GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

A budget too good to be true

Senate Democrats pushed through a $2.9-trillion budget blueprint this week to expand the children’s health-insurance program by $50 billion over the next five years, add more money to education and veterans’ benefits, and increase overall discretionary spending by nine percent in FY 2008. Democrats claim it can be done without cutting defense (or a single federal program for that matter), raising taxes or increasing the deficit. In fact, they believe that this budgetary sleight of hand will actually balance the federal budget by 2012.

While the budget does extend the Bush tax cut for middle-income Americans, the expanded child-income credit and the ten-percent tax bracket, it completely ignores the inevitable expansion of the Bill Clinton’s stealthy 1993 Alternative Minimum Tax rate hikes (due to hit 23 million Americans next year) and it fails to enact fiscal belt-tightening in any way. Additional money to pay for the plan is supposed to come from so-called “reserve funds,” which as of yet do not exist.

Although they have not admitted as much openly, it is certain that Democrats will fill those reserve funds with fresh revenue from across-the-board tax hikes on business, higher-income Americans and a renewed death tax, which will return in 2011 at more than 50 percent. All told, tax increases in this bill will be nearly $400 billion over five years—a figure far higher than the then-record $240-billion tax hike by tax-and-spend Democrats circa 1993. Need we mention the potentially devastating economic impact of this fiscal piracy?

Of course, Democrats employ the “ignore the problem and it will go away” approach to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Currently, there is no political will in Congress to actually do something about runaway spending, especially after the pounding President Bush took over his minor Social Security reform plan.

Taxpayer Bill of Rights

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) has long been a staunch advocate of responsible government spending. As Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, he has renewed the call for a Taxpayer Bill of Rights, challenging the denizens of Capitol Hill to embrace it before the federal government drives us into a fiscal disaster. Some of its basic points are: 1) Taxpayers have a right to have a federal government that does not grow beyond their ability to pay for it; 2) taxpayers have a right to receive back each dollar that they entrust to the government for their retirement; 3) taxpayers have a right to expect the government to balance the budget without having their taxes raised; and 4) taxpayers have a right to a simple, fair tax code they can understand.

Embracing the ideas that a balanced federal budget means less spending, not more taxes, and that taxpayers have the right to a simplified tax code seems antagonistic to liberals, but to those of us that live in the real world and advocate constitutional government, such rights are merely commonsensical.

Earmark hide and seek

The Library of Congress’ Congressional Research Service (CRS) has summarily decided to no longer respond to congressional requests for information on earmarks. The stated reason? Since the House and Senate appropriations committees and the White House Office of Management and Budget are now following the earmark process, CRS no longer needs to play a role. In other words, the CRS is putting the fox in charge of the hen house. What seems to be lost on CRS Director Daniel Mulhollan is the fact that without his nonpartisan office’s reports, citizens cannot be sure that earmarks are not in fact being added secretly to federal spending. If these reports are not even going to be conducted, then what, pray tell, is the purpose of this $100-million agency? Perhaps to help members of Congress feel better about their spendthrift ways. Fortunately, Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Jim DeMint (R-SC) are not inclined to take Mulhollan’s excuses lying down.

Thompson surges in polls… but will he run?

Last week, our own Mark Alexander profiled Patriot friend and former Senator Fred Thompson and his possible presidential candidacy. Patriot readers responded with a resounding “Run Fred, Run!” and Thompson has leapt out into third place in some polls—and he’s not even running… yet. We rarely report on polls, nor do we give this one too much weight so early in the game, but we are fascinated at the reaction a potential Thompson run has received. He garnered 13 percent in the latest Gallup Poll, behind Rudy Giuliani’s 31 percent and John McCain’s 22 percent; most of his support came from Giuliani’s previous 44 percent. We fully expect that as conservatives learn more about Giuliani and McCain, their numbers will head downward. Mitt Romney, another touted “front runner,” only managed three percent—within the margin of error of a big fat zero. We suspect Thompson would soon become the front-runner should he join the race.

Remember the ‘Friends of Bill’? That was nothing

Hillary in ‘08 Clinton received a big endorsement this week from Tom Vilsack. “Tom who?” you may ask. He’s the former governor of Iowa and an old friend of the Clintons. Vilsack, believe it or not, also was running for President for about a month and a half. His endorsement does not amount to a hill of beans except for two things: He carries weight in the Iowa caucuses, and Hillary has offered to bail him out of $400,000 in campaign debt for the favor. The Clinton campaign quickly denounced as “ridiculous” the natural charges of quid pro quo. “One thing’s got absolutely nothing to do with the other,” spokesman Phil Singer said. “They’ve known each other for years. If she weren’t running for President, she’d be doing whatever she can to help retire his debt.” Right. As The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto quips, “We’re sure Mrs. Clinton would have been happy to pay off Vilsack’s debts even if he’d endorsed Barack Obama.”

