Socially Liberal, Economically Conservative Moderate

According to the AP, Governor Schwarzenegger will propose a hike in California's minimum wage. I remember when he was running for office, candidate Schwarzenegger touted his credentials as a social moderate and as a fiscal conservative. Candidate Schwarzenegger courted economic conservatives by citing his fondness for Milton Friedman - he even claimed to have read Free To Choose. I guess when he read the book, he managed to skip the chapter, "Who Protects the Worker?" in which Militon and Rose Friedman write...

"Another set of government measures enforcing wage rates are minimum wage laws. These laws are defended as a way to help low-income people. In fact, they hurt low-income people. The source of pressure for them is demonstrated by the people who testify before Congress in favor a higher minimum wage. They are not representatives of the poor people. They are mostly representatives of organized labor... No member of their unions works for a wage anywhere close to the legal minimum. Despite all of the rhetoric about helping the poor, they favor an ever higher minimum wage as a way to protect the members of their unions from competition.

"The minimum wage law requires employers to discriminate against persons with low skills. No one describes it that way, but that is in fact what it is." (Free to Choose p. 226, 227).

Some of those who supported Arnold Schwarzenegger for Governor will be shocked as he abandons his "fiscal conservatism" for a more liberal economic agenda. Those of us who were suspicious of a candidate who espoused no clear philosophy understand this surge leftward. We know that a ship without a rudder is always bound to drift astray.

A Lesson From History

In his 1960 polemic, The Conscience of a Conservative, Senator Barry Goldwater wrote about the Soviet menace. The Conscience, which is mandatory reading for any YAFer, is worth re-reading regularly. The book is a review of some very fundamental principles - in fact, principles that Republicans in Congress should review and embrace today. But eonough of this digression, and back to the original point…

Senator Goldwater wrote a chapter titled The Soviet Menace, and addressed the basis of the struggle between freedom and communism. As I read the Senator’s poignant observations of a now historic war, I was struck by how much it applies to our current war with radical Islamic jihadists.

Of the Soviet threat, Senator Goldwater wrote, “…we have come full circle and our national existence is once again threatened as it was in the early days of the Republic. Though we are still strong physically, we are in clear and imminent danger of being overwhelmed by alien forces. We are confronted by a revolutionary world movement that possesses not only the will to dominate absolutely every square mile of the globe, but increasingly the capacity to do so: a military power that rivals our own, political warfare and propaganda skills that are superior to ours, an international fifth column that operates conspiratorially in the heart of our defenses, an ideology that imbues its adherents with a sense of historical mission; and all of these resources controlled by a ruthless despotism that brooks no deviation from the revolutionary course. This threat, moreover, is growing day by day. And it has now reached a point where American leaders, both political and intellectual, are searching desperately for means of “appeasing” or “accommodating” the Soviet Union s the price of national survival…” (emphasis added)

“The temptation is strong to blame the deterioration of America’s fortunes on the Soviet Union’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. But this is self-delusion…”

“The real cause of the deterioration can be simply stated. Our enemies have understood the nature of the conflict and we have not. They are determined to win the conflict and we are not.” (emphasis added)

Substitute the Soviet Union for the “Global Jihadists” and the words, written Barry Goldwater 45 years ago, ring true today. And while apparently the global jihadists do not possess nuclear weapons, it is likely that Iran will be develop that technology soon.

You Can't Make This Stuff UP!

Young America's Foundation recently released the annual "Dirty Dozen - America's Most Bizarre and Politically Correct College Courses." This is golden, and entertaining. Of course, when you consider that tax dollars massively subsidize these institutions, it is also frightening. While I could write incessantly about the left and college campuses (and maybe I will over time), I don't want to diminish the fun of the YAF press release. Enjoy and maybe write a letter or two if you are an alumnus of one of these fine institutions.

Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 23, 2005

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT
JASON MATTERA (917) 754-3425, CELLULAR
(800) USA-1776, OFFICE

The Dirty Dozen

America’s Most Bizarre and Politically Correct College Courses

Princeton University’s Prostitute, Cross Dressing, and Same-Sex Eroticism Course ranked the most bizarre Class

Princeton University’s The Cultural Production of Early Modern Women examines “prostitutes,” “cross-dressing,” and “same-sex eroticism” in 16th - and 17th - century England, France, Italy and Spain (emphasis added).

The Unbearable Whiteness of Barbie: Race and Popular Culture in the United States at Occidental College in California explores ways “which scientific racism has been put to use in the making of Barbie [and] to an interpretation of the film The Matrix as a Marxist critique of capitalism.”

At The John Hopkins University, students in the Sex, Drugs, and Rock ‘n’ Roll in Ancient Egypt class view slideshows of women in ancient Egypt “vomiting on each other,” “having intercourse,” and “fixing their hair.”

Like something out of a Hugh Hefner film, Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania offers the class Lesbian Novels Since World War II.

Alfred University’s Nip, Tuck, Perm, Pierce, and Tattoo: Adventures with Embodied Culture, mostly made up of women, encourages students to think about the meaning behind “teeth whitening, tanning, shaving, and hair dyeing.” Special projects include visiting a tattoo-and-piercing studio and watching Arnold Schwarzenegger’s bodybuilding film, Pumping Iron.

Harvard University’s Marxist Concepts of Racism examines “the role of capitalist development and expansion in creating racial inequality” (emphasis added). Although Karl Marx didn’t say much on race, leftist professors in this course extrapolate information on “racial oppression” and “racial antagonism."

Occidental College—making the Dirty Dozen list twice—offers a course in Stupidity, which compares the American presidency to Beavis and Butthead.

Students at the University of California—Los Angeles need not wonder what it means to be a lesbian. The Psychology of the Lesbian Experience reviews “various aspects of lesbian experience” including the “impact of heterosexism/stigma, gender role socialization, minority status of women and lesbians, identity development within a multicultural society, changes in psychological theories about lesbians in sociohistorical context.”

Duke University’s American Dreams/American Realities course supposedly unearths “such myths as ‘rags to riches,’ ‘beacon to the world,’ and the ‘frontier,’ in defining the American character” (emphasis added).

Amherst College in Massachusetts offers the class Taking Marx Seriously: “Should Marx be given another chance?” Students in this course are asked to question if Marxism still has any “credibility” remaining, while also inquiring if societies can gain new insights by “returning to [Marx’s] texts.” Coming to Marx’s rescue, this course also states that Lenin, Stalin, and Pol Pot misapplied the concepts of Marxism.

Brown University’s Black Lavender: A Study of Black Gay & Lesbian Plays “address[es] the identities and issues of Black gay men and lesbians, and offer[s] various points of view from within and without the Black gay and lesbian artistic communities.”

Students enrolled in the University of Michigan’s Topics in Literary Studies: Ancient Greek/Modern Gay Sexuality have the pleasure of reading a “wide selection of ancient Greek (and a few Roman) texts that deal with same-sex love, desire, gender dissidence, and sexual behavior.”

Interviews are available upon request

For more information contact Jason Mattera at (800) USA-1776 or (917) 754-3425

###

Merry Christmas

A little Christmas wish fun from a freind of "Midwest Moderate" - thank you Ed for sending this along...

