what was known as an Annual Tax Allowance Request. Geithner received all those documents.
The tax allowance has turned out to be a key part of the Geithner situation. This is how it worked. IMF employees were expected to pay their taxes out of their own money. But the IMF then gave them an extra allowance, known as a "gross-up," to cover those tax payments. This was done in the Annual Tax Allowance Request, in which the employee filled out some basic information, marital status, dependent children, etc., and the IMF then estimated the amount of taxes the employee would owe and gave the employee a corresponding allowance.
At the end of the tax allowance form were the words, "I hereby certify that all the information contained herein is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I will pay the taxes for which I have received tax allowance payments from the Fund." Geithner signed the form. He accepted the allowance payment. He didn't pay the tax. For several years in a row.
From 2001 until 2004, when he received his final payments from the I.M.F., Mr. Geithner paid his state and federal income taxes but did not pay self-employment payroll taxes. The I.M.F., as an international organization, does not withhold U.S. payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare from its American employees' paychecks, so they are required to pay the roughly 15 percent tax on their own. The Obama transition is calling his mistake a common error for American employees of the I.M.F.Team Obama's explanation is understandable. It might be true that "American employees of the I.M.F." have made this mistake, though I doubt it. Considering the fact that he was paid an allowance for paying the various taxes and considering the fact that he signed a document that said that he was responsible for paying his taxes, Mr. Geithner's explanation is looking like a dishonest answer.
Yesterday, Harry Reid said that this flap over not paying taxes wouldn't derail Mr. Geithner's confirmation. To be fair to Sen. Reid, he said that before York's reporting of this story. I can't imagine that it's inconsequential that the Treasury Secretary, who oversees the activities of the IRS, (a) didn't pay his taxes for a three year period and (b) signed a document saying that he was responsible for paying payroll and income taxes.
That's why I'm thinking that Mr. Geithner's ship has sailed. That's why I'm thinking his nomination will be withdrawn. President-Elect Obama would be doing the right thing to withdraw Mr. Geithner's nomination. Let's hope President-Elect Obama does the right thing.
Posted Thursday, January 15, 2009 11:51 AM
Comment 1 by Trace Peternes at 24-Mar-09 03:04 PM
Obama would never have done this soft tyranny had he not seen the bottom dropping out of this poll numbers.
The Coleman-Franken Recount Trainwreck?
Most political junkies here in Minnesota initially had positive reactions to the physical recount in the Coleman-Franken race. Later, they started thinking of it as the battle over who could question the validity of their opponent's votes. Still later, they saw the inconsistencies in the Canvassing Board's rulings. Now we're heading for the election contest phase. Michael Stokes Paulsen has written an op-ed in this morning's WSJ in which he says that the recount isn't constitutional. Here's his explanation why it isn't constitutional:
This is Florida 2000 all over again, but with colder weather. Like that fiasco, Minnesota's muck of a process violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, the controlling Supreme Court decision is none other than Bush v. Gore.To say that each ballot hasn't been treated uniformly is understatement. One of Mark Ritchie's responsibilities as Minnesota's SecState is to issue clear guidelines for each step of the recount. That didn't happen. It wouldn't be right to put all the blame on Mr. Ritchie's shoulders, though.
Remember Florida? Local officials conducting recounts could not decide what counted as a legal vote. Hanging chads? Dimpled chads? Should "undervotes" count (where a machine failed to read an incompletely-punched card)? What about "overvotes" (where voters punched more than one hole)? Different counties used different standards; different precincts within counties were inconsistent . (editor: Sound familiar?)
The Florida Supreme Court intervened and made things worse, ordering a statewide recount of some types of rejected ballots but not others. It specified no standards for what should count as a valid vote, leaving the judgment to each county. And it ordered partial recounts already conducted in some counties (but not others) included in the final tabulation. The result was chaos.
