GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

News from the Swamp: Gut-busting budget

In the Executive Branch: After this week, President George W. Bush will go down in history with the dubious distinction of submitting the first $3-trillion budget to Congress. His fiscal 2009 budget request holds domestic discretionary spending to just under $1 trillion by, among other things, proposing to slow the growth of Medicare, which would save $170 billion over five years. Social Services Block Grants would be trimmed by $500 million, and the budget for Health and Human Services would lose $2 billion. Various educational programs funded by the federal government are being trimmed as well, but those connected to the President’s prized No Child Left Behind initiative remain relatively undisturbed. Defense spending in the budget rises five percent, and the State Department gets an additional 6.5 percent. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan get $70 billion, and $2 billion has been proposed for border-security initiatives.

All this may be academic, however, because Congress is unlikely to act on the President’s request. He has made numerous enemies in the House and Senate due in part to his newfound frugality. Since he will be out of the White House in eleven months, he has little political capital, while Congress has all the time in the world. In addition, although President Bush held the increase of domestic discretionary spending growth to just one percent, the total domestic spending has grown by a whopping 55 percent during his administration. Anti-poverty spending is at its highest proportion of GDP (three percent) in American history, and education spending has seen record increases since 2001. The lesson here is that so-called compassionate conservatism is wholly unrelated to fiscal conservatism.

Congress agrees to stimulus package

An attempt by Senate Democrats to add $44 billion in spending for the elderly, the disabled and the unemployed nearly derailed the economic stimulus package proposed by President Bush last month. The House easily passed a $150-billion version because Speaker Nancy Pelosi was able to keep her liberal army from larding it up with social spending, but Harry Reid’s Senate colleagues couldn’t help themselves. However, Senate Republicans successfully blocked a bloated $194-billion version from moving forward, and Thursday Democrats acquiesced and passed a slightly expanded version of the House bill, adding rebate checks for some 20-million seniors and 250,000 disabled veterans to those already set to be paid out, bringing the total to $152 billion. The House took up the Senate version and passed it 380-34. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said, “This is the Senate at its finest, recognizing this was an opportunity to demonstrate to the public that we could come together, do something important for the country and do it quickly.” We’ll give him “together” and “quickly,” but “important”? Try “symbolic nonsense.”

Campaign watch: Super Tuesday Republicans

John McCain came out ahead in the 21-state Republican contest on 5 February, but he was not quite in position to clinch the nomination until Thursday, when Mitt Romney announced at CPAC that he was quitting the race. Romney’s disappointing performance on Super Tuesday surely influenced his decision. He wasn’t able to beat McCain on his home turf despite wooing Arizona voters disgusted with their senator’s stand on immigration, and he lost the South to Mike Huckabee, an unforgivable loss for one hoping to claim the conservative mantle. Indeed, Huckabee’s sweep through the South certainly surprised most analysts and he is in good position for the Vice Presidential part of the ticket. Ron Paul also remains in the race, despite securing only 16 delegates thus far.

With McCain as the presumptive nominee, many hard-core conservatives are indeed rethinking their earlier views of him. As it is, few of his former or even longtime opponents within the Republican Party will want to be seen as being against his victory. He has a reputation among his Senate colleagues for being tough, and stories of his bad temper are the stuff of cloakroom legend, yet GOP members of Congress don’t seem as critical of him as they were even last year.

From the Left: Super Tuesday Democrats

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama each walked away with important victories during Tuesday’s 22-state Democrat primary race. Clinton took big states like California, New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey, but Obama won in more states overall, including Illinois, Georgia, Colorado and bellwether Missouri. Since the Democrats award their delegates proportionally, the two are still bickering over the total number earned by each. Call it a tie. There were some interesting trends that were immediately noticeable, though. Obama’s popularity extended far beyond the black vote in many states, disproving Bill Clinton’s race-peddling after South Carolina. In addition, while Clinton’s large-state wins were predictable, Obama’s victories were not geographically confined, forcing the Clinton team to revisit their strategy to confine the Illinois Senator to a regional box. Finally, if you run for president, never accept an endorsement from Sens. Ted Kennedy or John Kerry. According to exit polls, the dynamic duo’s endorsement of Obama actually convinced undecided voters in the Bay State to vote against him.

The next critical contests for the Democrats are on 4 March in Texas and Ohio. Clinton wants to engage in a series of debates with Obama between now and then, during which time she is likely to use every trick she can pull out to vanquish her opponent before the convention. Obama will need more than just the recent endorsement of MoveOn.org to repel the attacks that are sure to come from the Clinton machine.