To My Democrat Friends:
"Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasionof your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious /secular persuasion and /or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2006, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whosecon tributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only Americain the Western Hemisphere. And without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee. By accepting these greetings you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law and is revocable at the sole discretionof the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher."

*****************************************************

To My Republican Friends:
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Econ 101 / Pols 101 Profiting From Government Intervention

Walter Williams writes an insightful article illustrating how businesses or industries use government to increase profits by allowing government sanctioned collusion or by blocking access to potential competitors.

In California the legislature has a well-developed system for protecting industries from competition. The Assembly Committee on Business and Professions and the Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development have jurisdiction over the regulation of a multitude of "industries" that seek licensure which is usually just a convenient way to limit competition. In California one must be licensed to cut hair, dispense hearing aides, or be a landscape "architect."

It isn't just the business community who uses the government to stifle competition. In California, public school teachers must receive a credential from the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. To "qualify" as a teacher, one must meet an ever-growing number of criteria most of which have nothing to do with knowledge of curriculum. By California standards, I am fairly confident, Dr. Williams would not be "qualified" to teach economics in a California public high school.

The teachers union, the California Teachers Association, has been masterful at protecting its membership from competition. In my two decades of public service I have witnessed the union successfully offer "higher teachers standards" as a token to satisfy the periodic calls for education reform; in doing so the union bosses have both protected their membership and staved off "onerous" standards from being imposed upon public school teachers.





The Consumer Rip-Off
by Walter Williams
12/21/05

Since allegations of oil company price-gouging have become topical, let's look at real price manipulation. Suppose a dairyman wants to sell a gallon of milk for 25 cents less than his competitors, would you want him fined or jailed? Federal Milk Marketing Orders would do just that. Americans pay four times the world price for sugar as a result of tariffs and quotas on foreign imports. That leads to higher profits and wages in the sugar industry and higher prices for sugar products. Since consumers are far more numerous than businessmen, one might ask how in the world is it politically possible for businessmen to get congress and state legislators to allow them to rip us off?

There's a phenomenon economists refer to as narrowly dispersed large benefits versus widely dispersed small costs. Take the case of a dairymen association. Members agree to contribute money to lobby federal and state legislators to get the U.S. Department of Agriculture and their state agricultural agencies to enact minimum milk price laws. Since dairy producers have narrow interests and are small in number, compared to dairy consumers, their organization costs are low. Their spending of several million dollars to lobby legislators to mandate minimum milk prices might mean hundreds of millions in higher profits and wages in the dairy industry.

That's the benefit side, the costs of which are borne by the tens of millions of milk consumers who're forced to pay maybe $20 or $30 more per year than they'd have to pay if there weren't congressionally-mandated minimum prices. Which one of us is willing to bear the expenses to go to Washington or state capitols to try to unseat legislators who created the opportunity for the dairy industry to rip us off? Individually, we correctly conclude that it's cheaper just to pay the $20 or $30 more a year and get on with our lives. Plus, since milk consumers have diverse interests, it'd be costly to organize us to fight the dairy interests and their congressional allies.

It's a different story with the dairy producers. They will spend the resources to try to unseat a congressman or state legislator who doesn't do their bidding and vote in favor of statutory minimum milk prices. Hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake to be divided among a relatively small group of owners and workers. They hire professionals to justify their agenda, among those justifications are: "To preserve the dairy industry," "to create a level playing field" and incredibly, "to protect the consumer." Congressmen readily do their bidding because they are well aware that you and I won't put up much of a fight -- we'll just pay the higher price.

There are hundreds of statutory minimum prices, including gasoline in some states. There are numerous agricultural import restrictions and production quotas. All of these government-sanction market manipulations represent seller collusions against consumers. You say, "Williams, how can that be? The Sherman Antitrust Act gives the U.S. Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission the power to prosecute and levy fines or imprisonment for price-fixing." You're absolutely right. Price-fixing is illegal, and you will face fines or imprisonment, but with one caveat: unless you get permission from congress or your state legislator. If you get permission, price-fixing becomes legal and it's non-price-fixing that's illegal.

There's a little-appreciated fact about collusions. They have a tendency to break down. Why? Because each party to the collusion is alert to the private gains to be made from cheating on the collusive agreement, such as charging a lower price or producing a larger quantity. Collusions need government enforcement in order to work. Part of the unstated mission of some federal agencies in Washington is the enforcement of collusions. That includes the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Justice and Labor. One of the surest ways to detect a seller collusion is to see whether there are statutory minimum prices, import restrictions and production quotas.

OK, So the Susan Kennedy Controversy May Not Be Over Just Yet

Jon Fleischman at the Flashreport scoops everyone again with this exclusive from the California Republican Party...

AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The CRP Board had an exceedingly frank and candid meeting on Thursday with the Governor to discuss his new Chief of Staff, and other issues related to his legislative agenda and the 2006 campaign. The meeting followed separate meetings the Governor held with Republican legislators earlier in the week on the same subject.

The Board did not endorse the Governor’s decision, and we remain concerned that the Chief of Staff’s role as it relates to the CRP and the ’06 Republican campaign be kept to a minimum. We intend to make certain the CRP’s strategic and tactical decisions as they relate to the ’06 campaign remain confidential, and we stated that in the clearest of terms.

See the Flashreport for the full memo.

The Tax Man Cometh?

According to Governor Schwarzenegger's Education Secretary Alan Bersin (left) a tax increase might be in order to fund California's beleaguered education system. Bersin, the first high ranking administration official to publicly float the idea of a tax increase, did so in a speech to the California School Boards Association (CSBA) on December 1st - a release by the CSBA about Bersin's comments was posted yesterday on CSBA's website. According to the CSBA, Bersin said he is "eager and willing" to help find out "the conditions in which we can talk to Californians about increasing taxes." The LA Times covers this story under the headline "Gov. might consider tax hike, Aide says" - the full story here.

The timing of these comments coincides with the filing of initiative language to increase parcel taxes to funnel more money to schools - the subject of discussion here under the title Prop 13 Under Attack... Again!

This might be a shadow of things to come. Governor Schwarzenegger has rightly stated that California does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. He has campaigned for election on a "no new taxes" pledge and he has regularly stated that California must learn to "live within its means."

As support for a tax increase is floated among senior aides to the Governor, he should consider the fate of President George Bush after he broke his own bold pledge, "Read my lips, no new taxes!"

The Administration may be wise enough to know that with over $5 billion in surplus funds going into the 2006-07 election year budget, it would be easier to do a "feel good" budget that does not increase taxes, does not cut spending and instead puts over to a future year the reckoning that must eventually be confronted. Administration support of a tax increase after the 2006 elections in 2007-08 is more likely.

Republicans in California should require the Governor to renew his pledge to engage in responsible budgeting and not raise taxes.

Susan Kennedy - The Controversy Is Over, NOW!

Maybe the headline should read...

This "Jedi Mind Trick" Aint Workin'...

You have to read Jon Fleischman's commentary which, notwithstanding headlines like... "Governor, GOP say their spat is over," tells a story that suggests the Susan Kennedy controversy is far from over (and explains the frivolity above).

