Author Mark Ciavola

Entries 23 Total Bio

 

 Mark Ciavola

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

Dec 27, 10 10:37 AM

As 2010 comes to a close, we can look back at the last two years of the Obama administration and huge Democrat majorities in Congress, and sort out the good, the bad, and the ugly. Part of that look back will include the lame duck session, and the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) – a policy put in place 17 years ago by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by Democrat President Bill Clinton. The opinions of most Americans on the DADT policy can be classified into four distinct views:

Many people, a significant majority in fact, oppose DADT and support gays and lesbians serving openly in our military. Some Americans disagree with this viewpoint for many different reasons – some of which are valid. Of those who wish to see DADT go away, some would like to see it repealed immediately, while others believe we should go to great lengths to ensure that military readiness and efficiency is not compromised. On the other side of the issue, there are people who believe DADT is a good compromise which allows gays to serve, while protecting the military from political correctness and the liberal gay agenda. The fourth view is outright opposition, harkening back to a time when homosexuals were actively rooted out of the military. Those who hold this view are somewhat rare, but they exist nonetheless.

Repeal DADT Now!

The loudest voice for repeal comes from those on the far left, including the Gay Left and the myriad of organizations that encompass them. These are people who generally oppose military action abroad, support deep budget cuts within the Department of Defense, and the defunding of several aspects of our military apparatus. It seems counter-intuitive that these people would be so concerned with what goes on inside the military, but they do so under the umbrella of equal rights and equal treatment under the law. While their efforts seem noble, they often discount legitimate concerns offering few real solutions to the inevitable challenges repeal would naturally produce. Their hearts may be in the right place, but very little thought goes into the logistics behind repeal, mainly because they do not fully understand how the military works, or how these challenges may manifest themselves.

Repeal DADT – Responsibly

I am one of the many people who believe DADT should be repealed, simply because all Americans should be allowed to serve – and risk their lives – for our country, so long as they meet the physical requirements of the job and follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). It seems as though a majority of Americans fall into this category, feeling that the policy should be repealed responsibly, as we are in the middle of a two-front war, and a global fight against terrorism. While the definition of “responsibly” differs from person to person, it generally includes waiting until combat operations cease in Iraq and Afghanistan, or ensuring that military readiness is not impacted by repeal. I favor the latter. These people understand that repealing DADT will be an enormous undertaking by the military, and do not want to see one mission or one soldier’s safety compromised by a hasty decision or poor timing.

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is Working

There are those that believe DADT is a good policy, and should remain in effect as it is. There are many people in this group who have legitimate reasons for wanting to keep the policy in place, such as navigating the logistical nightmare of living arrangements and battlefield hygiene as just two examples. Other issues brought forward by this group, such as working alongside gay soldiers and keeping sexuality out of the military – which I will address shortly – may have been blown out of proportion and over-politicized.

“God Hates Fags”

The final group is a small, but boisterous, segment of the population. By now, almost everyone who watches the news has seen images of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) protesting military funerals, and unleashing a unhealthy amount of anti-gay propaganda in the process. According to their website, which is actually www.godhatesfags.com, the WBC admits to engaging in 44,819 pickets in 816 cities, even employing children in their horrific displays which include signs bearing slogans such as “Pray for more dead soldiers,” “Thank God for Sept. 11,” and “God Hates Fag Enablers.” These people, of course, are on the extreme end of the spectrum, but I use them as an example to illustrate that there is real bigotry out there, and it should not be tolerated. These actions are neither Christian nor do they represent the intentions of our founding fathers, who valued personal freedom, and our Constitution which guarantees it. Those who have an intense dislike of homosexuals believe that homosexuality and the military are incompatible. They support a return to the 1981 Department of Defense policy, in which gays were flat-out banned from serving. There are many valid arguments against repealing DADT, especially during wartime, but hating gays isn’t one of them.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

For some, this issue is seen as a battle against the “homosexual agenda.” For others DADT is seen as a partisan issue, and victory over pro-repeal Democrats and President Obama is of utmost importance. In speaking publicly about this issue over the last year, I’ve heard some interesting arguments both for – and against – repeal. Most of the arguments for repeal are based on what people perceive as a “right” to serve in our military. No such right exists. Our military is the most formidable fighting force on our planet, a fact that has kept us safe from foreign aggressors, and helped ensure tranquility and prosperity here at home. The military has always decided who can and cannot serve, with help from its Commander-in-Chief – our president. We could pretend that repealing DADT will create no challenges or conflicts, but we would be deluding ourselves in a dangerous way. While our military is extremely professional, and it has overseen racial integration and the inclusion of women, it did so for the most part during peacetime – and still faced challenges.

Troop morale, unit cohesion, the ability to conduct successful missions, and the safety of our troops – both gay and straight – should be our top priority, and that of our government. With that said, a 1992 report by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) estimated that nearly 17,000 men and women were discharged for homosexuality during the 1980s, and another 14,000 were discharged under DADT since 1993. Together that’s 31,000 service personnel – about 2% of our Armed Forces – with whom we have invested time and money in training, discharged from the military. That number includes good soldiers, officers, career veterans, and those trained in Arabic, many of whom were guilty of simply being gay.

The comfort level of serving alongside gay men and women is one legitimate concern, but the Pentagon’s own DADT study seems to have put that to rest. Of the roughly 400,000 military members and spouses surveyed, only 29% cared enough to respond, and 70% of those believe that repeal would have a positive impact or no impact at all. Of those who responded saying that they already believed someone they worked with or served with was gay, 92% said it was a positive experience. This seems to show that those currently serving will do just fine with DADT repeal. However, there are other issues which require greater examination.

Some believe there is no place for sexuality in the military. This is an argument I’ve heard often, especially from conservatives, yet it confuses me greatly. Clearly there is plenty of heterosexuality in the military. Men frequently talk about “hot chicks” and other things of a more sexual nature not fit for publishing here, yet no one advocates for a DADT policy for straight soldiers. It seems as though these opponents do not understand the meaning of “openly gay.” There is a clear difference between “being gay” and “engaging in homosexual acts.” For example, if a soldier is an orthodox Jew, he is allowed to serve as openly Jewish – meaning that he does not have to hide or lie about it. However, the military prohibits soldiers from wearing non-military issue hats while on duty, which prevents the orthodox Jewish man from wearing a yarmulke. If the Jewish soldier refused to follow the UCMJ and wore a yarmulke every day, he would be reprimanded, punished, or possibly discharged if he refused to comply.

The most relevant arguments I’ve heard against repeal have to do with the logistics involved in living arrangements, showers, battlefield hygiene, and personal conflicts. Currently, men and women have separate accommodations, for obvious reasons, but how do you add gays into the mix? When President Truman desegregated the military, a large majority of Americans were against it, and many white service members wanted nothing to do with black soldiers. There are stories of race riots on Navy warships during the Vietnam War, and sexual assault is an “epidemic” according to the GAO. Surely these are not reasons to ban straight white men from the military, and neither should they be reasons to ban blacks, women or gays.

The ultimate lesson from all of this is that implementation of repeal should lie in the hands of those in charge of our military. Even though Congress has passed repeal, and the president has signed it, it must be approved in writing by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, followed by a 60-day waiting period, before it takes effect. This allows the military time to carefully implement repeal. This is preferable to having repeal pass through the courts. In the meantime, as everyone in our military honors their duty and follows the law, we will undoubtedly hear from those outside the military with an opinion on this highly emotional issue. Some are already insulting members of the military by insinuating that they cannot rise above sexual orientation and do their jobs professionally. Others are urging soldiers to quit the military, and urging parents to discourage their children from seeking military service. On the other hand, some institutes of higher learning like Yale and Columbia are reconsidering ROTC programs because they will no longer create a conflict with their non-discrimination policies.

In the end, DADT will soon be a thing of the past. Gay service members can now return to duty to fulfill the remainder of their contracts. Will they? Who knows, as many believe DADT had become a way out of the military for some. Either way, it is the right thing to do. This is America, and in this country we are supposed to believe that “who you are” is more important than “what you are.” As Barry Goldwater famously said, “You don’t need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.” No one today would suggest that African-Americans be removed from the military, and it is my hope that decades from now, the same can be said for our gay soldiers.

