GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

News from the Swamp: Bush initiatives under fire

The Government Accountability Office issued a legal opinion last week stating that the Bush administration’s restrictions on state child-insurance programs violate federal law. After Congress’s two failed attempts to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to include middle-income children, President George W. Bush set a policy that restricts how far states can go in paying for children’s health insurance. For starters, states cannot use SCHIP to cover children with family incomes 250 percent above the poverty level. Also, children must be uninsured for 12 months before becoming eligible for the program.

The GAO opinion is in line with lawsuits by several states claiming that the federal government does not have the authority to issue such a directive. Like the liberals in Congress, the states want to have the ability to waste taxpayer money in whatever manner they choose. It’s worth noting how skewed perceptions are of government responsibility in this issue. Liberals want us to believe that it is illegal to withhold funds from this insurance program, yet it seems to have escaped everyone’s notice that nowhere in the Constitution is state-funded health insurance mentioned.

And then there’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB). President Bush’s pet domestic project is in for some changes from the Education Department, since Congress couldn’t get anything done. Among the proposed changes, states will have to calculate graduation rates uniformly, and school districts will have to do a better job of notifying low-income students of free tutoring opportunities. NCLB, aside from rising out of a cabinet-level department that shouldn’t even exist on the federal level, has been criticized from all directions for not providing the proper funding needed to carry out the program. States have also been accused of lowering standards in order to raise graduation rates. Funny how the man responsible for getting this fiasco of a program through the Senate—Ted Kennedy—hasn’t been grilled for its failure. Maybe we’re just so used to big-government programs going nowhere that we no longer have an interest in holding Democrats responsible.

In the Senate: Nominee deal looks good for Demos

A deal on judicial confirmations appears to have been hatched on Capitol Hill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has promised to confirm three appellate court nominees by Memorial Day. How generous. The trick for Republicans is to get the nominees confirmed who have been twisting in the wind the longest, rather than the ones Democrats might prefer. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is trying to secure confirmations for Robert Conrad and Steve Matthews on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Peter Keisler on the DC Circuit. Keisler was, after all, nominated to fill the seat vacated by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005.

The Wall Street Journal noted capitulation on the part of the Bush administration, however: “President Bush nominated Virginia Supreme Court Justice Steven Agee to appease Virginia Senator Jim Webb, the Democrat driving this ‘compromise,’ and Republican John Warner. The loser was well-respected Duncan Getchell, who was forced to withdraw.” President Bush also nominated Helene White, a liberal appellate judge from Michigan, to appease Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI). White is Levin’s cousin-in-law and the senator held up four appellate seats in retribution for White’s nomination being blocked by Republicans in 1997. In short, Democrats could keep their word to confirm three judges by Memorial Day. The trouble is, all three would be the Democrats’ top picks. So much for “advice and consent.”

New & notable legislation

The House Financial Services Committee voted 38-26 in favor of $15 billion in loans and grants to local governments to facilitate buying foreclosed homes. The bill is part of a larger congressional effort to fix the housing mess. The $15 billion would be dispensed to states according to their portion of nationwide foreclosures. Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) dissented, saying, “I don’t think we ought to be incentivizing foreclosure.” We think James Madison, the author of the Constitution, had a better dissent: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

By a large margin of 349-62, the House passed the so-called “Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act of 2008” (H.R. 5613). The bill bars the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from enacting rules to cut down on fraud and abuse. It also shuts down “workarounds” which various states use for the purpose of inappropriately extracting more than their fair share of matching dollars from the federal government. This amounts to legislative cover for bilking taxpayers to pay more than necessary for fraudulent claims for Medicaid claims—to the tune of billions of dollars.

In the Senate, Democrats are waving the big stick at OPEC nations, threatening to block military sales to those countries if they don’t drop oil prices. “Once again, the Democrats are barking up the wrong tree,” said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. “Arms deals are not favors that we do for friends; they are in our national strategic interests and something that we work closely with Congress on.” Not to mention that Democrats just don’t have that whole supply-and-demand thing figured out yet.

Judicial Benchmarks: The Millionaire Rule

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week in a suit brought by Jack Davis, a wealthy Democrat who tried unsuccessfully (twice, and going on a third time) to win a seat in the U.S. House by financing his own campaign. Davis is challenging McCain-Feingold’s so-called “Millionaire Rule,” which allows opponents of self-financing candidates to raise three times the normal individual-contribution amount and coordinate spending with their national party without limits, all while placing 24-hour reporting requirements on the candidate paying his own way. The candidate must report expenditures in excess of $10,000 not only to the Federal Election Commission, but also to his opponent and the opposition party within 24 hours. So, in “taking the money out of politics,” Congress essentially threw gas on the fire. Par for the course.