Jon's commentary is particularly poignant because of his background as Executive Director of the California Republican Party and his ability to speak to those involved in the meeting. His commentary is must reading.

Prop 13 Under Attack.... Again!

Jon Coupal, President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) writes about the recently submitted initiative that will hike property taxes (by increasing parcel taxes) in order to provide more funding for our schools. The Silicon Valley billionaires backing this proposal have actually submitted four versions of the initiative so they can "focus group test" the particulars in an attempt to find the one magic formula that will sell to voters.

Jon Coupal, who is on the front lines fighting to protect Proposition 13 and defend taxpayers, writes eloquently on this issue. I commend his editorial to your attention. While you are at the HJTA webpage, I encourage you to join and support their efforts.

Sneaking Around Proposition 13
By Jon Coupal - Week of December 12, 2005

They're back!A loosely knit band of Silicon Valley's wealthiest is back with a new scheme to increase the burden on property tax payers.

This group is mostly the same billionaire boy's club members that spent $60 million in 2000 on a successful campaign to make it easier to increase property taxes for school bonds, while vigorously defending tax breaks for their own industry. Since then, local districts have successfully passed more than $39 billion in local school bonds, but for these hi-tech industry elites, it's not enough. Now they have filed a new tax hiking initiative that would hit every property owner in the state, although you would never know it from its benign-sounding title.

I get irritated with the big spending "education" lobby in Sacramento (CTA, ACSA, CSBA) who continue to demand more money for our schools claiming that it is the "answer" to improving education in this state. I enjoyed immensely the piece written by Senator Tom McClintock, A Modest Proposal for Saving Our Schools. Senator McClintock illustrates the absurdity in our school financing scheme that robs our children of up-to-date textbooks, good classrooms, clean restrooms and well-paid qualified teachers.

The truth is, our greatest challenges in education transcend the money issue - how much or how little is spent. The greatest challenge is rooted in the breakdown of the family; in a world where there is no parent at home to provide guidance, discipline and help with homework. A world where there are too many "latch key" children; a world that thinks of our schools more as a daycare center than a place of learning. A world of confused morality that exchanges the responsibility (and joy) of parenting children for the desire to drive a Hummer. This is the subject of many other discussions, that I am confident will find their way to this forum.

Shhhh... Kerry Confides to his Supporters Thoughts of Impeachment

The National Journal's Hotline reports that Senator John Kerry, at a dinner gathering of his core supporters, announced that if the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives there is a "solid case" to bring "articles of impeachment" against President Bush for "misleading the country about pre-war intelligence." Reportedly, Senator Kerry hastily added, "Don't tell anyone I said that."

One would think that after all of his years in public life, the junior senator from Massachusetts would know that saying "don't tell anyone I said that" is a sure-fire way to guarantee wide-spread distribution of the comment. It is a little like stamping "confidential" on a memo, and then leaving a copy of the memo on the photocopier in a public hallway.

Either the Senator is not very bright or he is just bright enough to know that calling for impeachment of the President would overshadow his calling our soldiers in Iraq terrorists. Either way, I am more convinced than ever that the United States would not be well served with John Kerry in the White House.

Meanwhile...

Just to make things interesting, The New York Sun reports (12/15/05) that Israeli Lieutenant General Moshe Yaalon asserts that Saddam Hussein moved Iraq's WMDs to Syria on the eve of the war.

The Israeli officer, Lieutenant General Moshe Yaalon, asserted that Saddam spirited his chemical weapons out of the country on the eve of the war. "He transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria," General Yaalon told The New York Sun over dinner in New York on Tuesday night. "No one went to Syria to find it."

From July 2002 to June 2005, when he retired, General Yaalon was chief of staff of the Israel Defense Force, the top job in the Israeli military, analogous to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the American military. He is now a military fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He made similar, but more speculative, remarks in April 2004 that attracted little notice in America; at that time he was quoted as saying of the Iraqi weapons, "Perhaps they transferred them to another country, such as Syria."

The full story is here.

The Significance of Political Blogs

The rise of the blogs: How the GOP uses the Web to organize
by Shane Goldmacher - Capitol Weekly News

"Today, there is an entire network of California political blogs hailing from right of center, organized as the Bear Flag Republic, of which the FlashReport is a member. The few counterparts on the Democratic side are written by professional political operatives and have served as little more than clearinghouses for press releases, though new sites spring up nearly daily.

"Because of the speed of posting, and the often frank nature of the comments (which are sometimes more honest, and sometimes more rumor-laden, when made anonymously), blogs, particularly on the conservative end of the political spectrum, are an increasingly important tool both for California journalists and politicians."

Thank a Soldier

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

- Senator Zell Miller

Take a moment and thank a soldier this week.

YAF Names Top Ten Conservative Colleges

Each year, hundreds of thousands of students begin their college search. Admission guides, seminars, advice from friends, and help from advisors all offer different perspectives. Presented with so many options, confusion often clouds this important decision-making process. Given the requests for Young America’s Foundation’s recommendations, and to aid in making the right decision, we are proud to release our second annual “Top Ten Conservative Colleges” list.

Dan Walters is on the Mark!

Columnist Dan Walters is currently doing a 10-part series on Governor Schwarzenegger's missteps since assuming office. I commend these columns to your attention.

Today Mr. Walters talks about the on-again-off-again love-hate relationship the Governor has had with the Legislature (primarily Democrats).

Summing up today's column, Mr. Walters writes...

"He and the state would have been much better served had he portrayed the state's fiscal and political crises in the stark language they deserved, prescribed harsh medicine to cure them and confronted the Capitol's dysfunctional status quo at the onset of his governorship. The recall had primed voters for such a confrontation, but by making nice and then abruptly changing course later, Schwarzenegger undermined his own credibility."

Dan Walters could not be more correct. Had the Governor made the decision to honestly address California's fiscal crisis (that continues to plague the state) he could have done so by using the line-item veto. The Governor could have reduced spending and made his case to the people of California. He could have hung a lantern on the outrageous charges that would be levied by the spending lobby - thereby inoculating himself from the spurious attacks that would surely be made. He could have boldly stated that the legislature has the authority to overturn his responsible budget by over-riding his vetoes. He could have plainly told the voters, "You hired me to fix the problem, I am. If you think that what I am doing is wrong, then you can fire me in 2006." I believe the voters in California would have rewarded such honesty with broad support.

Such a move by Governor Schwarzenegger would have required one thing: the courage of his own convictions. Of course, to have courage of conviction one must sincerely be grounded in a belief or philosophy. And, as previously stated, this Governor is a ship lacking a rudder and as such is given to drifting in odd, even erratic, directions.

GOP Legislators Take Concerns to Governor

GOP Lawmakers Take Gov. to Task Over Appointment
By Peter Nicholas, Times Staff Writer

SACRAMENTO — Republican lawmakers scolded Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Tuesday, telling him in a closed-door meeting how seriously his support among party stalwarts is wavering.

Schwarzenegger spent about an hour with 20 members of the Assembly Republican caucus, who had asked for the meeting following his appointment of a Democratic activist as his new chief of staff.