By a vote of 7-2, Bush v. Gore (2000) ruled that Florida's recount violated the principle that all votes must be treated uniformly. Applying precedents dating to the 1960s, the Court found that the Equal Protection Clause meant that ballots must be treated so as to give every vote equal weight. A state may not, by "arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another." Florida's lack of standards produced "unequal evaluation of ballots in several respects." The state's supreme court "ratified this uneven treatment" and created more of its own, and was unconstitutional.
Part of the blame for this mess is the court's ruling that essentially gave each campaign veto power over which absentee ballots should be recounted and which shouldn't. That's absurd considering the clarity of Minnesota's election laws concerning absentee ballots. There's four things by which an absentee ballot could be rejected. That's where the phrase fifth pile originated from.
The goal of the courts should be to bring clarity to the problems it's confronted with. In this situation, the Canvassing Board should've followed the court's ruling by doing everything legally permissable to to eliminate the possibility of partisan chicanery. It didn't do that. The ballots that Franken's attorneys rejected for fear that they might favor Sen. Coleman will now be ruled upon by the courts.
Though I'm not an attorney, I've got to believe that the courts will rule that the ballots that Franken's attorneys improperly rejected will get counted. I also suspect that the contradictory rulings on whether to count physical ballots or count the tape produced by the scanning equipment will be resolved. If the Minnesota courts don't get that right, SCOTUS will get it right.
You can't count votes if there isn't physical proof in the form of a physical ballot. That isn't just opinion. That's Minnesota precedent.
Consider the inconsistencies: One county "found" 100 new votes for Mr. Franken, due to an asserted clerical error. Decision? Add them. Ramsey County (St. Paul) ended up with 177 more votes than were recorded election day. Decision? Count them. Hennepin County (Minneapolis, where I voted, once, to my knowledge) came up with 133 fewer votes than were recorded by the machines. Decision? Go with the machines' tally. All told, the recount in 25 precincts ended up producing more votes than voters who signed in that day.This is a legal mess. Because of the total lack of coherence in the court's rulings, it's also a procedural mess.
Then there's Minnesota's (first, so far) state Supreme Court decision, Coleman v. Ritchie, decided by a vote of 3-2 on Dec. 18. (Two justices recused themselves because they were members of the state canvassing board.) While not as bad as Florida's interventions, the Minnesota Supreme Court ordered local boards to count some previously excluded absentee ballots but not others. Astonishingly, the court left the decision as to which votes to count to the two competing campaigns and forbade local election officials to correct errors on their own.
Eventually, the courts will bring clarity to the various issues raised during the recount. Once the courts clarify things, the final, accurate recount will happen.
This is only speculation on my behalf but, based on Franken's behavior over the last week, it's clear that Franken realizes that he isn't sitting in a great position. I suspect that he realizes that there's a real chance he could lose the race.
Let's be clear about something important here: If the courts rule according to the existing laws and precedents, the actual ballots will determine who the winner is. Neither Franken or Sen. Coleman will be able to say that the courts stole the election from them.
That's because all properly cast ballots will have been counted.
That's the only benchmark that's important in clearing up this mess.
Posted Thursday, January 15, 2009 12:52 PM
Comment 1 by Ben Withers at 16-Jan-09 10:15 AM
The WSJ has for a very long time been a conservative leaning publication, but widely respected nonetheless. However, since Rupert Murdoch's purchase of the paper, it's reputation has been in free fall as the editorial section has morphed from philosophically conservative to mindless republican talking part drivel, lack of research, and outright falsehoods. Mr. Paulsen's editorial is a classic example of someone who writes for policitical purposes in a situation where they can not be unaware of the lies and distortions they are writing. Shame on the Wall Street Journal for abandoning journalism and becoming a partisan organ of the Republican party.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 16-Jan-09 11:32 AM
Michael Paulsen teaches constitutional law at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, MN. That makes him an expert on subjects like the constitutionality of this recount.
It's time that left-leaning people understood that the name Rupert Murdoch isn't synonymous with sloppy journalism.