Justice Antonin Scalia was true to form, asking, “Do you think we should trust our incumbent senators and representatives to level the playing field for us?” We suggest that Scalia and his fellow justices take it one step further and declare McCain-Feingold unconstitutional. Absent that, the $2,300 restriction on campaign contributions should be extended to the candidates themselves, mainly to prevent another “Ross Perot” effect. That would “level the playing field.”

Campaign watch: Campaign cash update

Hillary Clinton’s victory in the Pennsylvania primary Tuesday couldn’t have come at a better time for her fundraising apparatus. According to Federal Election Committee filings submitted Sunday, Clinton had $9 million cash on hand and more than $10 million in debt during the month of March, but she turned Tuesday’s victory into a quick $3.5 million. Still, she trails Barack Obama, who reported having $42 million in the bank. He collected $41 million in donations during the month of March, while Clinton brought in only $20 million. He also outspent her in advertising and telemarketing. It’s not all about money, though. Despite Obama’s stellar fundraising performance, he has yet to seal the deal for the Democrat nomination.

Sen. John McCain raised $15.2 million during the month of March and began April with $11.6 million in the bank, which is a respectable amount considering that he has long since clinched the Republican nomination. (Notably, McCain won the Pennsylvania primary with only 71 percent of the vote. Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee secured 28 percent. Could it be… dissatisfaction among rank-and-file Republicans?) McCain also released tax returns for 2006 and 2007. He earned $320,000 in ‘06 and $420,000 in ‘07, with income from his Senate salary, book royalties, his Navy pension and Social Security. This is significantly less than either Obama ($4 million last year) or Clinton ($20 million); Clinton has her husband’s highly lucrative speech business to boost her numbers. Of course, McCain is no pauper. His wife, Cindy, draws a high salary for serving as Chairman of Hensley & Company, in addition to her multi-million dollar inheritance, but her returns were not made public.

More on Carter’s Middle East adventure

Last week, we reported on former President Jimmy Carter’s efforts to defy U.S. foreign policy openly and meet with terrorist group Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal. Coming away from his cavalier rendezvous with the sworn enemy of Israel, Carter claimed that Hamas is ready to “accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, if approved by the Palestinians and… accept the right of Israel to live as a neighbor next door in peace.” In a classic “but he promised” argument, Carter said Hamas agreed in writing not to undermine Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ attempts to broker peace with Israel. Well, there you have it. Chamberlain rides again! Where’s the ticker-tape parade? Perhaps it’s lost in Meshaal’s reiteration that Hamas will never recognize the Jewish state, his stipulation that all Palestinians worldwide (including those living in exile) would have to approve any peace referendum, and his outright rejection of Carter’s proposal of a one-month ceasefire. Now who’s been had?

On top of his colossal failure, Secretary of State Rice said this week that Carter was warned not to meet with terrorists, a warning he denies being given. Naturally. He instead blamed America and Israel for Palestinian terrorism: “The problem is not that I met with Hamas in Syria, the problem is that Israel and the United States refuse to meet these people.” Is it too late to revoke this guy’s passport? Or better yet, his citizenship?

NATIONAL SECURITY

Petraeus tapped to head CENTCOM

General David Petraeus received a well deserved promotion this week: President Bush nominated him to run U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), replacing Admiral William Fallon, who resigned last month. Petraeus is the current commander in Iraq and the brilliant architect of the troop “surge” that has worked so well to quell the insurgency there. CENTCOM covers both Iraq and Afghanistan, and the new position puts Petraeus directly under Defense Secretary Robert Gates and President Bush. It also allows for consistency of strategy going forward. Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno will be promoted to take Petreaus’s place as commander of Iraq operations. Odierno currently commands the Army’s 3rd Corps at Fort Hood, Texas. If confirmed, the two men will lead our military in Iraq and Afghanistan beginning in late summer or early fall, and into the next administration. That is heartening indeed.