Tony Snow’s cancer returns

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow announced this week that his colon cancer has returned. Two years ago, Snow had his entire colon removed and endured six months of chemotherapy. Through it all, he maintained his good will and his good nature. Late last year, a growth was discovered near his pelvis; after tests showed that it had grown, doctors removed it on Monday. The cancer has spread to his liver, however, and this is not a good sign. It is not known when or if Snow will return to his duties at the White House, but what is known is this: Tony Snow’s wit, warmth and decency are among the rarest of attributes in our nation’s capital. Our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family.

Edwards stays in race despite wife’s cancer recurrence

“The campaign must go on” was the message of John and Elizabeth Edwards upon learning that the cancer Mrs. Edwards fought several years ago had returned. The response to the Edwards’ decision has ranged from praise for the couple’s courage to criticism that the senator has put politics above family.

Noble though this quest may be, it is our belief that America will not be well-served by a president whose attention is, as it must be, so thoroughly focused on the health and well-being of his ailing wife. We are told that Mrs. Edwards’ cancer is incurable, and should the young Edwards children be left without a mother, they certainly will not be well served by a father whose attention is, necessarily so, focused on the grueling and relentless affairs of state. Having said this, we join with all Americans in offering our prayers for Elizabeth Edwards and her family.

New & notable legislation

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) is seeking co-sponsors on his bill (H.R. 1586) to fully repeal the death tax, set to reappear in 2011.

Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) is seeking original co-sponsors on the Parent’s Right to Know Act, which would require Title 10 clinics to notify parents five days before providing contraceptives to minors.

Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM) introduced the Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act (H.R. 1640), which would provide liability protection for Americans who responsibly report suspicious activity.

NATIONAL SECURITY

President and Democrats headed for showdown

The House and Senate both passed defense-spending bills in the past week—the House with a strict deadline for withdrawal of American forces from Iraq by 31 August 2008 and the Senate with a “goal” of March 2008. President Bush has promised to veto any spending bill that contains such deadlines, and now he will get his chance. In the House, 14 Democrats defected to vote against the measure with all but two Republicans. Speaker San Fran Nan Pelosi called the vote a “victory,” which perversely means “defeat for America.” Significantly, she had to boost the $100-billion spending package with $24 billion in domestic pork to buy votes from her corruptible and cowardly colleagues. Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) defended his district’s receipt of $25 million for growing spinach: “Supporting our spinach producers is not just important for our local economy, it’s important for our national health.” Certainly no more important to our “national health” than $3.5 million for tours of the Capitol.

In the Senate, “Republicans” Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith provided the votes Democrats needed to pass their retreat bill, 51-47. Neither chamber has the votes necessary to override the President’s veto, but liberals are downright giddy with what they have accomplished. Democrats can now claim that they support the troops because they are passing a much-needed funding package; however, they are also appeasing their anti-war friends with a bill that calls for withdrawal of troops (read: surrender) by a date certain. This represents a new level of congressional meddling in military decision-making that is constitutionally assigned to the Commander in Chief.

Of course, if the Democrats truly had a spine, they would have voted to cut troop funding completely, but courage is not among their “virtues.” They have signaled to America that they will try to be all things to all people, and they have signaled to the jihadi warriors that they are the party to root for in 2008 to ensure American surrender in the long war.

Oh, and did we mention Congress recesses for Easter today? Upon returning, the two houses will have to reconcile their bills, meaning nothing will get to the President for weeks. Not sitting idly by, President Bush, for the first time in his presidency, invited the entire House GOP caucus to the White House to ensure his ensuing veto is not overridden.

On cross-examination

“Here in Washington members of both parties recognize that our most solemn responsibility is to support our troops in the war on terror. Yet… a narrow majority in [Congress] abdicated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law and brings us no closer to getting our troops the resources they need to do their job. The purpose of the emergency war-spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding. Instead, Democrats in [Congress], in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq.” —President George W. Bush

This week’s ‘Braying Jenny’ award:

“Take a deep breath, Mr. President… Calm down with the [veto] threats. There is a new Congress in town. We respect your constitutional role. We want you to respect ours… This war without end has gone on far too long, and we are here to end it.” —House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, trying to defend her deplorable actions on constitutional grounds

Progress in Iraq? Perish the thought.

