Archive for the ‘The Homepage Feature’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Sensible Alternatives for Fixing Health Care

Wednesday, December 16th, 2009

Congressional Democrats claim that their health reform effort will deliver higher quality care at lower cost to more people. But their legislative prescription, which relies almost entirely on greater government involvement in the delivery of health care, would fail to accomplish these objectives.

Fortunately, there is a better way. With a few targeted reforms to our country’s medical-malpractice laws, insurance regulations, and the tax code, we can do a great deal to expand access to coverage and improve the American healthcare system for all — without bankrupting the country.

These basic goals of reform — expanding access and reducing cost — seem to have disappeared from the Democrats’ reform plan. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the leading Senate healthcare bill would actually cause premiums to rise for most Americans.

A legislative package that makes health care more expensive can hardly be called reform, especially when there are more effective ways of fixing the system.

For starters, consider how the bill would address pre-existing conditions, which often prevent people from securing adequate individual insurance coverage at an affordable price. Many congressional Democrats would like to require insurance companies to extend policies to all comers without regard for their medical history or health status.

States that have implemented such “guaranteed issue” regulations have seen premiums rise by more than 200 percent.

There’s a more prudent approach, one that won’t send premiums into the stratosphere: expand federal funding for high-risk insurance pools at the state level. These privately-run, publicly-funded insurance programs act as a safety net for those who can’t obtain conventional insurance.

High-risk pools already exist in 35 states. Expanding them to the remainder of the country would ensure that those with pre-existing conditions have a way of obtaining quality health care, without causing premiums to increase for all Americans until we have a fully functioning, competitive individual insurance market.

Medical malpractice law is another area that is ripe for reform. One in eight doctors is hit with a malpractice suit each year. These suits aren’t cheap — the average medical tort case costs a whopping $100,000 to defend, even though doctors are found innocent 90 percent of the time. To protect themselves in the event of a legal proceeding, many doctors practice “defensive medicine,” whereby they order more tests and procedures than necessary.

Such overtreatment increased individual health expenditures by $124 billion in 2006 and has added more than 3 million Americans to the ranks of the uninsured.

Patients who are wronged should be able to have their day in court. But with less than 15 cents of tort-lawsuit dollars going to compensate the injured, there’s clearly a significant amount of waste in the system. Implementing several commonsense tort reforms — including a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages — could reduce healthcare health spending by $11 billion, according to the CBO.

Healthcare reform should also make it easier for part-time workers and the unemployed to obtain coverage. Most Americans receive insurance through their employers — and don’t pay tax on the value of the benefit. Those who don’t get insurance through work are forced to buy an individual policy with after-tax dollars or forgo coverage altogether.

That’s unfair. Americans ought to be able to purchase insurance policies for themselves and their families with pre-tax dollars, just as businesses can. Such a reform would render health insurance portable, so workers could take their policies with them if they switched jobs — or keep their policies if they were laid off.

Another way to make health care less costly? Allow insurance companies to do business across state lines. Presently, Americans can only purchase policies approved for sale in the state where they live. This rule limits patients’ choices and curbs their ability to shop around for the best deal.

Removing those barriers would unleash a torrent of competition overnight, as consumers could begin shopping for insurance in states with more affordable coverage options.

A 25 year-old male in New Jersey, for instance, currently pays nearly $5,600 for a basic insurance policy. But if he were free to purchase coverage in Kentucky, he could obtain a similar policy for less than $1,000 a year!

Congressional Democrats may not be willing to admit it, but we can achieve health reform that expands coverage and lowers costs without placing government at the center of the effort. Commonsense reforms like these are a good start.

******

Michele Bachmann is a Republican Congresswoman representing Minnesota’s 6th Congressional District. Sally Pipes is President & CEO of the Pacific Research Institute.

Posted in The Homepage Feature, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Alice in Hondurasland

Thursday, December 3rd, 2009

By now, much has been written by Honduran election observers about the peaceful, orderly, transparent and fair Presidential elections that took place without a hitch on November 29.  Unaccountably, many nations still question the legitimacy of the new government and remain mired in rehashing the events of June 28, when President Zelaya was removed unceremoniously from office by the military at the behest of the Honduran Supreme Court.

To their credit, the United States, Costa Rica, Peru and Colombia all have agreed to recognize the legitimacy of President-elect Porfirio Lobo’s selection.  However, some prominent members of OAS who have sympathies with the left-leaning Zelaya, including Brazil and Venezuela, remain intent on de-legitimizing the election, asserting that to recognize President-elect Lobo would—in some way that is not clear—validate the “coup” that brought President Micheletti to office.

The majority of the international community still demands that Zelaya be restored to office to serve out his term as a pre-requisite to resuming full diplomatic relations, despite the Honduran Congress’s firm and repeated refusal to comply.

For those not steeped in the politics of the region, it would be easy to conclude from the overwhelming international condemnation of Zelaya’s ouster and the sensational press photos of protesters clashing with Honduran troops that Honduras is indeed on the brink of a socialist revolution.