I'd suggest that people base their opinions on the merits & facts of the article they've read, not on who's published the article.
Comment 3 by Dan at 16-Jan-09 12:12 PM
Frankly, I think this article is a lot of BS. Richie set out clear standards for counting votes. However the counties didn't follow the procedure, or in some cases, understand it. You make the statement that Franken excluded Coleman votes? That is a stupid arguement. Franken doesn't decide what votes are excluded. The Canvassing Board did. However, the Coleman campaign challenged more votes than the Franken campaign, so wouldn't that mean Coleman tried to get Franken votes excluded? Most importantly, Frnaken, early in th recount effort wanted to make sure ALL properly cast votes were counted. Coleman did not. Franken did not know these votes favored him, he just wanted all properly cast votes to count. You are far too biased.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 16-Jan-09 12:27 PM
You make the statement that Franken excluded Coleman votes? That is a stupid arguement. Franken doesn't decide what votes are excluded.
His attorneys most certainly did veto which improperly rejected absentee ballots would be rejected. In fact, a friend of mine watched as a Franken attorney rejected his fiance's absentee ballot WHICH HE HAD SIGNED!!!
And you have the audacity to tell me that this didn't happen? I'd suggest that you research things better next time.
Strengthening Families, Job Creation High Priorities for Gov. Pawlenty
Today, Gov. Tim Pawlenty delivered his State of the State Address. His speech focused on eliminating the current deficit, creating jobs and re-inventing government. His greatest emphasis, though, was on job creation. The cornerstone of Gov. Pawlenty's job creation plan is lowering Minnesota's business tax rate. That's one of the things that won't sit well with the DFL.
As part of his Job Recovery Act, Gov. Pawlenty proposed cutting "Minnesota's business tax rate in half, from the current 9.8 percent business tax rate to 4.8 percent over the next 6 years." Telling a DFL legislator that the way to create jobs is by cutting the marginal tax rates for businesses by 50 percent is like flashing a wooden stake in front of a vampire. They surely won't like this section of his speech either:
Imagine a typical Minnesota kitchen table. A mom and dad have just tucked the kids into bed with a kiss and a prayer, and they come back to the table to confront economic reality.Gov. Pawlenty's job growth agenda is aggressive in nature. Here's another part of his job growth agenda that's sure to get alot of attention:
On the table are bills, notices and a notepad with a budget that's tighter than it's ever been. Hope and fear are also at the table.
How do we pay these bills? How do we fix the car? How do we pay this mortgage? How are we going to afford college or even retire someday?
The same emotions, concerns and urgency at that Minnesota kitchen table must be at all the tables we sit at here at the Capitol, the budget hearing table, the agency tables, and the negotiating tables.
And this day, on behalf of Minnesotans sitting at their kitchen tables, I ask each member of the legislature:
Please don't add to their burden by increasing their bill from government.
Please don't take more of their hard earned money.
Please don't raise their taxes.
The couple at the kitchen table begin by setting priorities. What's most important? What can we afford? What do we give up? How can we do things differently? We need to ask and answer the very same questions.
The budget I'll be proposing in just a couple of weeks will rely on significant reductions in state spending, as well as using other resources currently available. The details of that budget will be presented and debated fully very soon. Today, I'm going to focus on the strategic steps Minnesota needs to take to prepare for the future.
These days, lack of financing is a major barrier to small business success. To jump start small business job creation, I've proposed a 50 million dollar package of tax credits that will create over 100 million dollars in new investments.There can be no mistaking Gov. Pawlenty's plan with the albatross being cobbled together in our nation's capitol. Gov. Pawlenty's investments will actually spur increased entrepreneurial activity. The DC stimulus package just spends alot of money on the special interest's wish lists.
In addition, I'm proposing a 25 percent refundable tax credit for small business owners that re-invest in their business quickly in order to stimulate our economy.
I'm also proposing a capital gains exemption for qualifying investments in small Minnesota businesses. This will encourage investment in Main Street and help grow jobs.