NATIONAL SECURITY

Warfront with Jihadistan: al-Libi killed

Looks like the good guys bagged another one. Last week, Abu Laith al-Libi, a top al-Qa’ida commander who last year bombed an Afghan military base while Vice President Dick Cheney was visiting, was killed by a U.S. missile strike in Pakistan, according to U.S. intelligence officials. Terrorism experts called the U.S. bull’s eye a significant blow against al-Qa’ida due to al-Libi’s extensive ties with the Taliban. The strike, conducted by a Predator drone, was carried out against a Pakistani facility in northern Waziristan, a lawless Pakistani tribal area that borders Afghanistan. Naturally, Pakistani officials denied any knowledge of the strike, as President Pervez Musharraf has repeatedly said he would not allow U.S. military action against al-Qa’ida on Pakistani soil, though we suspect that they simply looked the other way. Whether Pakistan knew in advance or not, the strike could be an indication of a significant shift in U.S. strategy, raising the possibility that U.S. forces have been given the green light to hit al-Qa’ida wherever they are found, with or without permission of the host country. It will be interesting to see if further strikes against targets in Pakistan materialize in the near future.

Homeland Security: Missile-defense agreement

American and Polish officials have announced an agreement to install a U.S. missile-defense system in Polish territory. Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski said, while not offering details, that he was satisfied that the U.S. will settle security problems that Poland wanted addressed (read: more money) as part of the deal. Sikorski and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested that the U.S. would help upgrade Polish air defenses. Sikorski also said that negotiators would now start to hammer out the details that would allow the U.S. to install ten ballistic-missile interceptors in Poland as part of a European-based missile-defense system. The agreement should jump-start the project, which had been stalled since Donald Tusk took the reins of the Polish government in November. Unfortunately, the project has always been a major source of tension with an increasingly aggressive and paranoid Russia, and the Polish air-defense upgrade will no doubt only increase that tension.

Iran’s space program

Iran announced the launch of the “Explorer-1” space rocket on Monday, although the images released in Iranian media unquestionably show the rocket to have been a Shahab-3 MRBM (medium-range ballistic missile). Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad also announced the ceremonial opening of Iran’s first space center and said that Iran would place its first satellite into orbit later in 2008. Whether Iran can match the action to the word remains to be seen, but we note that a missile is a missile and that any technology involved in Iran’s space program would be fully transferable to its ballistic-missile programs. As a general estimate, a missile capable of placing a satellite into orbit would have to carry enough fuel to deliver a warhead from Iran into central Europe if the missile were an MRBM.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormick expressed the United States’ concern about Iranian missile development. Amazingly, McCormick was echoed by Russia’s deputy foreign minister Alexandyr Losyukov, who said that Iran’s actions “raised suspicions over Tehran’s claim of peaceful nuclear intentions and suggested its possible desire to create a nuclear weapon.” You don’t say! We suspect Losyukov must have lost his talking points before being interviewed and panicked into speaking the plain truth. Russia has gone out of its way lately to assist both Iran’s nuclear and ballistic-missile programs by opposing sanctions on Iran and opposing the proposed U.S. missile-defense system being installed in Poland and the Czech Republic. Add this to the long list of things in Iran that will bear watching during 2008.

Department of Military Readiness: Sonar redux

From the “Court Jesters” File: Three weeks ago, we reported that the Bush administration had exempted the United States Navy from the Coastal Zone Management Act. U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper had previously cited the act as the basis for an injunction against the Navy’s use of active sonar off California’s southern coast in an attempt to protect whales from the uncertain effects of active sonar. In response, the Bush administration rightly argued that the Navy’s use of sonar in training exercises was vital to national security, while protecting marine mammals from the sonar’s effects was, well, not. Furthermore, the Navy claimed that it already did enough to minimize risk to marine mammals, and that it had not observed any injury to whales in decades. For these reasons, the Navy was given the go-ahead by its Commander in Chief to continue using sonar in exercises.

This week, however, Judge Cooper decided that she—not George W. Bush—is the Commander in Chief. In a new ruling, Judge Cooper said that the Navy is not exempt from the Coastal Zone Management Act, and that while she has “significant concerns about the constitutionality of the President’s exemption, a finding on this issue is not necessary” for the injunction to be reinstated. While Judge Cooper’s stance is regrettable, it is refreshing to hear a liberal judge admit that she doesn’t care to find out what the Constitution of the United States actually says. For its part, the Navy can appeal the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which in a surprise 2004 ruling said that whales and dolphins couldn’t sue George W. Bush for injuries suffered as a result of Navy sonar. No, we’re not making that up.