The full story is here.

First observation: The headline states that GOP lawmakers "took the Governor to task" and the story leads with the term "scolded." Yet, nowhere in the story is there any evidence presented that Assembly Republicans "took the Governor to task" or did any "scolding."

This charge is not leveled to criticize Assembly Republicans - I don't know what the tenor of the meeting was. Instead, I wish to point out that the LA. Times oversold the story. The Times uses caustic terms in the headline and opening paragraph, but then describes a meeting in which Assembly Republicans informed the Governor of the "revolt" in the grassroots. One Assemblyman is later quoted as saying that support for a megabond is unlikely and that nobody could really know without details. Hardly the harsh "scolding" I expected to read about given the headline and opening paragraph.

The Sacramento Bee did a much better job!

Second observation: From this story it appears that nothing new was presented to the Governor. I applaud the GOP members for meeting with the Governor, it demonstrates a sense of concern that is appropriate and needed. But, I still believe the Governor knew that he would raise a rancor within the GOP by his appointment of Democrat activist Susan Kennedy; and as stated before - he either doesn't care, or he doesn't think it's important. (Or, maybe both?)

Success in Iraq - An Insider's View

I am posting this message in response to the comments I received from one leftist blogger to my post Must See TV. In that post, I asked why the Democrats allow Howard Dean to continue as their national party chairman. The leftist blogger replied, "...he (Dean) was proven to have been right, and right early, about Iraq." Right about what? The leftist blogger indicates that he thinks Iraq is a "quagmire." I disagree, but even if it were, does that mean we should not have gone there to begin with? Does it mean that we should surrender and run now? Or, perhaps, would it mean that we need to change tactics (or replicate tactics that are working)?

Whether we should have gone into Iraq in the first place is now only an academic question. Personally, I think we should have gone into Iraq and I recognize that there are those who disagree. But, regardless of our belief - we are there. The relevant question now is, what do we do going forward? Do we continue the mission? Or, do we cut and run? I believe it is imperative that we continue the mission and I am encouraged by the words and analysis of one insider, Lt. Col. Bradley Becker, who believes that we can win in Iraq.

I am honored to have received this message from U.S. Army Lt. Col. Bradley Becker, who recently returned from a year-long tour in Iraq. Lt. Col. Becker commanded a task force in the Tigris River Valley (Mosul). I am informed that this message was written for members of his fraternity, which explains the format. I found the content powerful, and I genuinely wish the mainstream media would latch on to this type of story and report it on the national nightly news. Perhaps then, we could move away from the misinformed leftist diatribes and have a reasonable discussion about executing the mission in Iraq and beyond.

Here is Lt. Col. Becker's commentary...

OK Gents,

My two cents worth. First, just because I turned 27 and 41 in Iraq does not mean that my opinion is any more important than anyone else's. I understand that. It only means that I'm old and that I have some fist-hand experience with the Iraqi people, and having just given up command of a Task Force in Iraq it means that I have some recent experience. When I left Iraq 7 weeks ago I left behind literally hundreds of very good Iraqi friends. I still keep in touch with many of those friends and have spent more money on my cell phone bill talking to them than I have on beer. On the whole, I like the Iraqi people I know better than most Americans, they are extremely family oriented and not nearly as spoiled as most Americans.

When I arrived in Iraq in October of 2004 my mission was to Neutralize the enemy and establish security in the Tigris River Valley (TRV) in order to facilitate safe elections and the peaceful transition to Iraqi self governance.

Because this was a counter-insurgency (COIN) fight, not a conventional fight, I realized that I could not focus on the enemy. The enemy IS NOT the center of gravity in a COIN. The people are. Any unit whose measure of effectiveness in Iraq is how many terrorists they captured or killed will never succeed there. Unfortunately, there are commanders who don't understand this. In order to win the COIN fight you have to gain the trust and confidence of the people. Your focus must be on the people. At the same time the terrorists were also focusing their efforts on the people. The terrorists did not need popular support, but they did need that the people DID NOT support the coalition and provide information to us. The terrorists hope to live in a sea of anonymity. Their goal was to build a wall between the coalition and the people. In order to do this the terrorists used a very effective information operations campaign, very much supported by media like Al Jazeera, they used money obtained through extortion and blackmail to buy support, and when the first two failed and the people worked with us or provided information to us then the terrorists would kidnap and behead them (I lost an interpreter early on that way). Therefore my number one effects task was not capture or kill the enemy, it was to influence the local population to support the coalition, the Iraqi Security Forces and the Transitional Iraqi Government.

How did we do this? First, we integrated the Iraqi Army and Police in EVERYTHING we did so that they could eventually do it themselves. We built three Iraqi Army battalions of 3,000 men and recruited more than 3,000 police. We established a police academy, a basic training academy, and an NCO academy to add professionalism to their ranks.

We established TCP's so the roads would be safe. We conducted missions day and night attacking the terrorists so that the people knew we were serious. I established a monthly Regional Security Council meeting with all the leaders in the TRV to discuss security and economic development (our first meeting in November 04 had 12 leaders, by April we had 500). I met with Sheiks and Mukhtars EVERYDAY in their villages and ate at their houses. We built new schools, roads, water and electric projects. We provided a truly secure environment and improved their standard of living. What was the result? The people supported us with information, our soldiers became their friends and the local leaders turned terrorists in to us if they came to their villages (we had 32 terrorists from our black list turned in to us by local leaders). Terrorists could not recruit in our area because they were not welcome there, not because of my soldiers, but because the people didn't want them there. I could go downtown to the Quarya Market Place and go shopping for my kids then sit down and have lunch at a sidewalk cafe. By April, after 5 months of serious fighting with the bad guys, we did not have one single attack in our area for 6 months. Again, it was because the people not my soldiers. The police were securing the streets and the Iraqi Army was patrolling the countryside. The people of Quarya even organized and conducted a March Against Terrorism. Thousands of people turned and marched 2 miles through the market place carrying signs and chanting "No to Terrorists". I was a guest at the March and it was truly amazing. Of course this didn't make the news because no one was killed.

I will admit that our area was not the norm. We had advanced faster than most, but other areas were getting there as well. I lost 34 of my comrades in Iraq, but I will tell you that they did not die in vain. The progress that we made, the hope that we gave the Iraqi people was worth the cost. On one of my last days in Iraq I was in a small village and some of the people were crying. I thought that something must have happened, but they said that they were crying because they did not want our soldiers to leave.

I am currently trying to figure out a way to get back to Iraq. I want to see this through to the end. I want to take my family to Iraq to meet the friends I've made and show them some of the beautiful places like Boechel and Shakelawa.

I have probably gotten too personally involved to be objective about pulling out of Iraq. We are making so much progress everyday that in my opinion it would be a tragedy to pull out now. I think that the strategic endstate is achievable and will be achieved if we stay the course. But I also think it will take a couple more years to get the entire country to where we got in the TRV. But I know it can be done because we did it.

That's all for now. I qualified expert on my M4 and M9 but I type about 10 words a minute.