And here's another thing, companies shouldn't have to do a bunch of paperwork so they can qualify for a bureaucratic rebate from the sales tax they pay on equipment. Let's just give them a 100 percent exemption from the sales tax ; right away when they buy the equipment.
The best way to compare the DC stimulus package and Gov. Pawlenty's package is with a firearms metaphor. The DC package isn't focused on anything, kind of like shooting a sawed off shotgun. After pulling the trigger, there's alot of lead flying but it's flying in so many directions that you don't know what will get hit.
Gov. Pawlenty's package is the opposite. It's focused like a target rifle with an expensive telescopic sight. It's focused on giving small businesses incentives to re-invest in their company. It's focused on saving these businesses money so they hire more employees. It's focused on giving small businesses the incentive to start a job growth revolution.
This is welcome news for me. Last fall, I talked frequently about the DFL's habit of raising taxes to pay for another bonding bill which would then turn into public works projects. While there's always a need for public works projects, there's been a veritable famine for increased entrepreneurial activity for longer than I'd like to remember.
Gov. Pawlenty's job growth program will create jobs by letting small businesses keep more of their money and by giving them incentives to re-invest in their companies.
A number of legislators have told me that we "can't build a fence around Minnesota to keep jobs here", meaning that we have to give them incentives to stay here and give businesses the incentive to move here. Lowering the marginal tax rates for businesses from 9.8 percent to 4.8 percent is a fistful of incentives.
That's what happens when politicians take a focused approach to dealing with the economy.
Originally posted Thursday, January 15, 2009, revised 30-Jan 10:59 AM
No comments.
Speaker Kelliher Says Cutting Taxes Makes Deficit Worse
It didn't take long for the DFL to start attacking the cornerstone of Gov. Pawlenty's job creation agenda. According to Mark Brunswick's article , the DFL's criticism started immediately after the speech:
"We were looking toward the governor to make concrete solutions to how we are going to solve this very mammoth problem together," Kelliher said. "The governor's answer was to actually make the problem worse. Let's be clear, some Minnesotans are going to pay for that spending."King's prediction was fulfilled pretty quickly:
I suspect that the offer to cut corporate marginal tax rates is going to fall on deaf DFL ears. (I heard from one reporter that the DFL is already labeling the speech a billion-dollar addition to the deficit.) I am looking forward to the opening Pogemiller Yell. (You know that "Please don't tax me" line got a little color in Pogie's cheeks.)While "the opening Pogemiller Yell" hasn't been heard in public...yet, rest assured that Gov. Pawlenty's proposal put a bunch of color in Pogie's cheeks. Rest assured, too, that Gov. Pawlenty's proposal will get the interest of Minnesota's small business commuity and the people those businesses employ.
Most importantly, cutting the business tax rate will strengthen job growth over the long term. It might even attract businesses from other states. As an added bonus, it's quite possible that cutting taxes will boost Minnesota's revenues fairly quickly. Most importantly, helping businesses profit is the best way to stabilize Minnesota's economy.
Unfortunately, the DFL is totally opposed to cutting taxes. The DFL's job growth plan is simpler:
DFLers are pinning much of their hope for short-term relief on a national stimulus package coming out of Washington , suggesting the money can be used to fund infrastructure and construction projects that bring immediate job opportunities. Pawlenty said nothing about the stimulus package in his speech. Previously, while acknowledging that Minnesota sends more money to Washington than it gets back, Pawlenty has been lukewarm about the stimulus package. "That is a tool in the short-term recovery process for Minnesota's economy," Kelliher said.Wishing for the arrival of hundreds of millions of dollars from a bloated stimulus package isn't an economic plan. It's just throwing tons of money at a problem, which is what Democrats have done forever.
That isn't change I'd believe in. That's more of the same from the DFL, which I find all too easy to believe.