Warfront with Jihadistan: Pakistani problems

With the terrorist threat growing in the mountainous tribal areas of Pakistan, U.S. military commanders in Afghanistan have begun more firmly to request permission for limited strikes against indigenous Pakistani tribes across the border. The White House has declined the requests for now, fearing that attacking Pakistani radicals within Pakistan would anger and possibly destabilize the country’s new government, which is itself negotiating with the militants. U.S. commanders would prefer that the Pakistani army attack the militants, but Pakistani military operations in the tribal areas have been dialed back while the negotiations take place. The Pakistani government is now close to an agreement with some of the tribes to cease hostilities. The White House’s official reaction was, “We are concerned about [the deal].”

American intelligence officials say the Pakistani tribal networks have taken on an increasingly important role in helping al-Qa’ida plot attacks against American and allied troops in Afghanistan, as well as against targets in the West, in essence becoming what Afghanistan was prior to 9/11. Obviously, there is a current and growing threat in Pakistan that the U.S. military needs to eliminate. Yet the place where the military needs to strike is the place where American forces are most restricted, for fear of pushing an unstable, nuclear-armed Pakistan fully into the jihadi camp. The Bush administration currently says the risk of angering the Pakistani government and increasing anti-American sentiment outweighs the benefits of striking the terrorists. But if the jihadis grow too strong, Pakistan will be lost anyway. So unless the Pakistani Army steps up soon, the U.S. military will have to be given the green light to strike hard in Pakistan and crush the jihadis before they reach strength.

Intelligence on the Syrian nuclear reactor

On 6 September 2007, Israeli warplanes bombed a Syrian facility near the Euphrates River under cover of darkness. According to Israeli intelligence assets, the Syrians were using the Al Kabir site to construct a nuclear reactor for the production of plutonium. The Syrian government strongly denied this while simultaneously removing any trace of the bombed out structure with remarkable speed, leaving many to wonder what was really going on at Al Kabir.

Now the U.S. intelligence community is finally saying what it knows about Al Kabir. In testimony before Congress on Thursday, CIA Director Michael Hayden testified that the Syrians were indeed building a reactor. Furthermore, the United States and Israel possess a video from last summer that shows North Koreans building a reactor at Al Kabir that looks virtually identical to the Yongbyon reactor used in North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. According to one nuclear specialist, the video is “very, very damning.” Syria’s envoy responded by blaming the same “neoconservative elements” who told “lies and fabrications” about Iraq. (We’re sure he’s a big fan of The New York Times.)

The Leftmedia and other “experts” have been quick to downplay the evidence, saying that Al Kabir wasn’t yet fully operational and that Syria probably didn’t have any uranium for a reactor (plutonium is made from uranium). However, as we reported in 2003, many U.S. intelligence experts believe that Saddam Hussein shipped his WMD components to Syria and Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley (which is occupied by Syria) in the 18-month run-up to the Coalition invasion. Considering the stakes, we think it’s a little risky to assume that a pariah state like Syria didn’t have the means to use the nuclear reactor they were obviously constructing. Not even Syria is that irrational.

Counterfeit tech items from China

Counterfeit products originating from China are not a new problem. Everything from fake iPods to imitation name-brand purses have been sold to unwitting American shoppers. Now, solving the problem has taken on new urgency amid revelations that U.S. government agencies and military branches have bought millions of dollars of counterfeit Cisco networking equipment from China. According to an unclassified PowerPoint presentation circulating within the FBI, government entities that have purchased counterfeit equipment include the U.S. Naval Academy, the U.S. Naval Air Warfare Center, the U.S. Naval Undersea Warfare Center, the U.S. Marine Corps, the U.S. Air Force, the Federal Aviation Administration, numerous defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, and even the FBI itself.

The counterfeit purchases were largely the result of government buyers trying to obtain high-end equipment for the lowest bid. The nightmare scenario is that U.S. government computer networks assumed secure might be hopelessly compromised with virtual back doors, which could allow the People’s Republic of China to monitor network traffic and even interfere with network operation. The FBI is currently trying to determine the motives of the counterfeiters, and while “profit” is the hoped-for answer, espionage cannot be ruled out at this time.

Immigration front: Drug runner pleads guilty

Drug runner Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila pleaded guilty to multiple drug charges last week. Readers will recall that it was Aldrete-Davila who in 2005 fled from two Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. As Ramos and Compean approached Aldrete-Davila’s vehicle, the Mexican national fled toward the border. Ramos and Compean fired 15 rounds at the smuggler at intervals when he turned toward them, but they were unable to capture him before he crossed the border. They returned to his vehicle and found 743 pounds of marijuana. Two weeks later, Aldrete-Davila’s mother called a friend in the U.S. and complained that her son had been shot. A Department of Homeland Security investigator, Christopher Sanchez, contacted Aldrete-Davila and learned that he indeed had been shot in the buttocks.