One last thought. What you see on the news is the sensational stuff that does happen, but thousands of good things are happening in Iraq everyday that never make the news. It's no different than our own local news, "school buss crashes 14 kids die, disturbed student kills 4 other students then principal, man kills family then himself, 6 year old girl abducted, rapist attacks 4th victim". The only reason that we don't panic is because we know what is really going on around us. I will tell you that what was going on around me everyday in Iraq was nothing like what the news depicts. So don't panic.

In Hoc, LTC (P) Brad Becker

Governor Schwarzenegger Allows Justice to Move Forward

This was just released from the Associated Press...

SACRAMENTO (AP) Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger refused Monday to spare the life of Stanley Tookie Williams, the founder of the murderous Crips gang who awaited execution after midnight in a case that stirred debate over capital punishment and the possibility of redemption on death row.

Schwarzenegger was not swayed by pleas from Hollywood stars and petitions from more than 50,000 people who said that Williams had made amends during more than two decades in prison by writing a memoir and a series of children's books about the dangers of gangs.

With a reprieve from the federal courts considered unlikely, Williams, 51, was set to die by injection at San Quentin State Prison early Tuesday for murdering four people in two 1979 holdups.

Econ 101 - Voluntary Exchange

From Townhall.com, Professor Walter Williams provides us with a basic lesson in economics. He covers the concepts of voluntary exchange and opportunity cost. Professor Williams uses the recent spike in gasoline prices to address this issue; he then demonstrates how government intervention (in this case price controls) into the marketplace has adverse affects.

Unfortunately, the study of economics at the university level has become heavily focused on the mathematics and theory of economics while all too often failing to address applied economics. Thank goodness for brilliant economists like Walter Williams who understand the complexities of economics at such a high level they are able to explain it in simple and applied terms for the rest of us.

Basic economics
By Walter E. Williams
Dec 7, 2005

With all the recent hype and demagoguery about gasoline price-gouging, maybe it's time to talk about the basics of exchange. First, what is exchange? Exchange occurs when an owner transfers property rights or title to that which is his.

Here's the essence of what transpires when I purchase a gallon of gasoline. In effect, I tell the retailer that I hold title to $3. He tells me that he holds title to a gallon of gas. I offer to transfer my title to $3 to him if he'll transfer his title to a gallon of gas to me. If this exchange occurs voluntarily, what can be said about the transaction?

One thing we know for sure is that the retailer was free to retain his ownership of the gallon of gas and I my ownership of $3. That being the case, why would we exchange? The only answer is that I perceived myself as better off giving up my $3 for the gallon of gas and likewise the retailer perceived himself as better off giving up his gas for the $3. Otherwise, why would we have exchanged?

Exchanges of this sort are called good-good exchanges, namely "I'll do something good for you if you do something good for me." Game theorists recognize this as a positive-sum game -- a transaction where both parties are better off as a result. Of course there's another type of exchange not typically sought, namely good-bad exchange. An example of that kind of exchange would be where I approached the retailer with a pistol telling him that if he didn't do something good for me, give me that gallon of gas, I'd do something bad to him, blow his brains out. Clearly, I'd be better off, but he would be worse off. Game theorists call that a zero-sum game -- a transaction where in order for one person to be better off, the other must be worse off. Zero-sum games are transactions mostly initiated by thieves and governments.

Some might argue that there's unequal bargaining power between me and the gas retailer. That's nonsense! The retailer has the power to charge any price he wishes, but I have the power to decide how much I'll buy, including none, at that price. You say, "Gas is a necessity, and we're forced to buy it." That too is nonsense. If I voluntarily purchase the gas, I do so because I deem it better than my next best alternative. Of course, at a high enough price, I wouldn't deem it as such.

In the wake of the spike in fuel prices, many Americans demand that politicians do something. You can bet the rent money that whatever politicians do will end up harming consumers. Despite a long history of their economic calamity, some Americans and politicians are calling for price controls or, what amounts to the same thing, anti price-gouging legislation. As Professor Thomas DiLorenzo points out in "Four Thousand Years of Price Control," price controls have produced calamities wherever and whenever they've been tried.

Economic ignorance, misconceptions and superstition drive us toward totalitarianism because they make us more willing to hand over greater control of our lives to politicians. That results in a diminution of our liberties. Think back to the gasoline price controls during the 1970s. The price controls caused shortages. To deal with the shortages, restrictions were imposed on purchases. Then national highway speed limits were enacted. Then there were more calls for smaller and less crashworthy cars. With the recent gasoline supply shocks, we didn't experience the shortages, long lines and closed gas stations seen during the 1970s. Why? Prices were allowed to perform their allocative function -- get people to use less gas and get suppliers to supply more.

Economic ignorance is to politicians what idle hands are to the devil. Both provide the workshop for the creation of evil.

A Good Move by Governor Schwarzenegger

From the San Francisco Chronicle
12/10/05

Governor replaces longtime Dem aide Cabinet secretary riled Republicans with Bush remarks
Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer

Battered by conservative allies who believe he's broken faith with them, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Friday replaced Cabinet Secretary Terry Tamminen, a Democrat and well-known environmental activist whose appointment two years ago was trumpeted as a show of the Republican governor's bipartisanship.

Tamminen, who headed the Santa Monica-based Environment Now foundation when he became one of the governor's first major appointments in November 2003, will hold an advisory job as special assistant to the governor for energy and environmental technologies, Schwarzenegger's office announced late Friday.

The addition of Fred Aguiar to the Cabinet is a good move - Assemblyman Aguiar is a thoughtful center-right Republican. Moving Terry Tamminen out of the inner-circle is also a long-over due and welcome change; although it would have been better to let him go altogether.

But, these positive changes don’t quell the legitimate concerns over the appointment of Susan Kennedy as chief of staff. The bottom line, as pointed out by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, is people are policy. And, the fact remains that Susan Kennedy has spent her lifetime working against the very things most Republicans have worked to achieve. She has also been an effective advocate for things that Republicans find anathema.

Must See TV

From the GOP, this is a well done ad. By releasing it on the web, the CNRC demonstrates confidence in the efficacy of the new media. They will also benefit from a little free tv advertising as cable news stations will play the ad during their "news" broadcasts and "talking heads" shows. I do hope the GOP will raise the dough to put this on the airwaves at primetime.

On the commentary side, why do the Democrats continue to allow Howard Dean to be their national chairman? Then again, he is a fair representative of national Democrat leaders (see quotes in my previous post: A National Party No More).

Showdown at high noon 5:00 pm

California Republican Assembly President Mike Spence reports on the Flash Report that CRP Vice Chairman for the Inland Region, Ed Laning, will resign at 5:00 pm today if the Governor does not withdraw his appointment of Susan Kennedy as his chief of staff.

The full report is here.

A little historical note, btw... While Mike Spence is now technically an OAFFER, he was (to my knowledge) never a YAFER. In fact, he was instead the state coordinator for another fine organization Students for America. It should be noted, however, that regardless of any past affiliations Mike is a great American and defender of liberty.

When CPU Means "Converted to Personal Use"

Among the electronically savvy in the blogosphere CPU engenders thoughts of little electronic gadgets. To those of us in the political world it has an entirely different meaning “converted to personal use.” It is a "no-no" and results in politicians facing hefty fines or jail time. In the purest sense, CPU occurs when a politician uses funds raised for his or her campaign for personal items like income, buying a car, or maybe a fancy commode – you get the idea.