Profiles of valor: USMC Corporal Stokes

Sometimes the media do get it right. On Wednesday, both NBC and CBS paid tribute to only the third Marine private ever to be awarded the Silver Star, Corporal Sean Stokes, who was honored posthumously for his heroism in the battle of Fallujah in 2004. Stokes was an athlete who volunteered to serve with the Marines after 9/11, rather than go to college. On 17 November 2004, Stokes took part in Operation Phantom Fury, which aimed to clear Fallujah of jihadis. Serving with the 3rd Battalion of the 1st Marine Regiment, then-Private Stokes was point man for his platoon, meaning he kicked in the doors and entered the houses first. “At each house I said a prayer,” Stokes said. “Please God get me out of this one. When I come out of the house, I’d thank him, light up a cigarette and move on to the next one.” Patrick O’Donnell, an author embedded with Stokes’ unit, said, “He was clearly one of the most courageous Marines in 1st platoon. He killed nine guys single-handedly. He was combat wounded two or three times and he hid his wounds so he wouldn’t be evacuated… so he could stay and fight with his brothers.” Stokes was killed in July 2007, during his third tour in Iraq, when he was once again walking “point” and an IED detonated underneath him. CBS reported that “on what would have been his 25th birthday, Sean was awarded the coveted Silver Star for courage in battle.” His father accepted the medal on his behalf.

Berkeley tells Marines to get lost

Theater of the Absurd: The City Council of Berkeley, California, recently made clear that a particular organization was not welcome in their town—an organization well known for its violent past, for its fascination with guns and knives, for its glorification of its deceased members, and for trying to lure the young men and women of Berkeley to join its ranks. Who is this nefarious outfit, so repugnant that they have been singled out for unwelcome treatment in Berkeley? The Mafia? The Cali Drug Cartel? The MS-13 street gang? Nope—it’s the United States Marine Corps (Oorah!), whose recruiting station in Berkeley was the target of the City Council’s ire. The Council approved by an 8-1 vote a motion that if the Marines insisted on staying and recruiting in Berkeley, they “would do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders.” One council member went further: “In the same way that many communities limit the location of pornographic stores, that’s the same way we feel about the military recruiting stations.” Fine thanks for an outfit whose performance from 1846-1848 was critical to California’s becoming part of the United States, rather than remaining part of Mexico. Now, however, the council is considering rescinding its letter to the Marines after many complaints. All we can say is, some things are so absurd that they are beneath parody.

BUSINESS & ECONOMY

Is it a recession yet?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) recent announcement that January saw 17,000 jobs lost set the Leftmedia screaming we-told-you-so economic doom. The Los Angeles Times headlined, “Job Slump Latest Omen of Recession,” while The Washington Post blazoned, “U.S. Concern Over Economy Is Highest in Years.” Meanwhile, The New York Times, well-known for its cheery economic outlook during Republican administrations, asserted the drop is “the strongest signal yet that the United States may be in the early stages of recession,” noting the figures are “particularly troubling for the Republican Party and President Bush.” Believe these reports, and it’s no wonder many fear the economy is on the brink of “October 29, 1929: The Sequel.”

Traditionally, however, Wall Street defines a recession as two consecutive quarters of falling Gross Domestic Product. By this definition, even the one-quarter “recession” in 2001 was hardly that. The National Bureau of Economic Research says a recession involves “a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months,” and Congress’ Joint Economic Committee, which boasts a 60-year track record of successfully predicting recessions, ranked the probability that the U.S. was in a recession in December at 35.5 percent. In January, a mere six percent.

The lesson? The New York Times and other leftist “journalists” would undoubtedly like nothing more than for their fearmongering to create reality. They figure economic doom can only help Democrats in November.

Income Redistribution: Taxing healthcare

Contrary to the Democrats’ populist inclination to wield the tax code in furtherance of their so-called “progressive” agenda (i.e., taxation of citizens according to their means), Democrat candidates’ conspicuous silence on the income-tax code’s preferential subsidizing of employer-provided health insurance over that which is individually obtained is mystifying. People with employer-provided insurance pay no income or payroll taxes for the benefit. Individuals seeking their own coverage inequitably bear the full cost of the insurance plus taxes on the income used to purchase coverage.