Before my trip to Tegucigalpa this past week as one of the over 500 international observers from 31 countries who were invited by the Honduran Tribunal Supremo Electoral (TSE) to witness the Presidential election, I too had concerns about the legitimacy of the Micheletti government and questions about where the true the allegiances of the Honduran people lay. Based on news reports and academic briefings in the U.S., I had expected to find widespread civil unrest and a heavy-handed military presence.

Initial impressions of Tegucigalpa did little to dispel the bleak image of a divided and struggling democracy that had been painted so vividly in the international press and re-enforced by the universal condemnation of the Micheletti government by the international community, including the U.S., OAS and our European allies.  There was, by U.S. standards, a heavily armed military presence on the streets surrounding polls and key government buildings, and entering our own hotel resembled clearing airport security at Heathrow, complete with bomb dogs and baggage searches.  Spray painted graffiti messages supporting former President Zelaya (“Viva Mel!”) and condemning current President Micheletti, lined the main routes between the airport and our hotel in downtown Tegucigalpa, giving the impression that dissent, while nowhere evident on the street, was simmering somewhere just below the surface.

The next day, together with a team of National Election Observers from the Honduran civil society group Union Civica Democratica, several of us set out to the streets of Tegucigalpa to hear directly from Honduran citizens.  What emerged from our conversations over the course of the next two days was a starkly different reality than the one being peddled by the international media and OAS.

First of all, no one on the streets or at the polls on election day had any hesitance speaking openly with us about their political views, often within easy view and earshot of the military.  In my experience, in countries where the military or government is feared, speaking publicly with foreigners is considered dangerous.  The people of Tegucigalpa, from shady Central Square to El Citio, one of the poorest shanty towns surrounding the city, were enthusiastically debating politics and sharing their untrammeled views with international observers, foreign news crews and each other.  No one claimed to feel intimidated by either by the government or by Zelayists.  What ordinary Hondurans wanted was to assert their right to vote for a new president, to re-join the international community, and to prove to all doubters that Honduran respect for Constitutional democracy was strong.

Second, there was virtually no support voiced for the re-instatement of Zelaya, and even less for Chavez-style socialism.  Many people deplored the desecration of their buildings—even churches—with political graffiti by what they suspected to be foreign activists.  Even more objected to the tinkering of foreign governments in the internal exercise of Honduran democracy, whether the interference came from the Chavez-influenced OAS or the U.S. Embassy.  In my experience, the 111 to 14 vote in the Honduran Congress Wednesday rejecting international calls to re-instate Zelaya accurately reflects Honduran public sentiment and is in no way an elitist perspective as asserted by Zelaya in the wake of Congress’s rejection of his bid to return to office.

Third, Zelaya’s campaign to delegitimize the outcome of Sunday’s election by calling for a voter boycott fell firmly on its face.  Hondurans were outraged by the idea that they should disenfranchise themselves and were instead energized to turn out at a hearty 61%–fully 8% above the voter turnout that elected Zelaya to office four years earlier.

Despite scare tactics from pro-Zelaya newspapers and radio broadcasts that warned Hondurans that their lives would be in danger by venturing out to vote, venture out they did—in droves.  I personally witnessed voters arriving on crutches and in wheel chairs, young and old voters, rich and poor; everyone came out to vote.

The Honduran Supreme Court, an overwhelming majority of the Honduran Congress, and many members of President Zelaya’s own party, all support an interpretation of the Honduran Constitution that would compel the immediate removal of any president who seeks to change the core democratic provisions of their constitution—especially the provision that limits presidents to one term.  Given the regional context, where Chavez has extended his control over Venezuela by lifting presidential term limits, who can blame the Hondurans for seeing a genuine threat to democracy in Zelaya’s attempt to test the waters for a similar change?

It’s time for the international community to end its inappropriate—and ultimately unsuccessful—efforts to influence Honduran politics and instead recognize the profound strength of the Honduran people and this tiny nation’s inspirational commitment to democracy.  To have held fast to core democratic values in the face of crippling economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation and vociferous condemnation in the international press has required enormous strength of character.  In an era when many politicians spend their time worrying about how their actions will be perceived and reported by the daily press, Honduran judges and elected representatives have kept their focus on abiding by core democratic principles and are content to be judged by history.   The international press may continue to distort events in Honduras, but it is the duty of the 500 international observers who were eye-witnesses the profound celebration of democracy in Honduras on November 29 to begin to set the record straight.

******

Kerry Murphy Healey, former Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts, serves as Co-Chair of Project Independence, an initiative of the American Security Council Foundation.

**The photo for this article was taken by the author.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in The Homepage Feature, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Women’s Issues are Everyone’s Issues: Breaking Out of the Glass Box Supported by So-Called Women’s Groups

Monday, November 30th, 2009

Women engaged in the realm of public policy and politics are often be inundated with questions or information related to “women’s issues.”

I have received a number of questionnaires from various political organizations over the years. I opened one the other day and was surprised to see, that by the very questions asked, women were set back years — no decades — by what was inside.