Comments (8)

2010 Midterms: What Did We Learn?

Nov 11, 10 9:15 PM

Now that the 2010 midterms are over I finally have time to write again, and there is no better topic than last week’s election results. Republicans made gains all over the nation in Congress, Governor’s Mansions and countless state legislatures, as voters sent a clear message of fiscal conservatism to Washington. The pundits have all weighed in, and it seems the general consensus is that the Republican wave swept through the country, halting at the Rockies, and leaving Nevada and California with their seemingly unpopular Senators Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer. The end result, at the time of this writing, is a 64-seat gain for the GOP in the House, and a 5-seat gain in the Senate. This puts an end to the Democrat super-majority in the House, and its rubber-stamp U.S. Senate.

Many are left wondering what impact the Tea Party had on races across the country, why candidates like Carl Paladino, Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle were unsuccessful, and what the future has in store for the Republican Party. The real question is: Why did key Senate candidates lose, and what will we learn from their mistakes?

The Tea Party

The Tea Party at face value is an amazing movement. It confronted fiscal policy, engaged voters across the country, and promoted candidates who focused on economic issues and fiscally conservative solutions. The movement cared very little about the two major parties or establishment candidates. Instead, it placed the most value on those candidates who realized the seriousness of our economic conditions, and pledged to work toward a solution that stops out of control spending, creates the economic conditions for job growth, and refuses to allow unions and other special interests to dictate policy. There is little doubt that the energy created by the Tea Party movement is largely responsible for the success of the minority party, in this case the GOP, as evidenced by the sheer number of victories. The movement, however, is not permanently aligned with Republicans. This means that 2012 will be a very interesting year if the GOP does not follow through with their promises to voters.

Some self-identified Tea Party candidates were not successful on Election Night, namely Carl Paladino in New York, Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, and Sharron Angle in Nevada. These three candidates have a lot in common, believe it or not. Each candidate won their GOP primary by defeating an establishment candidate, all three of these Tea Party characters committed gaffe after gaffe right up until Election Day, and they all found more support from outside their home states than inside.

Taking on the Establishment

In the Empire State, Gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio was a pro-choice moderate who supports affirmative action and domestic partnerships, but opposes taxpayer-funded abortion, same-sex marriage, and repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. He is best known nationally as the man Hillary Clinton defeated to win her Senate seat in 2000 when Mayor Giuliani dropped out of the race after being diagnosed with prostate cancer. Carl Paladino was the outsider candidate, a pro-life social and fiscal conservative with Tea Party support. Paladino was down only six points to Democrat Andrew Cuomo a week after the New York primary, but ended up on the losing end of a 27-point drubbing. Despite the fact that New York is one of the bluest states in the nation, Paladino didn’t make his task of defeating Cuomo easy on himself. He first offended women by referring to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand as Charles Schumer’s “little girl.” Then he offended gays by saying that he doesn’t want children to be “brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option,” citing that “it isn’t.” He went further to say that Cuomo’s appearance at a gay pride parade was “not the example we should be showing our children.” He said all this, despite the fact that Paladino’s own nephew is gay. Insensitive? Yes. Stupid? For sure. A winning strategy? Hell no.

In the Delaware Primary, Christine O’Donnell defeated GOP sweetheart Mike Castle who had won 13 elections in a row dating back to 1980 for various offices including Governor and U.S. Representative, in a state where only 29% of registered voters are Republican. In September, Mike Castle led Democrat Chris Coons by 11 points, the same advantage Coons had over O’Donnell in the same Rasmussen poll. That didn’t stop Tea Party advocates like radio talk show host Mark Levin and conservative kingmaker Sarah Palin from pushing for an O’Donnell primary win by attacking Castle for being a moderate. Many pundits claimed she was not a viable candidate for U.S. Senate, and the fact that O’Donnell was on video claiming to have “dabbled” in witchcraft, and that she was involved in an anti-masturbation campaign in the mid-1990s, didn’t help to counter those claims. The Republicans in Delaware were convinced to support a conservative in a state where a moderate is the only type of Republican that can win.  The conservative lost to the liberal by almost 17 points.

Even with Republicans poised to take back control of the House, all eyes were on the U.S. Senate race in Nevada as voters in the Silver State were salivating over the opportunity to retire Harry Reid. When 2010 began Harry Reid’s approval rating in Nevada sat at a dismal 33%, months before the passage of the unpopular health care and financial reform bills. Republicans saw a 6-way race in the primary to determine the Senate Majority Leader’s opponent, including former Assemblywoman Sharron Angle, former Republican Party Chair Sue Lowden and perennial candidate Danny Tarkanian. Lowden was the early favorite, as she was seen as the candidate most likely to win over independent voters. Independents and Non-Partisans are a key voter bloc in Nevada where registered Democrats (588,970) outnumber Republicans (484,791) by more than 105,000, with 304,000 voters belonging to neither Party. Because Sharron Angle comes from the northern part of the state, and the other 5 candidates come from the South, she had a decisive advantage in the primary once the votes were split among her opponents. To put it in perspective, only 70,424 GOP voters backed Angle in the primary, compared with 175,674 who backed someone else. Does that help explain why Angle had such a hard time uniting her own party behind her? How can you expect a candidate to win over Independents, Non-Partisans, Libertarians and conservative Democrats when 71.3% of their own party feels they aren’t the best candidate? In addition to this glaring challenge, the Angle campaign had no shortage of pitfalls, many of which were self-imposed:

-          Fighting against Tonopah High School’s decision to wear black jerseys for a homecoming game in 1992, because black is the color of evil.

-          Stating she believed Social Security should be “phased out,” in favor of something “privatized,” then denying having ever said it.

-          Refusing to accept contributions from political action committees of corporations offering same-sex partner benefits to gay employees, and then accepting them anyway.

-          Ignoring Hispanic media, while dodging local reporters and unsuccessfully trying to ban one local TV station from the GOP Election Night party.

I could go on and on, but I think my point is clear. I am a conservative, and I would have supported just about anyone over Harry Reid, but no candidate can expect to earn widespread support across party lines with a track record like Angle’s. That’s exactly what happened. According to CNN exit polls, Angle lost among women, all minority groups, voters under 50, voters earning under $50,000/year and voters without college degrees. She only won Independents by 4 points, and she lost 17% of voters who self-identify as conservatives. None of this adds up to a fighting chance against Harry Reid and his union-fueled turnout machine. Bill Buckley was famous for saying it, Charles Krauthammer re-iterated it, and over the summer I tried to communicate it. In Delaware they ignored it, and in Nevada we didn’t think we needed it: Support the most conservative candidate who can win the general.

The Future

The Republican Party will cease to exist if we do not learn from these mistakes.

The story of the 2010 midterm elections should be one of GOP victory. Republicans gained over 60 seats in the House, made gains in the Senate, dominated Governors races, and elected the most unconventional Republicans in the history of our Party with wins by Brian Sandoval (NV), Marco Rubio (FL), Col. Allen West (FL), Tim Scott (SC), Susana Martinez (NM) and Nikki Haley (SC) for starters.

We must continue to grow our party so we can continue to compete against Democrats in every state. We must realize that different kinds of Republicans are needed to win in different parts of the country. We must better articulate conservative values, and welcome all of those who share most of them with us into our Party. We must continue to produce great candidates who appeal to a wide range of voters, including Independents and conservative Democrats. We cannot afford to be divisive, insensitive, or damage our Party’s image, and we can do that without compromising our values. These should be our goals, and anything that compromises our success should not be tolerated.

Now let’s get ready for 2012!

Leave a Comment

Common Sense Conservatism: The Size of Government

Oct 3, 10 3:50 PM

Conservatives, including Republicans and Libertarians, believe in small government. But how many Americans truly understand what that means? Many Liberals point to our support of smaller government, and say that conservatives are against any and all government aid to those less fortunate among us. The fact is the U.S. Constitution grants the federal government limited powers, and they routinely overstep their authority at our expense. The Constitution clearly states that any rights and responsibilities not expressly given to the federal government, fall to the states and to the people. Over the years, the federal government has put its hands in just about everything – all paid for by us. Regardless of political ideology, the growth of government produces costly and inefficient government, constantly at odds with our definition of freedom.

Let’s play a game. I want you to think of a number – the amount of money you spend on stamps each year to send mail through the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). If you’re like me you’ve switched to online banking and other technologically efficient methods of paying bills, but even I use snail mail 4-5 times per month. At 44 cents per stamp that’s around $25/year, give or take.