What's really disappointing, though not surprising, is that the DFL isn't being intellectually honest. They criticized Gov. Pawlenty and House Republicans for borrowing money to repair roads and bridges, criticizing it for putting tons of debt on the next generations' backs. If they were intellectually honest, which they aren't, they'd be equally critical of Obama's plan, especially because there doesn't seem to be any logic to it. At this point, it just appears to be their attempt to spend billions of dollars.
This calls into question the DFL's economic plans. It isn't unreasonable to think that their plan is built on the federal government's irresponsible spending plan and increasing state taxes. Where's the sustained job creation in that? What's going to help families regain their footing? What's going to help families save for retirement?
I wonder if the DFL can explain their plan. I wonder if they can tell us where the job creation and capital growth will come from. I wonder if they can explain what incentives they're giving to the job creation engines, aka small businesses, to create the jobs of the future.
I'll update you if I hear an explanation but I'm not anticipating the DFL stepping forward with a coherent explanation for their plan.
Posted Friday, January 16, 2009 3:40 AM
No comments.
President Bush's Final Address To Nation A Smash
Thursday night, I had the privilege of watching President Bush deliver his last speech as president. It was one of his finest speeches ever because he reminded people that we still live in a dangerous world. President Bush reminded us that his decisions on preventing another terrorist attack were the right decisions. Here's a portion of the speech that jumped out at me:
This evening, my thoughts return to the first night I addressed you from this house, September the 11th, 2001. That morning, terrorists took nearly 3,000 lives in the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor. I remember standing in the rubble of the World Trade Center three days later, surrounded by rescuers who had been working around the clock. I remember talking to brave souls who charged through smoke-filled corridors at the Pentagon, and to husbands and wives whose loved ones became heroes aboard Flight 93. I remember Arlene Howard, who gave me her fallen son's police shield as a reminder of all that was lost. And I still carry his badge.I wish President Bush had told us about his perspective of his presidency. Saying that, though people had returned to live normal lives, he never had that luxury. Silently, he carried the burden of knowing that his decisions were decisions that could prevent another terrorist attack. What an awesome burden for one man to bear.
As the years passed, most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before 9/11. But I never did. Every morning, I received a briefing on the threats to our nation. I vowed to do everything in my power to keep us safe.
If I had to give him a grade on preventing another terrorist attack and protecting the homeland, I'd give him an A+ without hesitation. President Bush got the Patriot Act enacted, which tore down the Gorelick Wall, which prevented the CIA from telling law enforcement about terrorists. At the time, this would've been known as connecting the dots. Now it's standard operating procedure.
President Bush instructed the NSA to start intercepting the terrorist's foreign communications, whether the communication was an email, a fax or a phone call. He instituted a program that tracked large money transfers in an attempt to cut off the terrorist's money supply.
Here's something that will be part of President Bush's legacy:
Over the past seven years, a new Department of Homeland Security has been created. The military, the intelligence community, and the FBI have been transformed. Our nation is equipped with new tools to monitor the terrorists' movements, freeze their finances, and break up their plots. And with strong allies at our side, we have taken the fight to the terrorists and those who support them. Afghanistan has gone from a nation where the Taliban harbored al Qaeda and stoned women in the streets to a young democracy that is fighting terror and encouraging girls to go to school. Iraq has gone from a brutal dictatorship and a sworn enemy of America to an Arab democracy at the heart of the Middle East and a friend of the United States.Who can forget the purple ink-stained fingers of the first Iraqis to vote in free and fair elections? Who can forget the fact that a woman was the first voter in Afghanistan? Who can forget the naysayers' predictions that Afghanistan was the place where great armies go to die only to see our military triumph?
There is legitimate debate about many of these decisions. But there can be little debate about the results. America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil. This is a tribute to those who toil night and day to keep us safe: law enforcement officers, intelligence analysts, homeland security and diplomatic personnel, and the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.