The fact that life is improving for many Iraqis somehow doesn’t make it to the mainstream media’s coverage, so consider this under-reported gem from last week. Last Wednesday in Baghdad, Kurdish and Arab families gathered to celebrate the New Year holiday of Nowruz in Zawra Park, in the heart of the city. Picnic blankets were spread on the grass and boys and girls cavorted in a scene reminiscent of a spring day in parks across America. The Nowruz holiday, which is particularly popular among Kurds, is celebrated on the first day of spring and brought a brief return to normalcy in the city. If American troops are allowed to finish the job, there surely will be many more Nowruz celebrations to come.

The Iranian hostage crisis redux

As if Iran wasn’t already far enough inside the international doghouse, last Friday the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy set off an international incident a scant 24 hours before the United Nations Security Council was to vote on additional sanctions. The Iranians abducted 15 British sailors and marines conducting a boarding operation in the northern Persian Gulf. Following their standard M.O., the IRGCN encircled the two British motorboats, stuck their guns in the Brits’ faces and demanded that they follow the Iranians back to Bandar Mahshar, an IRGCN naval base not far from the Iraqi border.

The British sailors and marines, to their enormous credit, followed their Rules of Engagement and did not fire back, preventing a relatively low-level incident from spiraling into a shooting match between Iranian and Coalition forces. CENTCOM’s top concern in the region is preventing any event that Iran perceives as a U.S. attack. With two American aircraft carriers in the area, along with dozens of other Coalition ships, and more than 1,000 Iranian warships and IRGCN small boats in the vicinity, a firefight could have provided the spark to set off a full-blown war.

British officials have been demanding the immediate return of the hostages, while Iran has announced it may try the British troops for espionage. Iran has also compelled letters from the female sailor “admitting” that the Brits strayed into Iranian waters (which they didn’t). Dealing with the lunatics that run the Islamic Republic is no walk in the park, and we sincerely hope that this incident can be defused quickly and safely. It is one more reason in a long and growing list why the Iranian regime poses the single greatest danger to peace and security in the region, and why that regime must be dealt with before it gets its hands on a nuclear weapon.

Finally, while the UNSC was likely to impose new sanctions anyway, Iran did not help its own cause. The vote the next day was unanimous. While the sanctions themselves were fairly timid, merely blocking Iranian arms exports (to Hizballah, presumably) and freezing some assets, the promptness and unanimity of the new resolution was what the UNSC was aiming for. Whether Iran takes heed of the unanimous opposition it faces at the UNSC, or laughs off the latest resolution as it did UNSCR 1737 in December, remains to be seen.

The latest immigration bill

Yet another immigration bill surfaced in the House this week. Titled the Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy (STRIVE) Act, H.B. 1645 is 700 pages of giveaways to people breaking the law. Rather than first and foremost addressing the undiminished tide of illegal immigration, the bill instead forgivingly focuses on illegals already here, all while adding more bureaucracy and complexity to the system.

It includes several types of amnesty or semi-amnesty for illegal aliens who can prove they have been in the U.S. since 1 January 2006 and “takes into account the difficulties encountered by aliens in obtaining evidence of employment.” It also pumps more taxpayer money into immigration interest groups, grants illegal aliens in-state tuition at colleges and universities and funds more federal officers (though they are not likely to be used for border enforcement).

One aspect of the bill, its “touchback provision,” requires would-be amnesty-seekers to go home and then return to the U.S. legally before applying. Even the bill’s co-author, Rep. Gutierrez (D-IL) acknowledges the probable futility: “Is it going to sound somewhat absurd to some people? Certainly it will.” Illegal immigration immensely reduces respect for our system of laws, especially among our future citizens. For The Patriot’s stand on immigration policy, link to Mark Alexander’s essay, “Insanity on bordering.”

BUSINESS & ECONOMY

Inflating the numbers of uninsured

A recent report by the U.S. Census Bureau concludes that nearly two million fewer Americans are uninsured than previously thought, with the number standing at 44.8 million as opposed to 46.6. Even the revised data could be overestimating the actual uninsured population by as much as 23 million. For instance, most uninsured remain so only temporarily; the Census Bureau’s numbers assume the opposite.

Nevertheless, the inflated numbers provide fodder for political promises to rescue the uninsured, particularly children. Fulfilling these pledges, however, carries a high price. The Council on Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI) estimates that congressional healthcare mandates, which have become ever more burdensome over the last 40 years, have inflated the costs of coverage by as much as 50 percent.