U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton worked out an immunity deal for the smuggler in exchange for testimony against the two Border agents. Ramos and Compean were sentenced to 11 and 12 years in prison, respectively—a grossly excessive sentence—and began serving those sentences on 17 January 2007. Each man leaves behind a wife and three children. The drug smuggler, however, was caught again soon thereafter and has now pleaded guilty.

Please take a moment to sign Free the Texas Three and Secure our Borders, a national petition calling on President Bush to commute the sentences of both former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean.

BUSINESS & ECONOMY

NAFTA is a good thing

To hear the Democrat presidential candidates tell it, the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994 was a huge mistake that has resulted in a burgeoning trade deficit and thousands of lost jobs. So despite the fact that NAFTA has actually helped the U.S. economy grow by 50 percent over the last 14 years, President Bush found himself having to defend free trade at this week’s economic summit in New Orleans. Joining President Bush in NAFTA’s defense were Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon, whose respective economies also have benefited immensely from the world’s largest free-trade zone.

The numbers are staggering: When NAFTA was passed in 1994, trade between the United States, Mexico and Canada totaled $290 billion. This year it will surpass $1 trillion. While America’s GDP has increased 50 percent, Mexico’s is up 46 percent and Canada has seen growth of 54 percent. Furthermore, American families end up with some $140 to $720 each year because of NAFTA, and the lack of tariffs saves those families another $210 in taxes.

Finally, the security implications of NAFTA should not be ignored since the agreement’s success has resulted in 10 other countries in the Western hemisphere seeking similar free-trade benefits. Free trade with these nations will increasingly isolate leftist regimes like Venezuela and Cuba, which are attempting to dominate Latin America through a network of state-owned companies. So it would not be a stretch to say that when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama lambaste NAFTA, they are actually putting the concerns of anti-competitive union bosses and other protectionists before national security and the public good.

Regulatory Commissars: Demos target HSAs

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have listed healthcare as a top priority in their campaigns, but while they are making vague election promises, their fellow Democrats have been behind the scenes, chipping away at our right to make decisions about our own healthcare. Last week, thanks in part to the efforts of Democrats Charlie Rangel and Pete Stark, the House passed a bill that promises to wage bureaucratic war on private-sector health insurance. The provision places Health Savings Account expenditures under new scrutiny, requiring that each transaction be “reviewed and verified as a medical expense.” The measure flies in the face of what the Democrats claim they want: to bring more healthcare options to Americans lacking adequate healthcare coverage.

Those using HSAs purchase inexpensive coverage with high deductibles for major medical expenses. Individuals then have the option of putting up to $2,900 per year in an HSA to be used for other medical needs. Unused money would be saved for the next year, tax-free. Nearly one-third of the 4.5 million Americans now using HSAs had not been covered by their employers and had to purchase insurance themselves.

Democrats claim the provision stops people from using HSA money for non-medical purchases. But these accounts hold the individual’s own money, so those who did so would only be stealing from themselves. On the contrary, this provision is not an answer to a healthcare crisis, but a thinly veiled socialistic attempt to regulate individual choice out of existence.

Around the nation: Alabama’s ‘Big Oil’ tax

When Alabama’s legislature completed next year’s budget, they weren’t counting on having to refund $63 million in overpaid taxes to offshore oil companies. A recent court ruling, however, has compelled Alabama’s politicos to get that money back. Solution: a punitive tax hike of $200 million over six years on energy companies. That’ll teach those nasty oil companies to win a lawsuit. Gov. Bob Riley went so far as to accuse opponents of the tax hike of “lining the pockets of big oil companies.” Believe it or not, Riley and his fellow pickpockets are Republicans.

As we have noted before, in the end, it will not be the big, bad oil companies paying the taxes, but consumers at the gas pump. Furthermore, Andrew Moylan of the National Taxpayers Union writes, “A study by economists Robert J. Shapiro and Nam D. Pham found that 98.5% of oil company stock is owned by some combination of individual investors and managed investment vehicles, like mutual and pension funds. Only 1.5% is owned by oil company insiders such as board members. Any attempt to target a tax hike, even toward politically convenient oil companies, will ultimately mean a one-two punch to middle-class pocketbooks already softened up by a slowing economy.” If this keeps up, residents of “Sweet Home Alabama” may even become bitter and begin clinging to their guns and religion.