In supposed support of women, this self described women’s group showed their true colors with their single-minded focus on a left-leaning social agenda rather than the real advancement of a diverse thinking set of women candidates across the political spectrum. For example, in their so-called promotion of “women’s issues,” questions related to abortion rights, gay marriage, and expansion of subsidized government programs made up the bulk of the Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire for the National Women’s Political Caucus (NWPC). These issues are clearly their litmus test to whether you are a candidate who “supports women.” We all have strong opinions on these issues, but by using those three issues as the standard bearer for what constitutes “women’s issues”, this group and groups like them have done a tremendous disservice to the same people that they are supposedly trying to help.

Through their limited focus, these groups trivialize women and their significant role in getting things done in the public sphere through what I call a Cindy-Lou Who approach to dealing with women in politics. Remember when Cindy-Lou Who woke up while the Grinch was stealing her Christmas tree in the “The Grinch Who Stole Christmas?” In that story, after telling the young child a fib about taking the tree away to be fixed, the Grinch takes his large, bony hands and pats Cindy-Lou Who on the head, gives her a drink of water, and sends her back to bed.

That is what these so-called women’s groups, these self proclaimed gatekeepers of what constitutes women’s issues, are doing to women. They are essentially patting us on the head and telling us to trust them and their motives— because it is they who know the issues that define what it means to support women. Through their distinct political agenda, these groups insinuate that while women’s viewpoints are important for a certain defined group of issues, they are really not necessary for other critical issues of the day. This quiet sexism is brought to you directly from the people trying to sell the idea that they are the arbiter of which candidates support do or do not support women.

Unfortunately, these women’s groups do not seem to understand that almost 50% of jobs in our country are held by women and 40% of families say that the major earner in their household are female. Clearly, what constitutes “women’s issues” has changed.

Women are concerned with issues across the spectrum: how we can get our economy back on track, how we can educate our kids to have their best opportunity to succeed, how we can reform our healthcare system to ensure families have affordable healthcare which they control, how we can help those in need with a safety net as opposed to a safety web which ensnares them into further dependence, how we can ensure safety and security in our communities and our country; how we can make sure government is not making empty promises which will overburden future generations, and the list goes on and on.

Where were the ideas of economic freedom and economic opportunity on the agenda for the National Women’s Political Caucus in their political candidate questionnaire? Where were the questions about challenges that women business owners face in small business start-ups which are the mainstay of Main Streets throughout the country? Where were the questions of supporting our women in uniform who are protecting our freedom’s every day?

When women’s groups try to put “women’s issues” in a neat little glass box tied up with a bright pink bow that promotes the political agenda of the left rather than focusing on solving the real problems our country are facing, they are missing the point and missing a real opportunity for women to have a positive impact on moving our economy, our policies, and our political debates forward.

We owe to the women, and men, of this country a broader view of what constitutes women’s issues. Women’s issues are everyone’s issues. Everyone’s issues are women’s issues. It’s about time that these so-called women’s groups advance their thinking toward a new understanding of what issues women care about.

It is the perfect time for conservative women to challenge the premise of the past view of women’s issues and set the record straight for the so-called “women’s groups” out there. We need to break out of the box that the left has tried to put women in and break into a better understanding that women’s issues cannot be separated out. Conservative women, have a real and special opportunity in today’s political environment to change the debate and cut through the hum of the same ‘ol message and the same ‘ol messengers. It is time for us to put an end to the idea that left leaning groups corner the market on women’s issues or women candidates. It is up to us to bring forward good ideas, good solutions, good candidates, and good messages to show very clearly that women can be, should be, and are engaged in discussions and debate on a broad spectrum of issues—not just those the so-called “women’s groups” have defined for us.

Rather than being confined to a set group of litmus test “women’s issues” by interest groups with a specific political and social agenda, the real opportunity for women candidates across the political spectrum is our ability to reach out to persuade voters by speaking on important and relevant issues with a unique solution-oriented perspective and communication style which add tremendous value and differentiation to the various debates throughout the country.

That real potential for women engaged in ALL issues will have a positive impact on our state and our country in ways our grandmothers and all the women who walked before us only imagined possible.

******

Laura Brod is a State Representative in Minnesota where she serves as ranking Minority member of the Tax Committee, and is a member of the Health Care Policy and Finance Committees, and the General Finance Committee.

Tags:
Posted in The Homepage Feature | 6 Comments »

“Rob the Young to Pay the Old”: Obama Sacrifices His Strongest Supporters With Healthcare Proposal

Monday, November 16th, 2009

With roughly one-third of Americans ages 20 to 30 without health insurance, young adults make up the largest uninsured population in the country. Liberals say we need health reform for the sake of all the “uninsured children and elderly,” but the facts are that less than 3% of those over the age of 65 and only 10% of children under the age of 18 are uninsured – and the vast majority of them are eligible for Medicaid and Medicare but simply not enrolled.