Have you figured out your number? Great, now I’d like you to increase it by $26.81. Of course you may be asking why your total is $26.81 higher for no reason, and I’m glad you asked. That’s the amount of DEBT the U.S. Postal Service incurred last year, per taxpayer. So if you’re a tax payer who mails 4-5 letters per month, you’re actually paying 88 cents per stamp instead of 44. The USPS has actually accrued $11.8 billion in debt over the past three years. Too bad there’s a law preventing competition with the Post Office. Welcome to big government.

Have you ever taken a ride on an Amtrak train? If you haven’t, you’re really missing out! Amtrak offers rail service to millions of Americans nationwide, complete with rundown equipment, surly conductors and consistently late arrivals. Just the level of efficiency you’d expect from a government-run outfit. One thing you may not know is that Amtrak is in debt, costing taxpayers an astounding $32 every time a passenger boards a train. That’s right! Amtrak costs the government, meaning you, $32 per passenger in subsidies. Pretty crazy, huh? Well, you didn’t think incompetence was cheap, did you? The most alarming example of this incompetence is the $462 in subsidies per passenger on the Sunset Limited route from New Orleans to Los Angeles. Tickets for this route are several hundred dollars even with the government subsidy, and 72,000 passengers use it per year! Has anyone ever heard of Southwest Airlines? $304 round-trip, no cost to tax payers!

By now everyone has heard of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) had a very large role in our current economic woes. In 1977, Democrats passed the Community Reinvestment Act, designed to increase lending from banks to low-income people in their community. Home ownership was at 63% in 1993 and by the end of the Clinton administration it had increased to 68%. According to the American Spectator, the New York Times “reported in 1999 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were under pressure from the Clinton administration to increase lending to minorities and low-income home buyers.” Many of these home-buyers could not afford monthly payments unless they were given extremely low interest rates, thus the Adjustable Rate Mortgage was the perfect solution. With low introductory rates, buyers could afford monthly payments. Even though they were told their rates could go up, that was an afterthought to having their own home. When those rates did go up, the payments were no longer affordable, and people began to default. These mortgages were then traded on the open market as mortgage-backed securities – only as good as the mortgages themselves. Thus when the mortgages were defaulted on, widespread financial turmoil ensued as many banks, financial institutions, hedge funds and 401k plans invested in them.

In mid-2008, before the economic collapse, Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fiscally sound. He said they were good long-term investments. These two GSEs owned almost half of all mortgages, and when those loans started going belly-up, so did our economy. Barney Frank then co-authored the new Financial Reform Bill which was passed into law, giving the government unprecedented control over the financial industry – and it doesn’t cover Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac! How much sense does that make? Now Congress is considering a bailout for these two mortgage giants. It’s a wonder Barney Frank still has a job.

When I was a little kid I remember commercials advocating for healthy eating habits. They talked about the four food groups and the importance of fruit and vegetables. There was even one with a horse that brushed his teeth to avoid gingivitis. I can’t imagine ever having a problem with the government advocating for healthy eating habits or good hygiene. However, today our government no longer wants to be an advocate, they want to be the enforcer. A segment of the big government crowd wants to ban trans-fats and sodium from the food we eat, remove toys from kid’s meals, and tax unhealthy food like soda and candy.

I won’t sit here and pretend that trans-fats are healthy, or that high sodium makes for a good dietary choice. But is it the government’s role to prevent us from making our own decisions? Don’t I have the freedom to choose between a KFC combo meal and an all-organic salad bar meal from Whole Foods? What problems are solved by legislating healthy choices? Is it the toy in the Happy Meal that is harmful to children? Or is it the fact that parents choose a McDonald’s Drive-thru over cooking an actual meal? How about this made-up headline: “Toys banned in Happy Meals; Calories decrease by zero.” Meanwhile, if I want to choose some heart-healthy pomegranate juice over a soda I pay three times as much! The government should be an advocate, not an enforcer. It doesn’t have the right.

The government is even involved in the cars we buy. CAFE standards are designed to increase average MPG among car companies, resulting in increased cost for vehicles and making it harder for car companies to turn a profit. Those costs, combined with unrealistic compensation packages for their union employees, led to a collapse of Ford, GM and Chrysler and costing thousands of American jobs in the Rust Belt. Furthermore, these standards have forced automakers to produce far lighter vehicles (about 500lbs lighter), which result in a 1.1% increase in fatalities per 100lb decrease in vehicle weight, and a 1.6% increase in serious or moderate injuries per 100 lb decrease in vehicle weight. The government’s own National Highway Traffic Safety Administration admits that the doubling of fuel efficiency between 1975 and 1985 resulted in average weight being reduced by 1,000 lbs, causing 2,000 additional deaths and 20,000 additional serious or moderate injuries. Where’s the outrage? Not only has CAFE been disastrous for Americans who get into accidents, but it has done NOTHING to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil, as it has increased from 35% to 50% since CAFE was implemented. Furthermore, penalties incurred by car manufacturers for failing to meet these standards are passed on to consumers. According to the NHSTA, this has amounted to $654 million since 1983.

President Obama’s stimulus package cost more than the entire Iraq War, and failed. His trillion-dollar health care reform law doesn’t do a single thing to control health care costs, instead premiums are going up all over the country. His Cap and Trade bill threatens to kill manufacturer jobs, sending more U.S. companies overseas to escape oppressive regulations and financial penalties simply for existing. The government continually oversteps its bounds and sends us the bill. The list of unfunded mandates passed onto the states is too long to list. Medicaid, No Child Left Behind, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the provisions in the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act are just a few policies passed by the federal government, with the insurmountable cost hoisted onto the backs of individual states that are going bankrupt under their weight.

When it comes to the actual responsibilities of the federal government, it has a spotty record. The government has failed to secure our borders and deal with illegal immigration, yet it sued Arizona when the state tried to make up for the government’s negligence.

When the 13 colony-states established the federal government it limited its powers, to avoid the very situation they escaped from in England. Each state was supposed to retain its autonomy on matters that were not of national concern. Conservatives believe in this arrangement as laid out in the U.S. Constitution. The federal government shouldn’t tell us which light bulbs to buy or what to eat, nor should it tell us who we can and cannot enter into a relationship with. It shouldn’t take our money for programs and services that it has no right to create, nor should it tell private industry how to run a business. The larger government becomes, the smaller the individual is.

So here we are approaching the 2010 midterm elections. Democrats are in trouble, because they haven’t been listening to the American people. They’re in trouble because they’ve continued to grow the size of the federal government at a time when our country is already $14 trillion in debt. Democrats aren’t afraid of running out of money, because they can simply raise our taxes. They’ve even managed to convince some people that taxes are necessary in order to continue providing goods and services. But increasing taxes on those of us who still have jobs, or on businesses that are still open, does nothing to fix our economy and put people back to work. It only serves to keep the government from realizing it needs to STOP!

Small government principles are good for everyone. Keep government small. Keep it out of our lives. Keep it out of our pockets. The solution to our problems isn’t higher taxes, it’s less spending; it isn’t bigger government, it is smaller government; and it isn’t government in every aspect of our lives – it’s FREEDOM.

Comments (4)

Common Sense Conservatism: Education

Sep 10, 10 10:30 AM

May 16, 1980: a day that will live in infamy. It is the day the Department of Education began operating as an autonomous Cabinet-level department. The national graduation rate peaked a decade before President Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education at 77.1%, and has enjoyed an almost uninterrupted decline since, currently hovering in the high 60s. That means three out of every ten students, and almost half of minority students, won’t graduate. The State of Nevada ranks dead last in graduation rates for two years running, as only 47% of high-schoolers graduate.

Everyone agrees that our education system needs to be improved, and liberals and conservatives disagree, as usual, on how to address the challenge. The liberal position typically includes additional funding, even though spending on education has skyrocketed since 1980 with no results to show for it. Conservatives have proposed a number of ideas that routinely get shot down:

“The Party of No” supports School Vouchers, so parents can send their children to the school of their choice, regardless of cost.

“The Party of No” supports Open Enrollment, so parents can choose better performing schools, instead of the one closest to their home.

“The Party of No” supports Charter Schools, which are free from many of the restrictive and costly regulations placed on traditional public schools in exchange for producing measurable results.

“The Party of No” supports Empowerment Schools, which allow for more local control of curriculum, and less micro-management from the Department of Education.