But, in recent years, there has been a phenomenon that has allowed politicians to convert campaign funds to personal use, and it’s totally legal. They hire their spouse as a “campaign consultant.”

I offer for example, Representative Bob Filner (D - San Diego) who has paid his wife over half a million dollars from his campaign. While what Filner has done is not illegal, most would argue that it is really, really unethical. In fact Assemblyman Juan Vargas (D- San Diego), a challenger to Bob Filner, has made that statement by attacking the “arrangement” between Mr. Filner, Mrs. Filner and Mr. Filner’s contributors. Of course, Assemblyman Vargas “forgot” that he hired his wife’s brother in a similar, albeit different arrangement – you can read all about it in the San Diego Tribune.

Hiring family members is not something only done by Democrats; there have been plenty of Republicans who do the same. Former Representative Bob Dornan’s family made out pretty well running his campaign and mail fundraising gig. Representative Dana Rohrabacher has paid his wife to work on his campaigns. Although, it should be noted that Rhonda was working on campaigns long before she married Mr. Rohrabacher; and that is significantly different than Mrs. Filner who had never been a consultant before and has never had any other clients.

Paying a spouse from your own campaign funds seems to be a convenient loophole that allows politicians to take campaign contributions and then convert them to their own personal wealth. Something needs to be done to stop this practice; it is a violation of the public trust for an elected official to use their position to enrich themselves.

But, in crafting the solution to this unsavory practice a provision must be allowed that does not prevent a legitimate business in campaigns, fundraising, etc. by the spouse of an elected official (as in the case of Mrs. Rorhabacher). Perhaps, a conflict of interest provision should be put in place, allowing the spouse of an elected official to run campaigns, raise funds, etc. just not for his or her own spouse. That would at least address the obvious problem of taking a contribution and “paying” it to one’s own spouse (thereby increasing one's own wealth), and at the same time not prevent a spouse from legitimately operating a political business.

Thoughts on Stanley “Tookie” Williams

First and foremost, I do not envy Governor Schwarzenegger at this time, as he considers clemency for Stanley Williams. The enormity of the matter, literally being in the position to spare a man’s life, must be sobering and incredibly difficult.

I am worn out listening to pundits on both sides of this issue; and every time I hear about the political implications surrounding this decision I shudder. I hope and I sincerely believe that Arnold Schwarzenegger is making his decision without considering the political ramifications.

I have tried to place myself in the position of the Governor, and as I said I do not envy him at this moment. While I do not covet the position of Governor Schwarzenegger, I do know where I would come down on this issue and I would not grant clemency.

Admittedly, I do not have all the details. I did not witness the crimes and I did witness the trial. I do know however, that Stanley Williams was convicted by a jury and sentenced to death for brutally killing four innocent people.

During his incarceration, Stanley Williams has made a decision to speak out against gangs. If I am to believe his supporters, his anti-gang campaign has probably saved many young people from pursuing the dangerous path of gang membership. I have not read his books, and I don’t know all of the details of his “good works.”

What I do know is human behavior. I know that if Stanley Williams had not been caught and convicted for his vicious crimes, he probably would still be living the gang-banger life. I do know that faced with the consequences (including death) of his decisions, Stanley Williams has been chastened and may very well be a different man. I know that his “turn around” may have benefited society. But, I also know that by gracefully accepting the consequences of his actions he will send an unmistakable message that will further his own post-conviction teachings.

Stanley Williams chose to murder four innocent people. When he pulled the trigger, he knew the consequences he would face if he was captured. The most responsible thing Stanley Williams can do now issue a statement, something like this...

“I made a mistake. I got involved in gangs, drugs, theft and ultimately murder. The consequence for my behavior has been a quarter-century in prison and in a few days the loss of my life. I used that quarter-century to encourage others not to follow my path, now I will use my execution as way to further that message. I accept the penalty – the consequence – for the decisions I made. And, I hope that by accepting my own death, with dignity, I can send a message to all of those young people thinking about following the path I chose. That death is the consequence for your choice.”

My heart is heavy for the families of the victims of Stanley Williams, I pray for them. My heart is heavy for Stanley Williams, I pray that he genuinely has repented, sought forgiveness, and can find peace in Heaven. I also pray for Governor Schwarzenegger, that he will find peace in his decision, wherever he comes down. Finally, while I know that there will be political ramifications to that decision, I pray that the Governor dismisses those thoughts altogether.

Time to Celebrate

According to the AP Rob "Meathead" Reiner will not be running for Governor in 2006.
This is cause to celebrate in California... It is still undecided whether it will be a hootinannie or a hoedown.

Of course we still have our celebrity Governor and the two mighty Lilliputians...



OK, so maybe just a shindig, let's not get carried away now.

Gov's Problems Continue With Mainstream in GOP

The following stories cover the controversial appointment of Jane Fonda admirer and Democrat activist Susan Kennedy to the position of COS by Governor Schwarzenegger.


Los Angles Times
Governor Faces Revolt in GOP
As anger rises over the choice of a Democrat as chief of staff, party leaders demand a talk.
By Robert Salladay, LA Times Staff Writer

• What does it mean to have a chief of staff from the other party during a year of reelection?" asked state Republican Party Chairman Duf Sundheim. "This is one of the reasons we wanted to sit down, to express these concerns."

• "By selecting somebody who has been such a warrior against the values our members have, those people will say, 'Forget it, I am never going down to the headquarters again.' The true believers will focus on county supervisors and school board races," said Michael Der Manouel, Jr., president of the Lincoln Club of Fresno County and a GOP activist.

Sacramento Bee
GOP leaders demand answer
Republicans say the governor must explain why he named a Democrat as his chief of staff.
By Gary Delsohn -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 2:15 am PST Wednesday, December 7, 2005

• Assemblyman Ray Haynes, R-Murrieta, a member of the conservative California Republican Assembly, wrote a piece Monday on the organization's Web site that suggested conservatives felt permanently scorned by Kennedy's appointment. He also took strong exception to administration comments that Kennedy's appointment was a bold move by an unconventional governor.
  
  "I'll be real blunt," Haynes said in an interview Tuesday. "This was not a bold move. This was a chicken move. This was a move of capitulation."

• Duf) Sundheim said board members wanted to ask Schwarzenegger directly about how Kennedy's appointment may affect his future policy agenda. They're also very concerned about the more practical matter of how she can work with the party as it tries to help get Schwarzenegger elected again next year.
  
  For one thing, the chief of staff or a designee usually sits in on Republican Party board meetings. With an election coming up, issues such as campaign strategy as well as get-out-the-vote and volunteer efforts would be discussed.

I stand behind my analysis posted in my “Second Thoughts on Stopping Kennedy” commentary. I don’t think there is any chance of turning back this appointment. It is the Governor’s choice; he does get to pick his Chief of Staff. But, just as the Governor gets to choose, so do Republicans. The serious questions that have been raised must be answered. But, regardless of those answers it is clear that a statewide Republican standard bearer must rise to speak for the party. At this time however, I am at a loss in predicting who that person will be.