The harsh reality of Obama’s proposal for health reform is that it will have the most direct and detrimental effect on young adults. The legislation passed by the House last Saturday essentially shifts the cost burden of health insurance to young Americans in their 20s. Many healthy young people, who on average make less money than older workers, choose not to purchase health insurance, sometimes because they feel their funds are better spent elsewhere. Instituting an individual mandate not only strips young Americans of their right to choose how to spend their hard-earned income, but also forces them to foot the bill for their parents’ and grandparents’ health care. So while seniors’ health insurance premiums may be cut in half, many young adults will see their premiums double through this age-based redistribution of wealth.

As noted in a recent briefing paper from the CATO Institute, two provisions of the health care reform proposal place particular burden on young adults: community rating and guaranteed issue. A form of price control, community rating means everyone pays the same premium. The cost is determined by the average qualities in the community rather than the individual’s demographic, previous health records, smoking status, and other related aspects. In the Pelosi bill (H.R. 3962), a 64 year old with several chronic conditions would pay no more than twice what a healthy 18 year old would pay – and a smoker who likes to binge drink would pay no more than a fitness guru. With guaranteed issue, eliminating the pre-existing condition exclusion removes all barriers to entry. Regardless of physical condition, everyone has access to the same health insurance coverage at about the same price.

Leaving the merits of these provisions in the overall health care reform debate to other authors, it is important to note their negative impact on young adults. By setting price controls on insurance premiums and dropping the pre-existing condition exclusion rule, forcing an individual mandate establishes excessive taxation of the young to financially support the old. What an unfortunate way for the President to treat the generation who was so instrumental in his election.

It comes as no surprise, then, that President Obama’s approval ratings have fallen significantly among young Americans since his election and inauguration. In January, the President’s approval rating among those under 30 was 79%. By November that number had fallen to 63%, a dramatic 16-point plunge among President Obama’s strongest supporters.

So what will the future hold for America’s youngest generation of voters? If last week’s two gubernatorial elections were any indicator, the future might not be so blue. The youth vote split, in New Jersey breaking for the Democrat and in Virginia actually going to Republican Governor-elect Bob McDonnell.

Obama’s “rob the young to pay the old” policies offer the GOP a real opportunity to reach out to young Americans. The House vote on H.R. 3962 last weekend places a heavy burden on this generation. The question is, will the weight of this burden push these voters to the Republican Party?

******

Brittny McKinney and Rachel Hoff are GOP activists and members of the Washington, DC Young Republicans. Brittny is a licensed agent for life and health insurance.

Posted in The Homepage Feature | 11 Comments »

For Those Who Suffered So Much: The Massacre at Fort Hood

Monday, November 9th, 2009

For the families of military men and women just returned from Iraq last week, the worst was over.  In their various homes, over meals and daily chores, spouses, parents, and children collectively exhaled for the first time in nearly a year.  They planned parties and drew “welcome home” banners; phones rang frequently as relatives and friends called congratulations.  But for the family of six-weeks pregnant Private Francheska Velez, just returned to Fort Hood from Iraq, joy was cut short with a knock on the door of their Chicago home.  Outside, military officers with spotless uniforms and somber eyes waited on the stoop, bearing terrible news.

While the experts and doctors and pundits search for words to describe Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s actions at Fort Hood last Thursday, they will miss one critical diagnosis:  cowardice.  It is no good pointing out that Hasan worked with traumatized soldiers, or that he faced a personal religious crisis.  In fact, it now appears that he attempted to contact leaders in al Qaeda.  Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is not catching like flu or measles, and he had never been to war.  Nor was Hasan cruelly drafted into the military against personal conviction; he voluntarily joined and swore loyalty to an organization whose sole purpose for existing is warfare, and whose sole war is in the Middle East.  And when Hasan, despite his choice, despite his oath, despite his lawyers and his protests, could not escape the consequences of his own decisions, he murdered the unarmed soldiers who were his brothers and sisters in arms and fellow citizens.  A coward if there ever was one.

November 5 was a dishonest day, but there was some justice too.  Hasan, whose cries of “Allahu Akbar” and attempted suicide would have theoretically won him 72 women in paradise, was instead gunned down by one.  There will be no martyr’s death for him, no poster of his smiling face adorning zealot walls.  Instead, early medical reports indicate that he is possibly crippled, perhaps paralyzed.  He may spend his remaining days in a bed or a wheelchair – just as the soldier whose leg was ripped away by a roadside bomb, or the Marine whose spine was shredded by an IED.  Ironically, if Hasan’s motivation was simply fear, simply panic (a prolonged, thoughtful panic, a panic that involved giving away all of his possessions, and making sure his apartment was clean) he is now facing physical and psychological wounds as horrible as any he could have suffered on a foreign battlefield.

Sadder still is the fact that doctors with Hasan’s training are desperately needed.  His deployment to Afghanistan was one among many hopeful signs that, however slowly, the military is attempting to take PTSD seriously.  But a psychotic psychologist, a counselor who needs counseling himself, will only contribute to the impression among battle-hardened troops that “shrinks” are no good.  Yet troops need just as much training to reenter civilian life as they received to leave it.  The war on terrorism is a war without foxholes, without forts, without boundaries.  It is a war men and women take home with them, portable and pocket-sized.  Americans used to sing “Over There,” but there really isn’t any over there any more; our soldiers fight terrorism on a rural road in Anbar province, in a crowded terminal in L.A., or on an army base in central Texas.