Meanwhile, “The Party of Yes” routinely opposes all of them. Teachers Unions across the country have frequently opposed School Vouchers, Open Enrollment, Charter Schools and Empowerment Schools. And why do teachers unions and many Democrats oppose these choice options? Because they threaten the status quo, which unions and Democrats have worked very hard to establish over the years. Let’s dig a little deeper:

The best example of the successes of school voucher programs is our nation’s capital. The Washington DC public school system ranked 46th in the nation in 2002, and remains below 50% when charter schools are excluded. The District also spends the most money per pupil, at roughly $28,000, proving that money won’t solve our education crisis. Six years ago, Washington DC began a school voucher program that allows low-income parents to take their children out of poor performing schools, and put them in private schools regardless of cost. In fact, the average cost of a voucher is around $6,500, ONE-FOURTH of the cost of enrolling the same child in the public school system that only graduates 48% of kids.

Not only has the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program helped more than 3,000 students, it has done so with significant savings to taxpayers. So why do unions oppose it? And why did Democrats in Congress, and President Obama, END THE PROGRAM? Teachers Unions believe that if school vouchers give parents the ability to send their kids to private schools, there will be fewer students in public schools. Fewer students mean fewer tax dollars, which when combined will lead to fewer public schools, fewer public school teachers and fewer union members paying dues. That’s pretty obvious, and it’s simple math – even if 52% of public school students in DC can’t add and subtract. It should also be noted that a large portion of dues paid to unions are spent attempting to get union-friendly politicians elected, who then continue to oppose common sense reforms like school vouchers.

So is the program worth saving? Does it work? The answer is a resounding YES! The latest report from the Department of Education shows that students who used their vouchers had graduation rates 21% higher than those who did not receive them. It doesn’t take a high school diploma to see how amazing that is. The fact that there are far more students seeking vouchers than there are vouchers to give, clearly illustrates the need for expansion. Liberals believe the public school system will collapse if vouchers remove tax dollars from poor performing schools, but conservatives see it differently. Perhaps if public schools feel the need to compete for students and tax dollars, they will do better in providing a quality education. If the end result is the building of more private schools, and the complete collapse of the public school system, I’m all for it. We should not tolerate a 48% graduation rate when we’re spending $28,000 per pupil in a failing school system. Our goal should be to provide a quality education at a practical cost, which is an area where public schools fail.

Survival is a powerful instinct. I can’t blame teachers unions for opposing these common sense reforms, because they will most definitely result in a less-robust public school environment for them to control. I also can’t blame them for opposing these ideas on the grounds that they will show how truly ineffective our public school systems are. However, we should care more about the students and their results, than about the politics. Whatever reforms work best should be implemented – even if they are advocated by conservatives.

Today in Nevada, the state hardest hit by low graduation rates, U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle is being labeled a radical because of her belief that the Department of Education should be abolished. Is that a radical idea? I’m sure President Carter had the best intentions when he put education in a prominent position in our federal government. But like everything our government does, financial cost always keeps pace with inefficiency. Since 1980, the Department of Education has produced significant cost increases and graduation rate decreases, all in the name of a failed one-size-fits-all approach to education. Do we really need 4,800 bureaucrats spending $80 billion a year (of our money) to fail our kids?

If someone asked you for $1,000, and told you they’d send you back $500 and tell you how to spend it, would you give it to them? That’s exactly what the Department of Education does. It takes our tax dollars and sends a fraction of them back to us with strict instructions on how those dollars must be spent. Do you honestly believe bureaucrats and politicians in Washington know better how to educate the children of your hometown? It isn’t radical to want the Department of Education to be downsized, and returned to the fold of the Department of Health & Human Services. It isn’t radical to want local control over local school systems. And it isn’t radical to want a better education for our children, at a lower cost, with more choice and accountability.

When it comes to education, the Democrats are the “Party of No.” Unfortunately, they get a free pass. Why? Because the vast number of educators and administrators in our nation’s school system are Democrats. They don’t want to call out their own. Meanwhile, the “Party of Yes” built a $578 million school in Los Angeles while Democrats in Washington passed a $26 billion spending bill to save teacher jobs. Apparently a high-tech swimming pool, vaulted ceilings and a marble sculpture of Robert F. Kennedy are more important than teaching students English, Math and Science. Believe it or not, the school cost $78 million more to build than the Olympic Bird’s Nest in Beijing, China. The L.A. Unified School District has a $640 million budget shortfall, and a 35% drop-out rate, with 3,000 teacher layoffs over the past two years.

Really?

REALLY?

I’ll leave you with a question. What percent of a school district’s budget (not counting expenditures for capital projects or equipment purchases) should go to the classroom?

If you said 13%, welcome to Clark County, Nevada. And people think spending more money is the solution.

Comments (3)

Common Sense Conservatism: Cap and Trade

Sep 2, 10 4:25 PM

The future of our planet is at stake! That’s what you’ll hear from proponents of cap and trade legislation. For those of you who aren’t familiar with Cap and Trade, let me explain what it is and what it is designed to accomplish.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Cap and trade is an environmental policy tool that delivers results with a mandatory cap on emissions while providing sources flexibility in how they comply.” That sounds a little vague. Over at Wikipedia, they explain it a bit better: “Emissions trading (also known as cap and trade) is a market-based approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.” Not bad, although it sounds voluntarily. Here are the facts from a pretty fair article over at Now Public:

  • Cap and trade legislation “aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17% by 2020.”
  • Cap and trade legislation would “cap” or limit the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by industrial industries.
  • If companies go above their limit, they have to buy pollution permits.
  • If companies stay under their limit, they can sell their additional permits to companies that need them.

The idea of limiting carbon emissions with a system of rewards and penalties sounds like a great way to help keep our planet clean and ensure companies make our environment a priority. The bill passed the Democrat-super-majority-controlled House of Representatives 219-211 (Democrats control 255 votes, and only need 218 to pass a bill). The bill has yet to pass the Senate.

Many conservatives and Republicans are against this bill. In traditional fashion, these “anti-climate,” “anti-environment” conservatives are being painted as “hating green jobs” by proponents of Cap and trade legislation. So do conservatives hate the environment? Or are there other reasons why they’re against Cap and Trade?

First, opponents of Cap and Trade extend beyond the Republican Party. After all, 44 Democrats voted against the bill and 8 Republicans voted for it. I haven’t seen a news story asking why those 44 Democrats hate the environment, but I’m sure it’s in the works. Like all pieces of legislation, there are both good and bad components. When evaluating whether a bill should be passed, we should take a look at how good and how bad these provisions are. Let’s do just that.

Reducing greenhouse gases 17% by 2020 is a noble goal. What are greenhouse gases? According to the National Climactic Data Center (NCDC) they include water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane among others, in order or importance. According to their website, “the feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.” So we know water vapor is important, we just don’t know how or why.

The site also tells us that carbon dioxide has increased 30% since before the industrial revolution, but that is to be expected. It has risen from 310 parts-per-million (ppm) to 370 ppm since 1955, hardly a giant leap. However, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recommends an exposure limit of 5,000 ppm. If the current rate of increase continues (roughly 1 ppm per year), we will reach unsafe limits in the year 6640.

Methane, which we’re told is the most dangerous by-product of the cattle industry and our dependence on beef, has not increased significantly in our atmosphere since 1990. According to the NCDC, “there is no scientific consensus on why methane has not risen much since around 1990.”

While reducing greenhouse gases is a respectable objective, it hardly seems as though we are in the throes of an environmental catastrophe.

Limiting the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by industrial industries also sounds practical. However, no one will argue that reducing the output of every carbon emitter in the country by 17% will result in problems. To address this problem, pollution permits have been created. Companies that must go over their allotted emissions can purchase these carbon credits from companies that have extra. The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is one greenhouse gas emission registry which will trade these carbon credits between companies, no doubt for a tidy profit, as the European Climate Exchange (ECX) is already doing. Companies like Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management will seek to make money from the exchange of these credits, by charging fees to their clients. This amounts to nothing more than penalties for going over the cap; penalties that will undoubtedly be passed on to consumers.

In 1975 we learned of impending doom in the form of Global Cooling. The last 15 years has been dominated by talk of Global Warming. In the end, there is so much inconsistency among scientists, including evidence of scientists falsifying information to prove warming trends. If there’s no real emergency, why is Congress trying to pass a bill that the Obama Administration admits could cost families almost $1,800/year?