There's no justifying calling President Bush one of the great presidents in US history. It's perfectly justifiable calling President Bush an historic president. His foreign policy in the Middle East and eastern Europe was guided by a single principle:
The battles waged by our troops are part of a broader struggle between two dramatically different systems. Under one, a small band of fanatics demands total obedience to an oppressive ideology, condemns women to subservience, and marks unbelievers for murder. The other system is based on the conviction that freedom is the universal gift of Almighty God, and that liberty and justice light the path to peace.President Bush understood, much like Ronald Reagan, that people everywhere have an unquenchable thirst for liberty. This singular principlewas the driving force behind their foreign policies. President Reagan used that principle to liberate Eastern Europe from Soviet control. President Bush was guided by that principle to liberate the people oppressed by the Taliban and al Qa'ida in Afghanistan and people oppressed and tortured by Saddam and his sons Uday and Qusay.
This is the belief that gave birth to our nation. And in the long run, advancing this belief is the only practical way to protect our citizens. When people live in freedom, they do not willingly choose leaders who pursue campaigns of terror. When people have hope in the future, they will not cede their lives to violence and extremism. So around the world, America is promoting human liberty, human rights, and human dignity. We're standing with dissidents and young democracies, providing AIDS medicine to dying patients, to bring dying patients back to life, and sparing mothers and babies from malaria. And this great republic born alone in liberty is leading the world toward a new age when freedom belongs to all nations.
A decade from now, US presidents will reap the benefit of President Bush putting in place those important building blocks in the Middle East. That isn't dissimilar from how people view Harry S. Truman now that a half century has shed the light of wisdom on his decisions with regard to the Cold War.
Another thing that will add to President Bush's legacy will be the confirmation of Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. They're living proof that sane jurists still exist, though they are in short supply.
At this point, I'd like to inject something into the conversation for which the columnists haven't given President Bush credit for: his intervention in Africa, which has saved millions of lives from the ravages of AIDS. Here's how one doctor in Tanzania worded it:
Dr Ngoma in Dar es Salaam, TanzaniaHere's another testimonial to his intervention in Africa:
"I think what he's done with HIV is remarkable. The funds he pledged have touched the lives of many people; these people are my relatives, my patients and other people I know these are not statistics, this is real life. I could see these people having hope in life now because of Bush's contribution to HIV treatments they can get better now and take care of their families."
Joe in Nairobi Kenya sent thisUnder President Bush's watch, the United States took human rights and human dignity seriously. Under President Bush's watch, the United States instituted reforms to prevent corrupt governments from getting millions in aid from the United State while still finding a way to get people the medical supplies they needed.
"Dear President Bush, Thank you for speaking out for the people of Southern Sudan and Darfur when the rest of the world and many in Africa buried their heads in the sand debating about the semantics of the term genocide. Thank you for helping in the fight against Malaria and HIV-AIDS. More children in Africa will live to see their 5th birthday."
Because of President Bush's leadership, The Millenial Fund dispensed money only to countries that had reformed themselves. Those governments that refused to rid themselves from their despotic leaders didn't get the check, though the people living there got the medical supplies they needed through the work of NGO's. That's the type of innovation I can admire.
Thank You, President Bush, for getting your primary constitutional responsibility so right. Thank you for protecting us from terrorist enemies.
Posted Friday, January 16, 2009 4:59 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 17-Jan-09 07:30 PM
Goodbye to the disaster. I hope the torture policy is pursued and discredited.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 18-Jan-09 01:06 AM
Eric, That's more imaginary than real. Waterboarding isn't torture. What it is is effective. What it did is it saved lives.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 18-Jan-09 01:06 AM
Eric, That's more imaginary than real. Waterboarding isn't torture. What it is is effective. What it did is it saved lives.