The murders at Fort Hood were not a tragedy, but a conflagration of tragedies.  Hasan killed soldiers, yes, but for many families, he killed hope:  the hope of a young immigrant to serve his new country, the hope of a pregnant mother to raise her child, and the hope that American soil was safe.  Military families live on their own private battlefield, a deceivingly normal world where at any average moment – feeding the dog, getting the paper – mortality may come crashing in.  For 13 families this November, it came when they were least prepared.  Those rejoicing in homecomings, or planning precious pre-deployment moments that will never be, now face an agonizing future.  This Thanksgiving their loved one will be absent from the family table, and with them, all hope of safe return.

******

Skyla Freeman (skylafreeman.com) is a former writer for President George W. Bush.

Posted in The Homepage Feature | 1 Comment »

From Blue to Red: The GOP 2009 Comeback in NJ and VA

Monday, November 2nd, 2009

It’s the scenario every political buff loves: off-year elections right after a new Democratic president has been elected; elections that could very likely swing against said president’s party, no less. The suspense rises, and the speculation abounds, as analysts, pundits, and politicians alike anxiously await the outcome of the governor races in New Jersey, Virginia, and the Congressional race in New York district 23.

In Virginia, it looks as if Republican Bob McDonnell is all but assured an easy victory against his Democratic opponent, Creigh Deeds. A recent Rasmussen report indicates McDonnell has a 13-point lead. This is significant, in a state that went blue in 2006 and 2008, when its Democratic Governor Tim Kaine declared that the “Old Virginny is dead.” Well, the “Old Virginny” (whatever that means) is on its way back from the land of the dead. Or so it seems.

When the Old Dominion voted for Barack Obama in 2008, it was the first time the state went for a Democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon Johnson. In other words, it was a big deal. However, it’s an even bigger deal now that only one year later, the state has apparently had a change of heart. One could call it the ultimate slap in the face for Barack Obama. The state that borders Washington, DC apparently doesn’t like what it’s been seeing from across the Potomac.

New Jersey is another story. The governor’s seat is being battled over by Republican and former federal prosecutor Chris Christie and former U.S. Senator, former Goldman Sachs chairman, and incumbent Governor John Corzine. Corzine should really be a shoo-in for the dark, dark blue state. But again, the fact that the race is neck and neck speaks volumes about the Democrat’s agenda in Congress and the White House.

The race also reflects the shift in American’s attitudes concerning personal finances and taxes. Tax cuts have been the prevalent theme in Christie’s campaign and it appears most New Jerseyans are in favor of that. As well they should be, considering that New Jersey citizens are the highest taxed citizens in the country.

And unfortunately for him, Corzine did nothing to fix that. Nor has President Obama’s push for healthcare reform helped Corzine in any way. When taxes are clearly the main issue, revealing a reform bill that many say will raise taxes on the middle class was largely a strategic misdirection on the part of Democrats who would actually like to see Corzine reelected.

The New York Congressional race in the 23rd District also has political junkies salivating over poll numbers, party identifications and predictions. Like Virginia and New Jersey, this race has the potential to send a big message to Washington D.C. Yet this race is marked by one stark contrast. The two major runners are Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman and Democrat Bill Owens. Republican Dede Scozzafava was rejected by voters early on, and has already dropped out of the race.

Like New Jersey, this race is in a dead heat, with polls showing Hoffman and Owens with a narrow lead, depending on which one you look at. The remarkable thing about this election though, is that it is becoming the ultimate testing ground for conservative ideals. In recent weeks, notable Republicans from former presidential candidate Fred Thompson, to U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), to vice presidential nominee and former Governor Sarah Palin, endorsed Hoffman over Scozzafava. Why? Because Hoffman truly represents conservative values like limited government, low taxes and individual liberty.

In every way, this race from upstate New York will help redefine the national GOP; a party that has strayed from conservative values for far too long. But that could all be changing now. In 2008, when John McCain (a moderate Republican, at best) won the party’s nomination, advocates argued all conservatives should support him because well, he was the Republican candidate.

But now, having an “R” next to your name is no longer the single qualifier for support from conservatives, as Ms. Scozzafava found out. What matters is principles, ideas and values; not party identification. The mindset of “I’m a conservative first, Republican second,” is making a comeback with the American public, as it should.

Whether it’s New York, Virginia, or New Jersey, each race this year could have a major impact on the 2010 elections. As more and more Democrats in Congress worry about their seats, they are going to be less willing to agree to work with President Obama on certain things like, say, healthcare.

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.

Posted in College Corner, The Homepage Feature | No Comments »

Why Energy Independence Must Become the Next Republican Rallying Cry

Thursday, October 29th, 2009

America sends almost a billion dollars per day overseas to buy oil.  When we do, we are directly or indirectly bankrolling dictators who despise us, who reinvest our money to support terrorist groups and who spread anti-American sentiment throughout South America and the Middle East.  Our dollars buy their high-tech weapons arsenals, help them destabilize our allies and fund their anti-American propaganda efforts.  We are literally giving our enemies the wherewithal to attack us and to challenge American leadership internationally. 