While conservatives are being vilified for opposing Cap and trade legislation, Americans should take the time to learn about exactly how this bill will affect them. Our nation is $13.4 Trillion in debt, unemployment remains near 10%, and Congress continues to spend money on bill after bill. Would passing Cap & trade help us solve these problems, or would it simply create more?

Imagine a nation where our industries are restricted by arbitrary limits on emissions, and penalized for not complying with potentially unrealistic goals for reduction. This will happen while China and India, the world’s top polluters, would have no such restrictions! How does this help America? If the playing field was level, and America was not forced to operate at a huge disadvantage, this bill would be worth taking a second look at. Until that happens, how can we honestly support Cap and Trade?

Rahm Emanuel is known for having said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” It is with that philosophy that President Obama, and his Democrat-controlled Congress, is using our current economic crisis to pass trillions in new spending. These policies will have long-term effects on our country and taxpayers, and it’s time to start analyzing whether we need this spending now giving our economic challenges.

Al Gore, the most prevalent advocate of Cap and Trade and other global warming legislation, doesn’t even follow his own advice. He routinely travels via private jet, keeps his motorcade’s engines running, and lives in a mansion, four-times the size of the average American’s home – resulting in energy consumption 12-times higher than the average American family according to Associated Press. He even plagiarized a clip from the disaster movie “The Day After Tomorrow” in his environmental epic “Inconvenient Truth” to advance his views.

Conservatives don’t hate the environment, but they do hate government expending by trillions of dollars, if taxpayers are on the hook for something we don’t need. Saving our planet shouldn’t be a partisan issue, but has been made one by environmentalists hell-bent on using government to achieve their goals. These liberals blame conservatives for fear-mongering, while they scare Americans into supporting bills like Cap and Trade with Global Warming doom and gloom scenarios. It’s hypocrisy, and should be treated as such.

“The Party of No” continues to be vilified by the Left, but they never take the time to explain why “yes” is the right answer. Today, being “The Party of Yes” means supporting:

  • Government-imposed penalties for emitting pollution, costing us money and jobs.
  • A complete government takeover of the health care industry via the public option, which Democrats are still trying to pass.
  • Limitless bailouts for everything and everyone, regardless of how much debt we accrue.
  • The immediate end to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell without allowing the military to weigh in and assess the impact on our military readiness during wartime.
  • A mandatory reduction in salt at restaurants.
  • Taxes on soda and candy.
  • Removing toys from Happy Meals at McDonalds.
  • Mandating equal time for conservatives and liberals on the radio.

If saying “No” to this stuff means conservatives are the bad guys, so be it!

Comments (2)

Common Sense Conservatism: Taxes and the Size of Government

Aug 31, 10 11:07 AM

How much of your income should the government be able to take? Think about your answer as you read the rest of this post.

The first permanent, broad-based federal income tax went into effect in 1913 and placed a 7% tax on the top 1% of wage-earners in the United States. Within five years it had risen to be a 77% tax on the top 6% of income earners. In 1913, Americans paid between 1% and 7% on income over $20,000. However, in 1918 every American paid the tax, and those making less than $4,000/year paid 6%. Once the door was opened to an income tax, the government abused the privilege. For the record, the top tax bracket reached 94% in the mid-1940s. Imagine having to fork over 94% of your income to the government.

So here we are almost a century later, and the top income tax bracket pays 35% with those earning less than $16,750 pay only 10%. However, with the Earned Income Tax Credit, deductions for children and dependents and the ability to write-off health care costs, real estate taxes, charitable donations and other expenses many Americans earning less than $25,000/year pay no federal income tax. Some Americans who pay no taxes actually receive a refund, meaning the government sends them a check simply for being a low-income earner.

The federal government does need revenue in order to pay for the services it provides, and it certainly doesn’t have the ability to earn money of its own. Therefore, it is up to Americans to cover the costs of these services in the form of taxes. Since it is our hard-earned dollars being used by the federal government, there are obviously disagreements on which services the federal government should provide. Many on the Left believe that the government should be a force for good, and use those dollars to help people whenever possible. Those on the Right believe the Constitution outlines the responsibilities of the federal government, and anything outside of those duties should be handled at the state level or through individual choice.

The position taken by many on the Left isn’t a bad one in theory, but where do you draw the line when it comes to helping people? Does the federal government have an obligation to ensure all Americans have access to food and shelter? The answer is “yes,” as we have Section 8 housing and programs like welfare, food stamps and WIC. But how far should the federal government go in taking care of its people? Should the government be providing homes and cars for those who can’t afford them? How about computers with internet access? This is where opinions begin to divide.

Conservatives tend to believe the U.S. Constitution provides a clear-cut answer on the role of government. When our country was founded, the 13 colonies-turned-states created the federal government to handle matters of national interest. They were clear, however, through the 10th Amendment, that the states reserved the right to handle everything else. Matters of national interest include protecting us from foreign invasion, defending us against foreign threats and maintaining a three-branch government including the Presidency and his cabinet, Congress and the federal court system. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the right to meddle in education, the environment, health care, automobiles, and many other areas where their presence is very obvious today. Those issues were historically handled at the state level, until such a time when they weren’t.

So back to my original question: How much of your income should the government be able to take?

The appropriate answer to that question depends on how much the government spends, because the more it spends, the more you’ll have to pay. Now both liberals and conservatives have good points when it comes to the role of government. It would be great for the government to be able to take care of everyone, but we must remember that they are paying for that care with the hard-earned dollars of working Americans. It would also be great if government was small so that all Americans were free from government intervention in their lives, and can keep more of the money they earn. But we must also remember that there are programs that are necessary and they must be paid for with our tax dollars. We must find ways to address legitimate problems without unfairly hurting others in the process.

Just like the federal government abused their ability to tax Americans in the first half of the 20th Century, Americans are noticing a disturbing trend today. In addition to paying federal income taxes, most Americans pay a state income tax. They also pay half of a 2.9% Medicare tax, and they pay into Social Security, which may not be around in a decade. We are not only taxed on our income, but we are also taxed every time we move. We pay taxes on our property, a home that we own. We pay taxes every time we pay our bills for electricity, water, gas, cable, internet, phone and other utilities. If we want to leave our house, we get taxed on our car in the form of registration fees, inspection fees and of course the gas we use for fuel. If we go to the supermarket, we are most likely taxed on prepared foods and most non-edible items. If we go to the liquor store we are taxed on all alcohol, from as little as $1.50 per gallon in Maryland to $26.45 in Washington State. For everything else we buy, there is a state sales tax between 2.9% and 8.25%, depending on where you live. We are taxed every time we turn around and usually on goods and services purchased with money we’ve already paid taxes on. Doesn’t that sound oppressive to you?

Here’s a simple exercise to show you how crazy this all is:

You are a single person living in California. You earn $34,000 per year, or $2,833 per month. The federal government takes 25% for income tax, 1.45% for Medicare and 6.2% for Social Security. The state of California takes 6.25%. Let’s say you spend a generous $100/week on groceries, which are tax-free. The rest will be spent on utilities, gas for the car and other small purchases. These purchases are ALL subject to tax, which is a double tax. The state sales tax is 8.25%, so let’s use that as a basis. You still have to pay one month’s share of your yearly property taxes and motor vehicle registration fees (roughly $275), leaving you with $943, plus your $400 in tax-free groceries.

You earn $2,833 per month, but you actually receive $1,343 in tax-free profit, a whopping 47% of your income. That means your $34,000 per year only amounts to just over $16,000 per year in your pocket, with which to pay bills. It should be noted, that even with tax rates at this level, the federal government is $13 trillion in debt and our example state of California is bankrupt.

How have we arrived at a point in our lives where we only get to keep 47% of the money we earn, and our state and federal governments are in debt? These numbers are disturbing, and it only gets worse the more money you make! If you earned $82,400 you’d pay an additional 8% in taxes, taking home only 39% of your income.

So is it unreasonable for conservatives to feel there needs to be a limit on how much money the government can take in taxes? Can we really keep creating more programs that rely on our tax dollars?

Today, our national debt sits at $13.4 Trillion. That comes out to be $43,173 per citizen – every man, woman and child in America. That figure does not include our unfunded liabilities including Social Security and Medicare, which totals another $110 Trillion ($355,296 per citizen). Good thing that’s not due yet! It also doesn’t include state debt, which is as high as $16,296 per citizen (New York).