In its push to insure children, however, House Democrats have suggested sacrificing seniors by cutting payments to Medicare managed-care plans for the elderly to provide coverage for uninsured children. Yet, the real issue is not a values choice between young and old but the underlying assumption that government is responsible for insuring Americans. When we rely on Big Brother to take care of us, we always get a raw deal.

World ends, Democrats’ constituency hardest hit

The Washington Post recently reported on the recent death of a 12-year-old boy from a tooth infection that spread to his brain. The Post attributes his death to racial and socioeconomic disparities in access to healthcare. Yet his tragic death was not because he was of particular ethnicity or socioeconomic status. He died because he was a victim of government healthcare.

Due to the federal government’s outrageously low reimbursement rates and bureaucratic labyrinth, the boy’s family was unable to find a dentist that would accept the government coverage. The number of medical providers who refuse Medicare or Medicaid patients is far greater than most consumers realize, because many physicians don’t like being handcuffed by excessive government bureaucracy and artificially low government-reimbursement rates that cause a financial loss on nearly every medical procedure.

Hillary Clinton has promised to bring her government healthcare program to the unwashed masses. If she or other liberals are successful in socializing healthcare, look for more Americans to suffer and die from the tender mercies of a massive government bureaucracy.

Supreme Court takes MSRP case

Who should decide how much you pay for clothes and other retail goods? A case argued this week before the U.S. Supreme Court may hold the answer.

At issue is whether manufacturers may impose a price floor on retailers, under which they may not sell an item, or whether retailers may offer prices below the manufacturer’s suggested retail price. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the retailer’s right to offer discounted prices, based on a 1911 Supreme Court ruling that forbids manufacturers from requiring retailers to sell their products at a minimum price. That case found such price conditions to be so anti-competitive as to be violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Many consumer groups advocate retaining this rule, fearing its abolition would lead to price increases, though there would still be interbrand competition, if not intrabrand.

Business groups, however, joined by the White House, advocate more flexibility, and support the manufacturer’s objection to these restrictions on how it may market its product. The manufacturer contends that rather than a per se finding of anti-competitiveness, such price minima should be subjected to the “rule of reason,” and struck down only if it actually does inhibit competition. The lower court noted several cases where the Supreme Court used the per se approach, but concluded only the high court itself had authority to overrule its own precedent.

The debate is as much about economic policy as it is about law. Must government regulate business contracts (by barring price conditions) to achieve low prices, or will the competitive nature of the free market and its attendant profit incentives also achieve that result? The Court will announce its opinion by early July.

Government messes with tuition again

A proposal that would cut at least $17 billion in government subsidies to college-loan lenders is one of numerous steps that Congress is considering against ever-increasing tuition costs. Private lenders such as SLM Corp. (Sallie Mae) are not happy: “It’s going to hurt schools. It’s going to hurt students,” said SLM spokesman Tom Joyce. Considering that SLM controls approximately 40 percent of the college loan sector, there is much more on the line than student welfare. Academia, after all, is a business, and a profitable one at that.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has recently accused the industry of cutting inappropriate deals with clients in order to promote business. Further, students who call their potential colleges asking for financial-aid assistance may actually, without ever knowing it, be talking with employees of a private lender’s call center. Such behind-the-scenes activity has Congress also considering the forced disclosure of the relationships between colleges and private lenders.

Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) seems to be a lone voice of reason on the Senate’s education committee (an oxymoron if ever there was one). Rather than just cutting student-loan interest rates or increasing the amount of government grants, Enzi wants to “take a close look at the hidden costs” that are driving up tuition prices.

Actually, those hidden costs are glaringly clear: As long as the government continues to subsidize education, colleges will have no reason to curb costs.

CULTURE

Equal Rights Amendment resurrected

Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) together with New York Demo Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Jerold Nadler have moved to reintroduce the feminist-inspired Equal Rights Amendment, citing that gender discrimination still exists in the United States despite the widespread gains made by women since the ERA first tanked more than two decades ago.

The ERA states simply, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” First introduced in 1923, the proposed constitutional amendment cleared both chambers of Congress by the requisite two thirds in 1972, but did not clear the 38 state legislatures needed for passage, even with Congress extending its expiration by three years. Its liberal supporters now believe that the ERA still needs to be accepted by only three states, despite its being pulled from the books in 1982. They cite as precedent the Madison Amendment, which affects congressional pay raises and became the 27th Amendment in 1997 after clearing Congress 200 years earlier. The court battle over this interpretation could last for years.