Our foreign oil addiction also translates into economic weakness.  As a petroleum-reliant country, the global price of oil affects virtually every aspect of our economy.  Our markets are susceptible to flare-ups of unrest in the Middle East, deliberate manipulations of oil prices by foreign regimes and supply disruptions – whether due to natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina or economic warfare like the oil embargo of 1973.  At a time when we are working to grow our economy, the rising cost of oil will slow those efforts.  Worst of all, the billions we send overseas to purchase oil are dollars that are not buying American products or creating American jobs—instead they are strengthening the economies of our political adversaries and deepening our trade imbalance.

Every American president for over thirty years has promised action on achieving energy independence, but each year the problem grows worse.  It is past time for an effective, united campaign to accomplish this goal, and Republicans should be at the forefront of this effort.   Our plan must be open to all strategies to achieve independence from foreign oil: domestic oil and coal produced and consumed in ecologically responsible ways, bio-fuels, nuclear power, wind, solar, thermal and a host of alternative energy technologies only now coming to market.  America needs to be at the forefront of alternative energy technology and production, not only for the sake of the environment, but for the sake of our national security and economy.

Recently, the American Security Council Foundation, an organization primarily known for its historic role in promoting the philosophy of “peace through strength” during the Reagan Administration, addressed this challenge by launching an initiative called Project Independence, lead by Governor George Pataki.  The goal of Project Independence is to replace every drop of oil that we import from OPEC and Venezuela with domestically-produced energy over the next ten years.  We can achieve this goal by enacting three commonsense initiatives. 

First, we must develop a diversified supply of homegrown energy to replace foreign oil.  The place to start is transportation, which accounts for 71% of our national petroleum consumption.  Without choosing winners and losers, we need to enact national policies that incentivize private sector production of vehicles that run on natural gas, hydrogen, ethanol, biodiesel, electricity and other petroleum alternatives.  Imagine if Congress passed a bill repealing federal income and sales tax collection on the first 5 million affordable cars that achieve a fuel economy of 70 miles per gallon.  These are the bold market-based policies that will get new petroleum alternative technologies to the marketplace more quickly and cheaply.

Second, we must build the infrastructure needed to deliver the energy of the future across America.  In the 1950s the U.S. built the interstate highway system to improve our national security.  In this century we need to make the same commitment to developing an interstate alternative fuel system.  Key initiatives include tax incentives and immediate expensing of capital investment for the installation of alternative fuel pumps at service stations across the country.  Another necessary step is updating the U.S. power grid to handle increased power generation demand due to new technologies like electric cars and the development of renewable energy corridors, which will allow homegrown energy projects like wind and solar farms to flourish.  We need to install a secure and interactive national “smart grid” that supports these projects by improving carrying capacity and allowing utilities to more precisely manage power delivery according to demand.   

Third, we can cut our consumption of foreign oil by simply reducing our overall energy usage.  The most effective way to do that is by improving efficiency and conservation.  Adopting a national “green building” tax credit and requiring federal government agencies to make meaningful reductions in their annual energy consumption are just some of the steps we should take.

The three simple components of Project Independence—developing a diversified supply of homegrown energy, building the energy infrastructure of the future and improving efficiency—aren’t new.  In fact, there have been decades of empty rhetoric supporting such efforts.  A week rarely passes when a prominent politician has not made an announcement concerning a dramatic alternative energy proposal addressing one aspect or another of the energy puzzle.  Unfortunately, politicians on both sides of the aisle have lacked the foresight or commitment to undertake the coordinated, sustained effort necessary to achieve real change. 

It’s time for Republicans to take the lead in demanding that our energy dollars be redirected toward the creation of American energy sector jobs, the development and manufacture of cutting edge alternative energy products that US entrepreneurs can market to the rest of the World, and to building the energy infrastructure needed to support a modern nation.   Let’s make it a top Republican priority to take meaningful action to reverse our nation’s dangerous dependence on foreign oil.  

******

Kerry Murphy Healey, former Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts, serves as Co-Chair of Project Independence, an initiative of the American Security Council Foundation.

Posted in News, The Homepage Feature | 1 Comment »

Lessons by Davy and Maggie: Today’s Slippery Slope of Government Control

Monday, October 26th, 2009

In 1828 while serving in the House of Representatives, Colonel Davy Crockett prepared to vote on a bill which allocated money to the widow of a heroic naval officer suffering from financial difficulties. As the bill was brought forth to vote, Davy Crockett stood and expressed his deepest sympathy and compassion for this widow, but challenged the legislation; citing it unconstitutional.