A National Party No More

Democrats Make Politics Out of the War at the Expense of our Soldiers and the Iraqi People.

It sickens me to listen to the national Democrat leadership when they talk about the war in Iraq. I do not understand how they can possibly think that they are helping matters by declaring that “we cannot win.” What happened to the day when “politics stopped at the waters edge?” What happened to the statesmen in our Congress? Is the current vitriol the result of the “Jane Fonda” generation taking control of the Democrat party? Is this the result of a political party, so wed to their hatred of President Bush that they would sacrifice defeat just to “get” the President?

Here are recent quotes from national Democrat leaders who call for retreat and U.S. surrender in Iraq…

Dean declares that we can't win. Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democrat National Committee, "The idea that we are going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong." 12/5/05

Kerry calls our troops terrorists. John Kerry, US Senator, Democrat nominee for President 2004, “And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs.” 12/4/05

Pelosi calls for immediate withdrawal. Nancy Pelosi, Democrat Leader in the House of Representatives commenting on Rep. John Murtha’s call for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq… "I'm endorsing what Mr. Murtha is saying, which is that the status quo is not working and that we need to have a plan that makes us safer and our military stronger and makes Iraq more stable.”


Gore says global warming is a greater threat than terrorism. Al Gore, US Senator, Democrat nominee for President 2000, "I don't want to diminish the threat of terrorism at all... but on a long-term global basis, global warming is the most serious problem we are facing." 11/14/05


When I hear their rhetoric I understand the frustration that was evident in the voice of Senator Zell Miller, a life-long Democrat who addressed Republicans at their convention in 2004. His speech was the most moving speech of the convention and his words appear prophetic when you read the above quotes. Below is Senator Miller's speech.


GOP Convention
September 1, 2004

Senator Zell Miller (D-Georgia)

Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren.

Along with all the other members of our close-knit family -- they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions.

And I know that's how you feel about your family also.

Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face.

Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in.

And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?

The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.

There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.

In the summer of 1940, I was an eight-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley.

Our country was not yet at war but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could.

President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."

In 1940 Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.

And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man.

He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.

And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom", he would prefer the latter.

Where are such statesmen today?

Where is the bi-partisanship in this country when we need it most?

Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief.

What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?

I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.

It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.

Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today.

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.

They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism - it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.

They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.

They were wrong.

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40% of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: Against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel, Against the Aegis air-defense cruiser, Against the Strategic Defense Initiative, Against the Trident missile, against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.

Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.

Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.

Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide.

John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.

That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world.
Free for how long?

For more than twenty years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure. As a war protestor, Kerry blamed our military.

As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far-away.

George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.

John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war. George Bush believes we have to fight today's war and be ready for tomorrow's challenges. George Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists.

No matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under.George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.

From John Kerry, they get a "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.

I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man.

I am moved by the respect he shows the First Lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters, and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.

I can identify with someone who has lived that line in "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see," and I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.

He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.

I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel.

The man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.

This election will change forever the course of history, and that's not any history. It's our family's history.

The only question is how. The answer lies with each of us. And, like many generations before us, we've got some hard choosing to do.Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Fainthearted, self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.

In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.

Thank you.

God Bless this great country and God Bless George W. Bush.

Bill Saracino Weighs in on Susan Kennedy

From his Martini Musings in CPPF Bill Saracino asks some very relevant questions of Susan Kennedy. It's one thing for Ms. Kennedy and the Governor to say that they are "of one mindset," but it's an entirely different thing to address specific issues. I for one, would love to know the answers to the questions posed by Mr. Saracino. But, alas, I fear that all I will hear are the sounds of silence. For your edification...

Lefties for Schwarzenegger

Some simple questions for Susan Kennedy

A few answers from the governor’s new COS might reduce the heat on her boss; alternatively, she could simply do a Harriet Meiers.

William E. Saracino is a member of California Political Review’s editorial board.

Now that Gov. Schwarzenegger has made clear the qualifications to be a governor’s chief of staff (COS), I am preparing my resume in case California voters elect Democrats Phil Angelides or Steve Westley governor next year. Based on the justifications given by the Schwarzenegger spin-meisters for hiring liberal Democrat Susan Kennedy as his COS, I’d be a perfect fit for Angelides or Westley.

I’ve never been a registered Democrat, have never worked to help or elect any Democrat, and in fact have spent my entire adult life working against the interests of Democrat politicians and office holders. A fair reading of my public record would be that I loathe most everything the modern Democrat Party represents. I am, essentially, a mirror image of Ms. Kennedy, whose relationship to Republicans pretty much matches mine with Democrats.

As Wall Street Journal writer John Fund (like me, a Schwarzenegger supporter during the recall) recently pointed out, Susan Kennedy is not just any liberal Democrat. She has been on the front lines battling Republicans and our ideas most of her adult life, including stints as California Democrat Party COS and president of the California Abortion Rights Action League. She was cabinet secretary for Gray Davis when some of the most ethically questionable of his many ethically questionable Capitol deals took place.

This is the person Arnold Schwarzenegger wants us to believe is the best choice among California’s 35 million citizens to be his chief of staff. On the surface, that assertion seems ludicrous, laughable, and a slap in the face to every registered Republican in the state. But as one who took a great deal of guff from fellow conservatives for supporting him in the recall, and one who still wishes him well, I am for this column prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt — if Ms. Kennedy can answer the following questions.

*On recall election day you were a political appointee of Gov. Gray Davis. How did you vote on the recall question, and for whom did you vote in the candidate section of the ballot? If your answers are “yes” and “Arnold Schwarzenegger,” why should anyone trust someone who would betray their sponsor like that? And if your answers are “no” and “Cruz Bustamante,” why should any Republican trust your judgment?

*You have said an early political “hero” of yours was Jane Fonda. Did you ever publicly disagree or distance yourself from her treasonous actions in North Vietnam? If not, why not? Do you disagree with her description of American POWS held in the “Hanoi Hilton” as “liars” when they described being tortured? If so, please point us to a source where we can find this disagreement expressed.

*The California Abortion Rights Action League, madam ex-president, opposes any restriction on the barbaric practice known as “partial birth abortion.” Do you agree with that position? Gov. Schwarzenegger has said he would sign legislation banning this procedure. If such a bill were to reach his desk, what would your sign/veto recommendation to him be?

*The California Democrat Party’s official platform, madam ex-chief of staff, states that it “opposes use of divisive words like ‘illegal’ in front of immigrant, calling instead for use of the word “undocumented.” Do you agree with this?

*The platform also opposes what it calls “imposition of religious beliefs or preferences on others.” Many interpret this to mean, among other things, that the Party opposes keeping “under God” in the pledge and “in God we trust” on our coins. Do you disagree with these Party positions, and if so, please point us to a source where we can find this disagreement expressed.

*Most of your Party’s elected officials support issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. Do you disagree with them? If so, please point us to a source where we can find this disagreement expressed.

Ms. Kennedy, these are all pretty simple questions. Gov. Schwarzenegger says he appointed you COS because you and he are of the same mindset. He would have no difficulties answering these questions. How about you?