The current administration, and the Democrat-controlled Congress, passed a trillion-dollar health care reform bill which doesn’t go into full effect until 2014, a $26 billion bailout to the states, and a failed $878 billion stimulus bill. They still have plans to pass Cap & Trade ($200 billion/year), a bailout for Fannie & Freddie ($148 billion), and a potential second stimulus bill ($50-$80 billion). Citizens Against Government Waste also identified $16.5 billion in pork in 2010 (and $19.6 billion in 2009), from an administration that promised to reform the earmark profess and cut wasteful spending.

So, how much of your income should the government be able to take? Maybe the better question is: How much should the government be able to spend?

Either way, it’s currently too much. And sometimes the “Party of No” is saying the right thing.

Comments (16)

Common Sense Conservatism: Health Care Reform

Aug 25, 10 10:02 PM

“How can health care for everyone be a bad thing?”

Several months ago, one of my friends uttered this quote in an attempt to combat the negative press surrounding President Obama’s health care bill as it was being considered by Congress. The answer to that question, of course, is that health care for everyone is not a bad thing, it is a great thing. Sadly my friend missed the point, and so did many Americans: How do you pay for it when we’re $13 trillion in debt? Health Care Reform gripped the nation as yet another non-partisan issue was politicized for the sole purpose of damaging political opponents. In the end there was no winner; only losers: The American People.

Every issue has an upside and a downside. In 1986, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act required hospital emergency rooms to treat anyone in need of care, regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. The upside was that patients were not turned away from needed health care. The downside is that “about half of all emergency services go uncompensated.” The best intentions of government resulted in a huge unfunded mandate to emergency departments nationwide and a loss of $4.2 billion in revenue in 2001 according to the American Medical Association. Nobody wants to see patients denied much-needed care, but how can the government pass laws that help some people and completely destroy others?

Health care reform divided the nation along lines defined by views of big government versus small, and compassion versus fiscal responsibility. At a time when the economy was the top concern for Americans, not health care, Congress unveiled a $940 billion bill which was passed into law on March 23, 2010. Republicans were once again labeled “obstructionists,” even though they didn’t have enough votes to stop the Democrats from passing the bill. Democrats called Republicans the usual names, accusing them of being racists, hating the poor and defending the rich.

Today, 60% of Americans favor repeal.

It seems as if every issue where Democrats and Republicans disagree ends with more Americans believing that the GOP is racist, anti-poor and pro-rich. Why are Democrats so good at convincing Americans of these stereotypes? I believe it is because Democrats tend to politicize with emotional buzzwords and headlines, while Republicans do it with logic. So, are Republicans heartless to oppose a bill that would extend health care benefits to 32 million Americans? Well, let’s consider some of the objections.

The government is notoriously inefficient. In a previous post I went over the resume of the U.S. Government in detail, including the tremendous successes (read: failures) of Amtrak, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, the Ryan White CARE Act, and Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. Even recipients of government funding like Planned Parenthood operate without oversight, as they apparently can’t account for $1.8 billion in taxpayer dollars received over the last decade. This isn’t a partisan problem. The government is inefficient under EVERY administration, which is why a majority of Americans prefer a smaller government. As it is, the bill is already estimated to cost $115 billion more than anticipated, and it hasn’t yet gone into effect.

It is simply a bad law. The health care law is designed to increase access to health care and lower costs so more Americans can afford to purchase health insurance. Correct? Does taxing the manufacturers of medical devices and brand-name prescription drugs help lower the cost of health care? Those increased costs will undoubtedly be passed on to the consumer, who is now forced to carry health insurance because of the mandates in the health care law – no matter what the cost! In fact, nothing in the new law controls the rising costs of health care. It does, however, force businesses to file a 1099 form for every vendor transaction of $600 or more, which creates a pile of paperwork for even the smallest businesses. What purpose does this serve in a health care bill? None! It has nothing to do with health care.

Going forward, individuals will no longer be able to claim medical expenses on their taxes that exceed 7.5% of their income. The new number is 10%, resulting in roughly $800 less in deductions for someone earning $25,000/year. President Obama said those earning under $250k/year wouldn’t see their taxes increase by a “single dime,” but if you can’t claim an additional $800 in medical expenses on your tax return, I think you’re out more than a dime. Medicare payroll taxes are also going up 2.35% for those earning more than $200k, and revenue from the increase in Medicare taxes will not be going to help save or fix Medicare. Medicare, in fact, is being cut by $500,000,000,000.00!

Then there are the mandates. Individuals will now be required to carry health insurance, whether they can afford it or not. Your coverage must also meet minimum government standards to “qualify” as an acceptable health care plan. The penalty for not complying will be as much as $750 per year for an individual, $2,250 for a family, or 2% of your income – whichever is higher. The employer mandates could cause some series damage. Employers who cannot afford to offer health insurance to their employees will pay fines, which could amount to $3,000 per employee, per year. This will unquestionably cause jobs to be cut and businesses to close. That’s a fact that cannot be ignored.

Of course we can’t forget luxury health care plans, called “Cadillac Plans.” These are plans that cost more than $8,500 per year for an individual. They’re great plans, but there will now be a 40% excise tax on them. Yes, that’s right – 40%. It is designed to go after the rich, but it is not indexed for inflation, which means in 10 years when all plans cost $8,500/year or more, everyone will be paying the 40% tax. Many union-negotiated plans are considered “Cadillac Plans,” but if you’re in a union you don’t have to worry about it. President Obama exempted unions from this 40% tax. For the record, only 8% of Americans are in unions.

The new law also allows the Department of Health and Human Services to create “qualified non-profit health insurance issuers” to offer health insurance, with federal grants, and exempt from federal taxes. It requires health care coverage information to be reported to the IRS, and provides funding to hire 16,000 additional IRS agents to ensure compliance with the individual and employer mandates.

What’s not in the bill? Tort reform for starters. We live in a lawsuit-happy society, and doctors must carry expensive insurance policies to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits and mega-million dollar settlements. Those costs get passed on to patients, contributing to the high costs of health care. Republicans wanted tort reform included. Democrats argued it would not result in a significant savings, however it should be noted that trial lawyers donate almost exclusively to the Democratic Party. Another provision not included in the bill was the ability to purchase health care plans across state lines. This would increase competition and help lower costs, as we’ve seen happen in the auto insurance industry. Again, Democrats refused to include it after it was proposed by Republicans.

The House of Representatives requires 218 votes to pass a bill into law, and when the health care law was passed 253 were Democrats. The Senate requires 51 votes to pass a bill into law, and when the health care law was passed 57 were Democrats. Once again, I need someone to tell me how Republicans were being “obstructionists.” In reality, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi didn’t get to pass the law they wanted because conservative Democrats were pressured to oppose the bill. That’s why the far-left liberals today feel as though the law doesn’t go far enough. Republicans, who opposed the bill almost unanimously through the entire process, didn’t even have to show up for the final votes.

In the end, not a single Republican in the House or Senate voted to pass what is now referred to as ObamaCare. After the Senate passed the health care law, the San Francisco Chronicle stated, “The passage of Health Care Reform means the death of the Republican Party. Can you imagine any Republican effectively explaining to an electorate why they voted against help for the uninsured?” Help for the uninsured, at the expense of the remaining 90% of Americans? This issue is not as black and white as the Chronicle would have us believe.

Nine months later, a clear majority of Americans favor repeal and Democrats face the possibility of losing the House of Representatives. When you politicize a non-political issue like health care, emotions get in the way and eventually you have to start looking at the facts. Almost everyone agrees that our health care system is in need of reform, but if Congress is going to spend years and trillions of taxpayer dollars reforming it, shouldn’t we do it right? “It’s better than nothing,” is simply not good enough.

The simple truth is that President Obama and Democrats in Washington thought health care reform would be their golden moment, ensuring victories in 2010 and 2012. They completely underestimated the political cost of going against the majority of Americans, and I’m happy to see our nation waking up and paying attention to important issues again.

Someday we may even see Americans paying attention to the details of those issues. I welcome it.