CULTURE

Faith and Family: Divorce costs everyone

While the social consequences of divorce on children and families are well documented, a recent study released by a group of family-advocacy groups shows financially staggering consequences to taxpayers. The costs resulting from divorce and unwed mothers is estimated at $112 billion annually, and $1 trillion over the past 10 years, says research performed by the Institute for American Values, the Georgia Family Council, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and Families Northwest. “These costs are due to increased taxpayer expenditures for anti-poverty, criminal justice and education programs, and through lower levels of taxes paid by individuals whose adult productivity has been negatively affected by increased childhood poverty caused by family fragmentation,” said one study researcher, Ben Scafidi of Georgia College & State University.

“These numbers represent real people and real suffering. Both economic and human costs make family fragmentation a legitimate public concern,” said the president of the Georgia Family Council. “While we’ll never eliminate divorce and unwed-childbearing entirely, we can certainly be doing more to help marriages and families succeed.”

As noted in Mark Alexander’s essay Fatherhood: Facts and Fiction, “Broken marriages lead to broken families, which lead to broken societies. The most successful fathering is rooted in a healthy marriage.” Indeed, the social and moral implications of broken families clearly cannot be underestimated.

Green is not the new red, white and blue

The current Time Magazine cover has raised the hackles of red-blooded Americans everywhere by comparing the fantasy war on global warming to the flesh and blood reality of World War II. The 21 April cover illustration features a poorly crafted riff on photographer Joe Rosenthal’s famous Iwo Jima flag-raising photo, in which a tree replaces the U.S. flag. Apparently, trivializing the sacrifices of American Patriots in the fight against fascism never struck the magazine’s editor as a bad idea. On the contrary, Time’s managing editor Richard Stengel promoted the idea on MSNBC last week, saying, “There needs to be an effort along the lines of preparing for World War II to combat global warming and climate change.” Meanwhile, Tim Holbert, a spokesman for the American Veterans Center, hit the nail on the head: “Global warming may or may not be a significant threat to the United States. The Japanese Empire on February 1945, however, certainly was, and this photo trivializes the most recognizable moment of one of the bloodiest battles in U.S. history.” We couldn’t have said it better.

Don’t just do something, stand there

As for global warming, Nobel Peace Prize-winning prophet of doom Al Gore complained this week that the situation hasn’t improved since his 2006 crockumentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.” No improvement indeed. As Investor’s Business Daily notes, “This Earth Day finds the world threatened not by rising sea levels, but by rising food prices. Many on the planet are more likely to starve than drown, and we have only Gore’s disciples to blame.” But who cares about food prices and starvation caused by the fad of biofuels, as long as liberals feel like they’re helping?

Still, Gore moans, “If you give… [people] a list of 25 or 30 issues and ask them to rank them in order of seriousness, climate change comes at the bottom or near the bottom. I remember one poll where it came under dog litter.” That would be right about where it belongs. Of course, with politicians promising to “do something” about a non-issue, voters should be concerned. Then again, with record snowfall around the globe, a 0.7C-degree drop in temperature in 2007 and a noticeable drop in sunspot activity (possibly signaling years of cooling), maybe it is time to do something to stop that doggone warming.

Former conservative icon and House Speaker Newt Gingrich, for one, thinks it’s time to do something. He paired with current Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to do a commercial for the “We” campaign to “solve the climate crisis,” sponsored by The Alliance for Climate Protection, a group founded by Al Gore. One might diagnose Newt with a case of “Potomac Fever.”

And last…

“The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, ‘To minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.’ On this Earth Day, and every day, let us honor the earth and our future generations with a commitment to fight climate change.” Or so said Nancy Pelosi in her Earth Day news release.

The trouble is, the Bible doesn’t tell us that. Neither the quote nor a close paraphrase can be found in Scripture—Old or New Testaments. This isn’t the first time Pelosi has peddled her eco-theology either. December 2005 and February, April and October 2007 all found her using the same “quote” supposedly from the book of Isaiah. Her principle of putting the earth above Man, for whom the world was made, is a bit backwards to begin with. Not to mention a lie. We suspect Pelosi is reading the AAGV Bible—the Albert Arnold Gore Version.

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 granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)