Sen. Clark's Take on SoS Address
I've found some quotes from Assistant Senate Majority Leader Tarry Clark that boggle the mind. Here's the first inexplicable quote :
"I kept thinking, is there a surplus I didn't know about?" said Assistant Senate Majority Leader Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud. "Tax cuts cost money and we don't have any. I think the people of Minnesota are more aware of the crisis we face than the governor."My first reaction was "No, Tarryl, there isn't a surplus because you helped the DFL spend our budget surplus last session." My next reaction was that Tarryl was extremely disrespectful saying that Gov. Pawlenty isn't aware of the budget deficit "crisis." Gov. Pawlenty has proposed several reforms to save money for Minnesota's taxpayers.
Meanwhile, Tarryl joined with Larry Pogemiller and their DFL Senate colleagues in voting down a measure by Buffalo's Amy Koch to cut their first class postage stamp budget. Sen. Koch's plan would've saved state taxpayers an estimated $56,000 a year.
Sen. Clark, who's the politician that isn't aware of Minnesota's deficit crisis? That's a shameless statement. Her statement is that of a bitter partisan, not the statement of a leader.
Here's another statement attributed to Sen. Clark that I found puzzling:
" We heard a lot of talk about people sitting around their kitchen table, but little talk about how to help those people with things like getting jobs , educating their kids and getting health care. And we heard nothing about how the state should maximize the federal stimulus dollars to help prevent further job losses." - Sen. Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. CloudIt hasn't dawned on Sen. Clark that cutting taxes creates jobs? I'd further add that the DFL's plan of increasing taxes in this recession will kill jobs. I said in this post that the DFL's pinning their hopes on a pork-laden stimulus package and raising taxes isn't a plan. It's just their method of throwing lots of money at things without rhyme or reason.
Minnesotans deserve a plan with vision in it. Minnesotans deserve a plan that sets the right priorities. Minnesotans can't afford politicians taking a scattergun approach to solving the deficit.
Gov. Pawlenty has proposed reforms that save Minnesotans money without reducing government services. By contrast, the DFL won't cut their postage allowance.
That picture alone tells the story of who's serious about solving the deficit and who's stuck in status quo mode.
Posted Friday, January 16, 2009 1:28 PM
No comments.
When the Going Gets Tough, The Tough...Adjourn?
After his election, President-Elect Obama told congress that he wanted a stimulus bill on his desk the day after his inauguration. This fall, the DFL said that we needed a bonding bill ASAP to create or keep jobs. A week into Minnesota's legislative session, the DFL isn't showing visible signs of putting such a bonding bill together, undoubtedly because they're waiting for President-Elect Obama's pork-laden stimulus package.
After Gov. Pawlenty's State of the State Address, with the state's and the nation's economies supposedly in crisis, the DFL leadership adjourned the House and Senate until late next week to attend Barack Obama's inauguration. I certainly don't begrudge the DFL for wanting to participate in that day's festivities. What I've got problems with is their not getting more things done thus far.
It's also not just their travels to DC. That isn't the only travelling they've got planned. After they return, Gov. Pawlenty will submit his budget. Immediately following that, the DFL has announced that they'll be travelling around the state to hear 5,000 new ideas on how to fix the deficit.
Every adult who isn't comatose has seen this deficit coming for months. Why couldn't each of these DFL legislators been out and about asking these questions instead of travelling to meetings in St. Paul?
BTW, these legislators wouldn't have been collecting their $96 per day per diem. That couldn't be it, could it? They're far too altruistic, right?
I just finished participating in a blogger conference call with Senate Minority Leader Senjem, Andy Aplikowski of Residual Forces and Derek Brigham of Freedom Dogs . Andy asked my favorite question of the conference call when he asked "If they're travelling around the state asking for solutions for these problems, shouldn't we replace them with people who have the solutions?"
Everyone got a hearty laugh out from that question. Obviously, we should expect leaders to provide solutions to the important problems facing us. That indicates that the current DFL leadership team isn't leading.
They're just travelling, perhaps in search of appealing solutions.
Posted Friday, January 16, 2009 2:26 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 17-Jan-09 09:04 AM
Maybe we should tell them not to come back until they have one guaranteed to work?