Comments (10)

Common Sense Conservatism: Unemployment

Aug 23, 10 4:25 PM

New unemployment numbers are in, and the national rate held firm at 9.5% while the state with the worst rate broke its own record. Nevada, the hardest hit state in the nation when it comes to foreclosures and per capita bankruptcies, has led the nation in unemployment since it overtook Michigan in May. Unemployment in Nevada rose to 14.3% in July, while unemployment in Nevada’s largest city, Las Vegas, rose to 14.8%. July marks the 16th consecutive month Nevada’s unemployment rate has increased. Ignored in all of this is underemployment, which includes those who are working part-time due to a lack of full-time jobs, and is estimated at 18.4% nationally, and 21.5% in Nevada. Unemployment among teens is at 26.1%, while underemployment for African-Americans is estimated at 25% and unemployment for Black teens hit 40.6% in July.

In light of these facts, different people have different views on how to solve the problem. Democrats in Washington, along with President Obama, are committed to a strategy that includes stimulus packages and federal spending to boost the economy. Republicans in Washington disagree, and prefer options that include keeping taxes low and creating incentives for businesses to hire. These differences have turned into an ideological battle where Republicans call Democrats “socialists,” and “Marxists,” while Democrats call Republicans “obstructionists,” and “for the rich.” Name-calling may be an effective way to damage your opponent politically, but it doesn’t do much to educate Americans on the issues, or explain why there is such disagreement.

One of those points of disagreement is the extension of unemployment benefits. Every time Democrats try to pass bills to extend unemployment benefits, Republicans say “No.” And every time Republicans say “No,” they are labeled “insensitive,” “cold-hearted,” etc. So what’s wrong with Republicans? Why do they “hate the unemployed,” as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow claims?

Two things are important to consider here. First, Democrats passed H.R. 2920, the Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010 (PAYGO), in February. Under PAYGO, any new spending or tax cuts must be budget-neutral, or offset by cuts elsewhere (Read: New spending must be paid for before it is passed). Democrats in the House passed the unemployment extension without paying for it with an equivalent amount of cuts, ignoring their own statute, and blaming Republicans for wanting to follow it.

Second, many Americans currently receiving unemployment benefits today are doing so based on wages they were earning when the economy was much better. The result is that their unemployment earnings are often higher than jobs are currently paying. As an example, let’s say Mary was laid off in Nevada while making $700/week. She is currently receiving roughly $350 per week in unemployment benefits, just under the $362/week cap. Looking for work today, Mary may not accept a job unless it comes with a paycheck higher than her unemployment check. Currently in Nevada, minimum wage is $8.25/hr. for jobs that do not offer health insurance, and $7.25 for those that do. This means Mary needs to find a job that pays $8.75 in order to make more than unemployment pays her to stay home. That doesn’t factor in the cost to get to work, like gas for the car. Employers simply aren’t able to pay employees today the same wages as they did one or two years ago, and unemployed workers have no real incentive to take a job that doesn’t pay more than unemployment.

Now, when Democrats extend unemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 99 weeks, which they have done, it enables people to remain on unemployment for close to two years. There’s no doubt that unemployment is needed, especially at a time when jobs are hard to find. However, I’ve seen many examples of people turning down jobs because they don’t pay as much as their unemployment benefits. To make matters worse, all you need to do to collect unemployment here in Nevada is visit a website weekly to file your claim. You have to answer some questions, but you never have to meet with anyone to prove you’re actually out looking for a job, let alone not turning them down. Nevada is practically bankrupt, and there’s virtually no accountability in the unemployment system.

So do Republicans “hate the unemployed,” as Rachel Maddow suggests? Or rather, do Republicans see the financial strain caused by indefinite unemployment benefits? Perhaps Republicans understand that revenues won’t return to state governments and profits won’t return to businesses until people start returning to work – and a 99-week safety net isn’t exactly motivation. Now unemployment is hardly a vacation. It’s demoralizing, and extremely challenging to make ends meet on such a meager income. However, there are jobs out there, and we need to make sure we are not rewarding people who pass them up to remain on unemployment. That part is not cold-hearted. It’s fiscally responsible.

Republicans are often hit hardest for favoring tax cuts and incentives for businesses. Democrats have convinced people that any benefits for businesses, small or large, only help rich people. However, the opposite is true. Small businesses in America represent 99.7% of all employers, and have generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs over the last decade. If these businesses are not hiring today, it is because they are afraid to spend the money, not knowing what the future holds. Every tax we add to the shoulders of job creators in this country will result in more lay-offs, less new jobs, and higher costs passed on to consumers, all at the worst possible time.

Perhaps the most frustrating part of the unemployment issue is how Democrats have politicized it. Let’s be clear: Democrats have a super-majority in the House of Representatives. They can pass ANYTHING they want, as the Republicans do not have the votes to stop them. That means if Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats wanted to pass Polish as the official language of America, they COULD! PERIOD! In fact, the only reasons Democrats CAN’T pass everything they want is that conservative Democrats who won in the 2008 Obama wave now represent traditionally Republican districts, and don’t want to lose in November. So let’s get off this narrative that Republicans are obstructionists. The truth is that Democrats prefer to have Republicans support their unpopular bills like Health Care Reform, Cap and Trade, and others, so they’re not alone in receiving heat from voters come November. If listening to the American people is considered obstructionism, we have a problem.

I talked to a voter today who told me the Republican Party was “The Party of ‘No’,” and that they oppose everything President Obama tries to do because he’s black. Earlier this week, the following statistics were featured in a National Republican Senatorial Committee ad:

* 57% think Democrat Agenda is “extreme.” (Rasmussen Poll, 8/11/10)
* 60% favor repeal of ObamaCare. (Rasmussen Poll, 8/16/10)
* 56% disapprove of Obama’s job performance. (Rasmussen Poll, 8/16/10)
* 61% favor Arizona-like law in their state. (Rasmussen Poll, 7/8/10)
* 68% oppose Ground Zero Mosque. (CNN Poll, 8/11/10)
* 65% angry at Federal Government policies. (Rasmussen Poll, 8/16/10)
* 65% say America is on the wrong track. (Rasmussen Poll, 8/11/10)

With these numbers, why shouldn’t Republicans be “The Party of ‘No’?” This clearly illustrates that President Obama and the Democrats currently controlling Washington are in direct opposition to the American people, regardless of skin color.

But it’s not this voter’s fault she feels that way. It’s what the media has been telling her for two years, every chance they get. It’s the standard attack from the Democrat Party. Whether it’s the Mosque at Ground Zero, unemployment benefit extensions, terrorism, immigration, gay marriage, health care, energy issues, education issues – if a Republican has an opinion on it, he or she is labeled a:

Choose One: [racist, homophobe, xenophobe, elitist, bigot, Islamophobe, fearmonger, hatemonger, warmonger]

…who hates…

Choose One: [Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, Muslims, the poor, children, women, the elderly, the middle-class]

Pay attention next time, and you’ll see it for yourself. The attack is always the same, and it is never based on the actual issue. That needs to change. We have to talk about the issues and work together to do what is best for our country. We need to educate voters on the issues, so Americans can make the right decisions based on accurate information. And we must start using logic, and not emotion, to determine the direction our country takes as we move forward.

As for unemployment, remember: The government has no money. The only money it has comes from taxpayers. When a private company creates a job it is paid for with profits. When the government creates one, it is paid for by YOU.

Comments (8)

Common Sense Conservatism: the Mosque at Ground Zero

Aug 20, 10 8:42 PM

I can still remember walking up on September 11, 2001, and being told to turn on my TV. As I put the news on, I saw chilling images of a single plane, which had crashed into one of the World Trade Center towers. It would be another 10 minutes or so until the entire country witnessed the second plane hit the South Tower. There was little doubt at that point that our nation was under attack.

I tell you this as a reminder. September 11, 2001 was a day that every American, and many around the world, will never forget. A defining moment, when we will all remember exactly where we were and what we were doing. It was the most deadly terrorist attack against Americans anywhere in the world, and certainly on our own soil.

Enter, the Cordoba House. This $100 million Islamic cultural center will be built a mere 600 feet from where the Twin Towers stood. Included in this 15-story monument to Islam are a mosque, a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, restaurant, and bookstore. The Imam behind the project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, who was quoted on March 24, 2010 as saying “I do not believe in religious dialogue,” insists on the Park 51 location despite uproar from many organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, the Center for Islamic Pluralism in Washington, and the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. These aren’t exactly right-wing organizations. Less than three weeks after the September 11th attacks, Imam Rauf went on 60 Minutes and said, “United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened,” and that we have been “an accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world.” He went on to say that “Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.” He would not answer a question about whether Hamas is a terror organization, and he made it clear that “The U.S. must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end.”