What purpose does passage of the ERA now serve? There are numerous federal and state laws on the books that prevent discrimination against women in virtually every area of society. The outcome, as Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly has noted time and again, will make women eligible for the draft and it will end preferential treatment in public services (read: unisex bathrooms). It could also lead to taxpayer funding for abortion on demand and will likely compel courts to accept same-sex marriage. To which we in our humble editorial shop say, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Supreme Court to decide on ‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus’

The free speech case of “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” (AKA Morse v. Fredericks) has put the nine robed dignitaries of our nation’s High Court in a fuddle. In 2002, Joseph Fredericks of Juneau, Alaska, a high-school senior, was looking for attention. He got it. During an Olympic parade, Fredericks unfurled a banner that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” across from his school’s entrance. The school principal, Deborah Morse, made him take down the banner and later suspended him. Lest you think that Morse took issue with Jesus, it was the bong that concerned her for its purported undermining of the school’s anti-drug policy. Fast-forward five years, and here we are with a First Amendment case.

Given the Court’s history of contradictory decisions, which precedent will it choose to follow? Will it be Tinker v. Des Moines, in which the Court stated that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” thus ruling in favor of two students who had worn anti-war armbands in violation of a no-armband school policy? Or will the Court choose the cases of Kuhlmeier and Fraser, which upheld a school’s right to prevent certain student speech?

Instead of providing founded bases for present and future decisions, the Court’s long history of layered lawmaking has led to mass judicial confusion. Indeed, Bong’s final fate is anyone’s guess and depends entirely on which precedent the Court relies upon to support yet another legal dictum. Here we reflect on the simplicity of former times, when the Court’s job was limited to constitutional interpretation, and lawmaking was left in the hands of, well, lawmakers.

’Indoctrinate U’ exposes academic oppression

Filmmaker Evan Coyne Maloney is making a documentary called “Indoctrinate U” that aims to shed more light on the lack of intellectual freedom on America’s college campuses. “What most of us don’t know,” Maloney says, “is that American college students surrender their rights to free thought and free speech the minute they set foot on campus.” After more than two years of investigative work, Maloney details “jaw-dropping incidents of political persecution” of students and professors at more than 20 schools nationwide, from Ivy League to community college.

As a student at Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, Maloney noticed that “from the first day you set foot on campus, the notions of tolerance and diversity were drilled into your head, but there wasn’t a lot of tolerance for diverse points of view.” We’re shocked! Everything from students being harassed for posting fliers to conservative speakers having food and insults thrown at them occurs at the hands of “tolerant” liberals, who think the color of your skin and your anatomy are all you need for diversity.

FBI study shows truth about crime and guns

The FBI recently concluded a five-year study on the ineffectiveness of gun restrictions at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. The study, called “Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers,” looked at 40 incidents involving attacks using guns (some were deadly) on police officers. Contrary to Brady Campaign propaganda, only one of these guns was obtained legally. Gun shows, a hated target of the gun-grabbers, accounted for exactly zero. Gosh, are we ever confused; we thought gun laws would reduce gun violence! Perhaps such laws would reduce violence, if criminals obeyed the law, but then they wouldn’t be criminals, would they?

And last…

The President addressed the 63rd annual Radio and Television Correspondents’ Association dinner Wednesday night, with his hallmark self-deprecating humor. He thanked the Association for providing dinner and quipped, “I’d like to thank Senator Webb for providing security.” He addressed the firing of eight U.S. attorneys: “I have to admit we really blew the way we let those attorneys go. You know you’ve botched it when people sympathize with lawyers.” And he had a zinger ready for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “Speaking of subpoenas, it’s good to see Speaker Pelosi tonight. Some have wondered how the two of us would get along. Some say she’s bossy, she’s opinionated, she’s not to be crossed,” he said. “Hey, I get along with my mother.” Pelosi was not amused.

The President also spoke of what he’ll do after his second term ends: “President Clinton, of course, wrote a very successful presidential memoir, with 10,000 pages or something. I’m thinking of something really fun and creative for mine. You know, maybe a pop-up book.” As for how this year has been different from last year, the President said: “A year ago my approval rating was in the 30s, my nominee for the Supreme Court had just withdrawn and my Vice President had shot someone.” Allowing a pause, he concluded, “Ah, those were the good old days.”

Veritas vos Liberabit—Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for The Patriot’s editors and staff. (Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families—especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who have died in defense of American liberty, while prosecuting the war with Jihadistan.)