Today, Davy Crockett would be bombarded with hurling accusations of his disdain for his fellowman; behind the guise of social justice. The social justice liberals’ desire bears a hefty price tag; paid for with money not their own. Crockett argued that Congress did not have the power to appropriate tax-payer money for charitable endeavors. He challenged the Congress further by pledging a weeks pay and urging each member to do the same and the needs of the widow would be met in excess; not one met the challenge.

What happened to social justice? Where was the outrage? The bill was brought carrying but a few votes and defeated. Crockett explained, “We must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living…we have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.”[i]

Unfortunately, Colonel Crockett is not present for the healthcare debate on Capital Hill. Republicans and Democrats alike agree the healthcare system desperately needs reform, however, the Democrats are forcing this charity of healthcare down the throats of the American people; leaving them with the tab. The accusations continue to fly in the face of opponents to the current bill; painting them as antagonists of healthcare reform.

Social justice is synonymous with socialism and it is the beginning of a slippery slope of government control; one need only look to Great Britain to see how slippery that slope can become. Margaret Thatcher fought long and hard to pull Great Britain out from the pit of socialism; understanding fully the dangers of such political philosophies. Regrettably, others came up behind her that gave up that fight. In Claire Berlinski’s There Is No Alternative: Why Margret Thatcher Matters, Prime Minister Thatcher, faced a Congolese communist at 10 Downing Street, glared at him and declared “I hate communists.” Berlinski makes clear the core of Thatchersim; a hatred of communism, a hatred of Marxism, a hatred of socialism-an unflinching willingness to express that hatred in the clearest imaginable terms.[ii]

For America the slippery slope will begin with socialized medicine. This healthcare agenda is a direct threat to the free market system in the strong-armed push for government control. It will not stop with healthcare it will only be the beginning; the beginning of a socialized America.

Where are the voices fighting for the founder’s view of government? Where are the voices standing up against the threat of socialism? The Tea Parties have fueled liberty’s flames and Glenn and Rush lead the resistance to tyranny; they must not be the sole voices defending liberty. Americans’ must learn the lessons Davy Crockett and Margaret Thatcher illustrated; pick up the baton to fight these dangerous philosophies and defend the liberty our founding fathers fought hard to secure.

[i] Edward S. Ellis, The Life of Colonel Davy Crockett, Philadelphia: The John C. Winston Co, n.d.

[ii] Claire Berlinski, There Is no Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters, New York: Basic Books, 2008

******

Piper Green is studying government at Regent University and resides in Colorado with her husband and three children. She  shares her expositional writings about the Bible at piperspen.blogspot.com

Posted in News, The Homepage Feature | No Comments »

Memo to Anita Dunn: Mao Would Have Had Mother Teresa Shot

Monday, October 19th, 2009

It’s difficult to decide what is most revolting about White House Communications Director Anita Dunn’s coupling of Mao Tse-Tung and Mother Teresa as her “two favorite political philosophers.” Was it Ms. Dunn’s cheap tactic of using such an obnoxious juxtaposition? Or was it the way in which Dunn’s manipulation of words seemed to degrade the memory of Mother Teresa?

Dunn now claims to have intended “irony” in citing Mao—an irony obviously absent to anyone who has seen her speech. Combining the respected with the repulsive is a technique that hearkens back to Saul Alinsky, who would use such methods to overcome resistance to unpopular ideas. Could it be that Dunn sought to put the discredited ideas of Mao (for example, change through force without regard to rules or political boundaries) in the same league with those of a much admired modern day saint? Wittingly or not, Dunn’s speech also attempted to redefine Mother Teresa and what she stood for.

Dunn says her main point was just to look at finding creative ways to achieve big things, like, for example . . . hmmm . . . like taking over a big country. Hence, her use of a Mao misquote: “You fight your war and I’ll fight mine.” Actually, the closest Mao quote is something akin to “If you can win, you fight. If you cannot win, you don’t fight.”

But whether you quote or misquote Mao, there is nothing new here. In fact, Mao’s philosophy is old and status quo and all about centralized control: “Political power comes from the barrel of a gun.” That’s all. And, of course he acted on it millions of times—about 70 million times– after he “took over China against all odds” as Ms. Dunn so approvingly stated.

The truly revolutionary philosophy – or way of life — in human history is the One followed by Mother Teresa: to see Christ in every human being, to take care of others one by one, and to expect nothing in return for doing so. Thus, Mother Teresa began her ministry by tending to any abandoned individual in her path. She picked up the near dead – whose rotting flesh sometimes stuck to the streets of Calcutta — just so that they could live their last hours in a clean bed and experience the love of someone unconditionally ministering to their needs.

Of course, this sort of behavior is considered the height of bourgeois subversion by central planners, and described by Mao himself as “an extremely bad tendency.” Naturally, Mao would have had the likes of Mother Teresa taken out and shot. In response, the likes of Mother Teresa would forgive Mao and his executioners as they did so.

Dunn never mentioned anything substantive in what she erroneously terms the “political philosophy” of Mother Teresa. Instead, she tried to match a line about Mao fighting his own war with Mother Teresa’s advice to an “affluent” young person who just wanted to help out in Calcutta. According to Dunn, we are to believe that Mother Teresa told the woman in so many words to simply “go find your own Calcutta!” As in: make your own choices, find your own unique path for yourself, be creative, etc.