Nothing about the current systemic tax inequality comports with progressive ideals, as “rich” employers who spend more on insurance enjoy proportionately greater taxation preference over individuals who must fund their own coverage. Candidates truly interested in equitable taxation and encouraging expansion of health coverage to the uninsured segment of the insurance market are missing the opportunity to champion ideologically consistent agendas.

Instead of behavioral encouragement to purchase insurance, Hillary Clinton recently suggested a punitive approach when she advised that a governmental enforcement mechanism of “going after people’s wages and automatic enrollment” may be necessary to achieve her “fundamental commitment to universal healthcare.” That means garnishing wages is on the table. Nothing like cramming a “benefit” down the throats of Americans—whether we like it or not.

The law of unintended consequences, again

In recent weeks, environmentalist groups have begun to realize what we in our humble shop have been saying all along: Federal biofuel and ethanol mandates have potential to do far more harm than good. The initial idea made a fair amount of sense—use a portion of our abundant corn crops to produce ethanol as an alternative to oil. The renewable fuel source reduces greenhouse emissions, in addition to reducing our reliance on foreign oil. Pressured by environmental lobbyists, the federal government quickly jumped on the bandwagon, enacting a series of ethanol subsidies.

Federal meddling confused the market, especially as it became apparent that government mandates and subsidies were unpredictable and subject to change. Farm subsidies are sacred to both Republicans and Democrats, but the consequences of this “solution” are now obvious, and even some environmentalist groups have begun to complain. Rising demand for ethanol means rising demand for corn and a corresponding rise in corn prices, which then in turn affect the prices of countless other foods, both directly and indirectly. The demand for ethanol and the resulting increase in food prices have also resulted in changes in land use that are damaging the environment, undoing much of the alleged environmental benefit that ethanol was to provide in the first place. However, those benefits were greatly overrated. If America’s entire grain harvest were devoted to ethanol production, it would replace only 18 percent of our automotive demand for oil.

Environmentalists are contradicting themselves—again—providing yet another example of the fundamental uncertainty of so much environmental “science.” Perhaps most importantly, the ethanol fiasco reveals the ineptitude of centralized government when it comes to running the market. As old-fashioned as it may sound, the laws of supply and demand are enough to handle even our energy troubles, so long as the market is free from government interference. Otherwise, we are at the mercy of the law of unintended consequences.

Regulatory Commissars: Colored charity

Politically correct philanthropy could soon become law in California. Legislation passed by the state assembly last week and currently before the state senate would require large foundations to disclose the race, gender and sexual (dis)orientation of their board members, trustees, staff and grantees. The idea was concocted by the Berkeley-based Greenlining Institute, whose Executive Director, John Gamboa, believes foundations do not give enough money to minority-led organizations.

Not surprisingly, the initiative has drawn little support from philanthropic leaders, either in California or on the national level, where Greenlining has begun petitioning House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel for congressional hearings on the subject.

Adam Meyerson, President of the Washington, DC-based Philanthropy Roundtable, said giving “has to be inspired by persuasion, example and appeals to the philanthropic imagination of donors,” rather than “mandated by legislative fiat.” Paul Brest, former NAACP attorney and president of California’s largest foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, wrote that his organization does “not focus on the racial composition of our grantees, but rather on how to achieve measurable impact in improving the lives of the communities that our grant recipients serve.” Promoting the public good without discrimination? Imagine that!

CULTURE

Around the nation: Gun briefs

On 18 March, the justices of the Supreme Court will hear arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller, a case that could decide once and for all whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution supports an individual right to the ownership and use of firearms or merely a collective right to militias. Unfortunately, the Bush administration’s stance on the issue became murkier when U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement submitted a brief to the Supreme Court arguing that the U.S. Court of Appeals had erred in striking down DC’s handgun ban. The Bush administration managed to affirm the individual-right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment while also condemning the previous ruling of the Court of Appeals, since it jeopardizes the government’s ability to regulate firearms. In other words, the administration is fine with individual ownership of firearms so long as the federal government can decide which firearms you can own and where you can take them. The solicitor general’s brief asks the Supreme Court to return District of Columbia v. Heller to a lower court, where instead of flatly declaring that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, the court should rule that the Second Amendment gives you the rights that the government wants you to have.

On the other hand, The Washington Post reports, “A majority of the Senate and more than half of the members of the House will file a brief today urging the Supreme Court to uphold a ruling that the District’s handgun ban violates the Second Amendment.” The brief notes, “This court should give due deference to the repeated findings over different historical epochs by Congress, a co-equal branch of government, that the amendment guarantees the personal right to possess firearms.” It continues, “The District’s prohibitions on mere possession by law-abiding persons of handguns in the home and having usable firearms there are unreasonable.”