Funding for the “Mosque at Ground Zero” will come from Arab and Muslim nations around the world, according to Imam Rauf. Which Arab and Muslim nations? It doesn’t matter according to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who believes it is not the government’s concern.

These are the facts. There are no emotions, no buzzwords – just facts.

An Imam who blames America for 9/11 and refuses to classify Hamas as a terror organization, will raise $100 million from Arab and Muslim nations, to build a 15-story Islamic cultural center which contains a mosque, 600 feet from Ground Zero where 3,000 died at the hands of Islamic extremists less than 9 years ago. It’s called the Cordoba House, a reference to the great mosque at Cordoba, which was built on the foundation of a Christian cathedral after Muslims conquered what is now Spain. Is the name symbolic of triumph? Perhaps. At the very least, it is one of the worst marketing concepts of all time in light of the circumstances surrounding the location. It certainly does not reassure opponents of the mosque that there are no hidden motives.

Enter New York Governor David Patterson, who offered to help find an alternative site for the mosque, on state-owned property further away from Ground Zero. The Cordoba organizers declined the offer. At the time of this writing, there was renewed hope that an arrangement could be made between the parties to give up on the Park 51 site. Only time will tell.

Last week, Greg Gutfeld, host of Red Eye on Fox News Channel, announced that he was planning to build a gay bar next to the proposed mosque location. The bar, potentially known as “Dialog” (Gutfeld is building ‘Dialog’), would cater to Islamic young men, and help “reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world,” through dialog. After refusing comment, the organizers of the mosque issued a comment via Gutfeld’s Twitter page: “You’re free to open whatever you like. If you won’t consider the sensibilities of Muslims, you’re not going to build dialog.” If those behind the Cordoba House won’t consider the sensibilities of Americans, New Yorkers and the families and victims of 9/11, why should Greg Gutfeld consider the sensibilities of Muslims? Doesn’t this approach hypocrisy?

So should the Islamic Community Center (and mosque) be built at the Park 51 location? While this is not a political issue, like everything else in our country it has become one. Republicans are largely opposed to it, and Democrats are mostly supportive. Polling shows that 68% of Americans oppose the mosque, while only 29% are in favor, clearly illustrating which political party is more in-line with mainstream America. Given the insensitive nature of the location, only 600 feet from Ground Zero, I believe it would be better if those behind the Cordoba House project chose a different location.

So is this issue about religious freedom, as many on the Left maintain it is?

Do Christians have the religious freedom to oppose same-sex marriage? Not if you ask those on the Left. Were the Prop 8 opponents who protested outside Mormon temples in California in 2008 adhering to the freedom of religion clause? Or those who refuse to allow prayer in schools, including a moment of silence set aside for that purpose? Let’s face it, modern-day liberals have been trying to remove God from our currency, our Pledge of Allegiance, our schools, government buildings, the presidential oath of office, and just about everything else they can think of. Why now, is freedom of religion so important to them?

Could it be that yet another issue, like gay marriage, health care reform and so many others, has become more about winning than doing the right thing?

Conservatives and Republicans who have weighed in on the issue in opposition of the mosque have been accused of racism, xenophobia, and even hypocrisy for dismissing the freedom of religion clause in our Constitution. Most of these charges have been levied by those on the Left (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here are just a few examples) who believe this mosque is anything but an affront to American culture and sensitivities surrounding the 9/11 attacks. How can 68% of Americans all be xenophobic bigots?

This week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and New York Representatives Michael Arcuri (NY-24), Mike McMahon (NY-13), Steve Israel (NY-2) and Tim Bishop (NY-1) – ALL DEMOCRATS – came out against the proposed mosque. Are they also xenophobic bigots? And what about Islam? Arab and Muslim nations in the Middle East who practice Islam and subscribe to Sharia Law routinely condone honor killings, the abuse and oppression of women, and the murder of those suspected of being homosexuals. Does that also fall under religious freedom? Are mosque supporters homophobes?

Once again, those on the Right are painted as racists, bigots and other unflattering terms by those on the Left, simply because of a disagreement in ideology. The views of most conservatives, and 68% of Americans, are not rooted in hatred, but in common sense and decency. Because many on the Left can rarely win over mainstream America with facts, they resort to name-calling and emotions to win the war of messaging. Unfortunately, they win that war far too often.

A grandiose Islamic community center (with mosque) built 600 feet from the spot where 3,000 died on 9-11-01 is simply offensive to many people. Even if the goal is to build dialog, it won’t happen if it is built at the Park 51 location. Proponents of the mosque will continue to claim that this is an issue of religious freedom obstructed by the fear of Islam, but the reality is much simpler. Rational people are not questioning the legal right to build a mosque, only the location. The fact that those behind the Cordoba House project are thus far unwilling to accept an alternate location shows their true level of desire to build dialog and foster a good relationship with the community.

The Left has glommed on to this issue as a vehicle to further label the GOP as racist and bigoted. But this time, they will fail, because Americans rightfully don’t see this as a partisan political issue. For some reason, these newfound fans of religious freedom in America cannot understand why people wouldn’t want something built in the neighborhood around Ground Zero.

Maybe they’d understand if it was a Wal-Mart.

Comments (4)

Common Sense Conservatism: A Series

Aug 18, 10 9:01 PM

For a variety of different reasons, many Americans believe that the 2010 mid-term election is one of the most important in our country’s history. Republicans and Democrats are engaged in an ideological war of words, spinning their versions of reality for the entire nation to witness. For those who are not news junkies or political fans, most election cycles can be frustrating experiences as they navigate a sea of information trying to make the right decision in November.

As someone who is involved in politics, I have noticed a disturbing trend develop over the past decade. Politicians have seemingly stopped talking about the actual issues and how they affect us as Americans, and instead choose to solely focus on winning. Candidates now spend millions nationally, tens of thousands locally, on consultants to shape their campaigns. Their goal is to find the right strategy, the perfect messaging, to turn out voters and outsmart their opponents. Winning is important, but it’s difficult to get anyone to follow you if you can’t explain why they should. This is true in both parties, but how does this help the average American understand what is going on?

It doesn’t.

As a conservative Republican, I have seen my party take for granted that people understand what they’re talking about. When we refer to “free market solutions,” or “small government,” we expect the average voter will know exactly what we mean, when many simply do not. Many Republicans act as though conservative values are “common sense,” and that people will “come around” when they realize it. Unfortunately this laissez-faire attitude, combined with poor messaging, has left us playing right into the hands of crafty Democrats.

If we oppose the unfunded extension of unemployment, we are labeled “insensitive.” If we oppose illegal immigration, we are called “racists.” If we believe marriage is a rite instead of a right, we are labeled “bigots.” If we support tax cuts, we’re accused of being “for the rich.” This happens because we continually lose the battle when it comes to messaging, at a time when many Americans don’t read past the headlines.

The rift between the Left and Right in this country is wide, but it pales in comparison to the chasm between the political class and the average voter. Most Independents, Non-Partisans, Libertarians and other third-party or unaffiliated voters have walked away from the major parties because they no longer engage the average American in civil discourse.

For example, calling President Obama a “socialist” may rile up a crowd of conservatives, but that’s preaching to the choir. Meanwhile, many people who aren’t as knowledgeable when it comes to government and politics will be immediately turned off to any message that follows, and take their votes with them. Sadly, there is rarely a message that follows. Instead, we need to detail exactly what we feel is wrong with a policy position, piece of legislation or new law – and present it well.

Americans, despite their growing apathy toward government and politics, tend to have good judgment when acting as a group. They want to do what’s right, even if some of us don’t agree with their decision. But they need the facts, not the rhetoric. Politicians today spend so much time scaring their base in an attempt to mobilize them that they are immobilizing so many others who want nothing to do with those tactics. It’s a losing strategy long-term.

“Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” – Thomas Jefferson

It is for these reasons that I have decided to write a series of posts on the issues affecting us – as Americans – from a common-sense conservative point of view. I will explain how many on the Left routinely mischaracterize the GOP position to paint us as radicals and racists, instead of simply disagreeing on logic and methodology – and how the Right continues to fail at messaging.

Stay tuned for Part I: The Mosque at Ground Zero!

Comments (4)
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 347 other followers