If you can’t answer them, please do a Google search on Harriet Meiers, then follow her example: do the honorable thing.

Kudos to Assemblyman Ray Haynes

I enjoyed Assemblyman Haynes' article published today in the California Political Review for a couple of reasons. First, Assemblyman Haynes, an early supporter of Arnold Schwarzenegger, clearly articulates a position that I think responsible Republicans must consider. Second, I love the imagery the Assemblyman uses; I only wish he somehow could have worked it out so the linemen crushed the canary (a little attempt at humor here).

The article, reprinted here, is online here. Enjoy...


The Susan Kennedy appointment

A canary on life support

The governor, having summoned up the specter of Gray Davis’s ghost, has exhausted his right to the benefit of the doubt.

Ray Haynes
Assemblyman Ray Haynes represents California’s 66th Assembly District.

Politics is a lot like football: a team sport for individuals with similar goals. The team advances its agenda, sometimes in small increments, moving the ball toward “victory.” The only real difference between football and politics is that the players can change positions frequently. Sometimes a politician is the quarterback, sometimes he is the lineman. In all cases, everyone wins if they effectively execute the play that is called in the huddle.

I know I’m a lineman in California politics. I’m willing to be stepped on, smashed up, or hurt for my quarterback, as long as I know he is going to advance my team down the field to victory. I have been loyal to our governor because I have always believed he was throwing the ball to our team. I have not always agreed with his strategy, but I have been confident we were on the same team. Last week I lost that confidence.

I endorsed Arnold Schwarzenegger for governor before the recall because at the time I thought the best thing for conservatives was to win the recall. We started it in February of 2003; we had to finish it by defeating Gray Davis. Many Republicans opposed the recall because they believed it was too risky: that it might ultimately strengthen Democrats. I was told that by prominent Republicans leaders that my early support of the recall was foolish. I thought it was the right thing to do.

At the time I endorsed Schwarzenegger, he and Cruz Bustamante were tied in the polls. Had the recall resulted in a Gov. Bustamante, it would have destroyed conservative influence in California. Schwarzenegger won, running on conservative themes of fiscal responsibility and opposing taxpayer benefits for illegal aliens. The conservatives who began the recall were vindicated.

Since then, despite differences, I have consistently supported this governor, getting my fingers bloodied and my nose broken blocking the bad guys to advance the ball. I thought Californians owed this governor the benefit of the doubt; I believed he was trying to do the right thing.
I am no longer certain of that, and last week the “benefit of the doubt” was eliminated. The governor deliberately threw the ball to the other team. It may be too early to draw a final conclusion from the chief of staff appointment of Susan Kennedy, but Kennedy was at the center of the Oracle scandal, the energy crisis, and the budget debacles of the Davis Administration. I don’t trust Kennedy to advance the agenda in which I believe, and I’m reluctant to put my faith in a quarterback who would put her in charge. Time may ultimately prove me wrong. This appointment might prove to be an effective, creative strategy that advances California in a good direction. But that will have to happen before any more faith can justifiably be placed in this administration.


Years ago, in the days of less-sophisticated mining technology, miners would take a canary into the cave with them to detect dangerous gases. If the canary dropped dead while they were working, the miners knew to get out of the mine immediately, because they were being exposed to dangerous gases. The canary is demonstrating serious signs of distress in this administration: Susan Kennedy is a hazardous gas in this dangerous mine of government. She puts the canary on life support. We can no longer take it for granted that the mine is safe, or that the governor is trying to take us anywhere we want to go.

Reason Foundation on Universal Preschool

"Universal Preschool is Inviting Universal Disaster"

Shikha Dalmia and Lisa Snell of the Reason Foundation wrote and excellent piece, published in the San Francisco Chronicle on universal education, the entire article can be read here.

Dalmia and Snell provide a thought provoking analysis using comparisons of the universal daycare program implemented in Quebec eight years ago. I could go on, pointing out how their analysis supports the concerns I raised in my Econ 101 post, but instead I will encourage you to read their article (that means click the blue "here" up there ^).

Cal Chamber Opposes Preschool Initiative

The Oakland Tribune reported today that the Executive Board of the California Chamber of Commerce voted to oppose the "tax the rich" universal preschool initiative being promoted by Rob Reiner - the full story can be read here. This move is a blow to supporters of the initiative who were hoping for Chamber neutrality and therefore some reprieve from an all out assault by big business.

One would expect opposition from small business representatives like the NFIB considering that nearly 80% of businesses in California pay taxes under the Personal Income Tax Law and will be subject to the tax imposed by the initiative. The Chamber, which tends to be the voice of large corporations, will be a welcome ally.

Econ 101 - TNSTAAFL

There's No Such Thing as a Free Lunch (TNSTAAFL)

I read these headlines and it drove me crazy...

Initiative to provide free preschool to all of state's kids ready for ballot (SF Chron 11/18/05)

Plan for free preschool nears ballot (SJ Mercury News 11/18/05)

Of course the "free preschool" will actually cost taxpayers over $2.3 billion; that is the amount of money proposed to be confiscated from the "rich" by tax collectors to pay for this massive new mandate.

When I was blessed to teach economics in high school one of the most fundamental lessons was TNSTAAFL - in fact it is required by California's standards for economics education. Perhaps those who write headlines for our major newspapers should be required to take a high school economics class.

One of the great problems with public discourse nowadays is the lack of intellectual integrity and the desire to use "focus group" tested half-truths to win regardless of how honest the arguments are in the process. This ultimately will do great damage to our state and nation.

The truth of the matter is universal preschool will cost California taxpayers an extraordinary amount of money and most people would not vote for it if they had to bear the cost. Rob "Meathead" Reiner (who is no meathead) understands this, and that is why he proposes to pay for this by taxing a small minority of "rich" people. The fact is, his stategy just might work as it did for Darrell Steinberg who successfully imposed an additional 1% tax on income over $1 million to pay for mental health services.


The strategy is to offer a service that many people want, but wouldn't or couldn't utilize if they had to pay for it themselves. People believe they are getting "free" preschool, mental health care, etc. and vote to get it at the expense of someone else. Of course, if they had to pay for the service directly or by paying more in taxes themselves the service would be rejected. Interestingly, on the same ballot as Mr. Steinberg's mental health tax was a broadbased telephone tax to pay for emergency medical services - voters soundly rejected that tax increase. The action of voters at the polls upheld the age old axiom, "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the guy behind the tree."

Issues that need to raised and discussed honestly in the debate over universal preschool include:

• Who should pay for it?
• Can we continue to pile taxes upon the "rich" considering that in 2003 (the most recent data available) 84% of California's personal income tax was paid by the top 20% of wage earners?
• Is it wise to concentrate revenue in such a wildly progressive income tax scheme which creates volatility in revenue collections for the state and contributes to peaks and troughs like that which occurred after the dot com bubble burst?

And back to the original point (digressions are my specialty), can we please stop calling the Reiner initiative a proposal to provide "free preschool," lest we crush the self esteem of every California high school economics teacher who worked so hard to teach that there is no such thing as a free lunch?