’Non Compos Mentis’: CAIR cries foul

According to a recent article from Reuters, non-Christians are feeling “left out” of the 2008 presidential elections. Both Democrats and Republicans are accused of talking about their Christian faith too much and alienating non-Christians voters, “despite the constitutional separation of church and state,” which by the way doesn’t exist. You might think that Reuters would quote a Jew or perhaps a Buddhist to lend credence to this claim, but of course they cite a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) who says that “non-Christians are concerned they will be excluded from the process. I welcome faith values if they inspire candidates to do good things. But I worry if it is used as a litmus test to include someone in political participation.”

What Reuters doesn’t say is that CAIR has ties to Islamic terrorist organizations, and that according to its “Chairman Emeritus” Omaer Ahmad, the organization’s goal is for Islam to become the dominant religion in America, with the Koran as the nation’s highest authority. Investor’s Business Daily called CAIR “the PR machine of militant Islam” after the organization tried to sabotage the Secular Islam Summit, and in 2007 federal prosecutors named CAIR as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in a plot to fund the Palestinian terror group Hamas.

Based on a review of CAIR’s 2006 annual budget, The Washington Times estimated that the organization has fewer than 1,700 members, which would seem to imply that the group isn’t even remotely representative of American Muslims in particular, much less non-Christian Americans in general. Nonetheless Reuters quoted them anyway, apparently failing to see the irony of a CAIR spokesman complaining about a “litmus test” when that same person—if he had his way—would implement a litmus test that allowed only Muslims into power.

Faith and Family: In-utero twins save mom’s life

The abortion debate continues both in the United States and abroad, with a recent report released in the UK revealing that over the course of a year, there were at least 66 documented cases of babies who, after being born alive despite attempted abortions, were subsequently left to die without medical aid. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists actually “recommends” that these surviving babies be killed by lethal injection. How humane.

Though the statistics are chilling, a story released this week by a London newspaper illustrates the truly miraculous nature of the unborn. A woman pregnant with twins was diagnosed with cervical cancer and was advised to terminate the pregnancy to receive treatment. She refused. The result was that the kicks of her active twins dislodged the tumor growing on her cervix, a feat that doctor’s say saved her life. “I’d felt them kicking, but I didn’t realize just how important their kicking would turn out to be,” she said. Now cancer free with one-year-old twin daughters, the happy mother will be honored next week with the Woman of Courage award by Cancer Research UK Race for Life.

Frontiers of Junk Science: Global warming snow job melting?

According to a recent National Center for Policy Analysis report, last year’s declaration of impending doom from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the form of its Fourth Assessment Report was based on opinion instead of science. As hard data continues to emerge, global warming becomes increasingly difficult to defend. Hundreds of highly qualified scientists and climatologists unrelated to the UN’s IPCC pocket-science squad are contesting the assumption of so-called “experts” that CO2 is the primary force driving climate change. A number of scientists discount the warming theory entirely. In fact, many believe that the globe may be getting cooler—and some of them are putting their money where their mouths are. Believing that the world will be cooler in ten years, a pair of Russian scientists have even waged a $10,000 bet with British climate “expert” and global-warming alarmist James Annan. Meanwhile, China is battling its coldest winter in a century. Scores of people are dead and millions are stranded. Will Leftmedia shills report the events there with newfound skepticism for global warming? Don’t count on it.

And last…

In the aftermath of Super Tuesday, we are shocked—shocked!—to report that there were voting irregularities in at least four states. But this was not a case of ID problems, intimidation or even dead people voting. No, the irregularities occurred in states that weren’t even holding primaries. In Virginia, the State Board of Elections office was overrun with more than 700 calls from folks angry that their polling places were closed. Well, that’s because Virginia votes next week. In Dallas, the county elections office received nearly 1,000 calls from people wanting to know where to vote. Texas voters go to the polls on 4 March. A Milwaukee radio station found many people waiting outside a polling place at 6:30 a.m. Tuesday. Again, the same problem: Wisconsin’s primary is 19 February. And what story on voting irregularities would be complete without mentioning Florida? The Palm Beach County election supervisor received more than 100 calls from would-be voters, while Orange County, Florida, officials talked to some folks who were actually looking for Orange County, California. Unfortunately, these unhappy Floridians’ next primary is in 2012. It’s a good thing we aren’t using any of those newfangled machines for voting. Otherwise, these folks might really get confused!

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.)