In fact, Dunn’s interpretation greatly distorts Mother Teresa’s advice to anyone who would wish to help on a global scale. Here is Mother Teresa’s prescription for a better world:

First, serve your own immediate and extended family. Focus on the needs right in your own home.

Second, once you have done the work God has given you to do in your own family, look in the community just outside your home to serve the needs there.

Third, only after you have done what you can to serve the needs of your family and community – in that specific order and thoroughly — should you venture away to shift your focus to a global scale.

This – not Dunn’s crass and misleading attribution – is the heart of Mother Teresa’s position on truly effective means to achieve real social and economic justice. The truth Dunn attacks through her manipulative words and omissions is this: that charity must always begin at home.

******

Stella Sophia is a writer from Maryland.

Posted in News, The Homepage Feature | No Comments »

The Nobel Potential Prize: Intentions are More Important than Actions

Friday, October 9th, 2009

When news broke this morning that Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize after less than a year in office, a chorus of voices began asking why and how (or just “wow” as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs put it). But the decision isn’t necessarily surprising. The Nobel Prize Committee has a long standing tradition of attempting to achieve a “peace” with its award that founder Alfred Nobel never envisioned:  the peace of placation.  The prize goes not to the brave and the bold, but to the sophists and speech-givers.  The text of the Nobel Committee’s citation for Obama reveals just how ignoble this prize has become.    

 From the Nobel Committee:  “The Norwegian Nobel committee has decided that the Nobel peace prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.”

Indeed, the committee has attached special, and undeserved, importance to Obama’s nuclear-free vision. Pretty much anyone aside from Ahmadinejad can (and does) dream of a world without nuclear weapons.  But if dreams were realities, most of us would have much better bodies, bigger houses, and a lot more money. Vision notwithstanding, last I checked those nukes were still around. The phrase “extraordinary efforts” is really the most daring in this paragraph, as Obama’s actions have yet to accomplish results, or include any significant steps not taken by previous U.S. Presidents.

“Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.“

Glove-slap rhetoric as praise.  The USA “constructive role” language is the equivalent of the “Screw Bush Award,” as some pundits have put it.  But note the neat turn of phrase that follows: “democracy and human rights ARE TO BE strengthened.”

In other words, these things have not yet happened, but the committee is certain they will. The cause is named, and the as-yet immaterialized effect is assumed. With not one successful Middle East peace deal or negotiation having taken place (from the Gaza Strip to the Olympics), it has to be.  This award is the Nobel Potential Prize. 

“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”

In the Committee’s eyes, Obama here achieves the contradictory identity of an idol to change advocates and a populist whose views mirror the majority. For those of you who don’t speak Eurocentrisim, here’s a translation:  “thanks for agreeing with us!  Here’s an award.” The first fallacy, of course, is assuming the “majority of the world’s population” thinks the same about anything.  This is a completely narcissistic, Euro-centric view.  And upon reflection, not necessarily a flattering one.  Under these lights “the majority of the world’s population” also supported slavery, colluded with Pol Pot, and felt that intervening in Somalia would get everyone’s hands dirty. In fact, those who achieve peace frequently do so by overcoming the obstacles posed by the majority to make their voices heard and demand action for their cause.  This language is all the more insulting to the risk-takers who have done just that. Iranian protestors or Chinese dissidents would have been far more justifiable (and deserving) recipients of the award. Even worse, Obama has occasionally foiled the efforts of peacemakers.  In February, Amnesty International (itself a Nobel-Peace Prize winning organization) commented that they were “shocked and extremely disappointed by U.S. Secretary Clinton’s comments that human rights will not be a priority in her diplomatic engagement with China.” Obama’s decision to forfeit our considerable leverage in the cause for human rights wasn’t bold – or noble. 

“For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The committee endorses Obama’s appeal that ‘Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges’.”

But in 1895, Alfred Nobel determined that the prize should go “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses.” This year’s recipient has done none of those things.  Obama is indeed the archetype of “those attitudes” which the committee embraces, but Nobel would be quite surprised by the current criteria for winning his award.

Past Nobel Peace Prize winners have embraced the idea that peace is paramount, but it is highly doubtful that all would agree that “dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts,” as the committee claims. The Hitlers and Husseins of this world do not negotiate – at least not for long. Previous presidential Nobel winners Teddy Roosevelt (for ending the Russia-Japanese War) and Woodrow Wilson (for ending World War I) stood up to the majorities of their day and ensured peace by combating its enemies.  True peace is not a lone end, but a result, of ensuring the safety, security, and well being of humankind.  Yet, the Nobel Committee has proved it can’t tell the difference between peace and placation.  In an age of totalitarian states, terrorism, and nuclear powers, that’s a misunderstanding we can’t afford. 

******

Skyla Freeman is a former writer for President George W. Bush.  She blogs about style and culture at Sanity Fair online (sfair.blogspot.com).

Posted in News, The Homepage Feature | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »