The Twitch Factor

With the exception of the presidential candidates that appeal to the lunatic fringe, the leading candidates of both parties are drumming up little excitement.

Senator Clinton is generally perceived as an invented, scripted, calculating caricature of a nice person. All believe she is intelligent, and few believe she has any moral underpinnings. She is a walking, talking Jekyll & Hyde. Senator John Edwards is an empty suit. And Senator Obama is a decent, articulate fellow, whose age and experience makes him an ideal nominee for baby diaper commercials.

Having the likes of Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and Senator Reid, the Majority leader, standing in their corner, only serves to make the electorate twitch. Everyone knows they are chomping at the bit to nationalize healthcare, grant amnesty to illegal aliens, introduce new entitlement programs, expand the welfare rolls, strangle capitalism, open our borders, weaken the US military, punish the successful and lose in Iraq.

With these Democratic championed political and economic prospects sitting on the horizon, one would think the Republicans would be burning up the 2008 campaign trail. But this is not the case. There are no perceived knights in shining armor standing on the Republican podium. Granted, in terms of agendas, experience and common sense, they make the Democratic hopefuls look like pygmies.

But President George W. Bush has left a bad taste in the mouths of conservatives and moderates. He dressed, walked and spoke like a moderate conservative, but turned out to be a political chameleon. By inference, the credentials of the leading Republican contenders are under heavy scrutiny.

The shadow of President Bush is stalking Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Governor Mitt Romney. Their sudden conversion to an assortment of conservative principles seems more contrived than coincidental. Of the two, Governor Romney seems to incite the lowest “twitch factor,” but neither has a halo of inevitability.

Senator John McCain excluded himself from contention. His stance on amnesty and campaign financing informed the public that he isn’t a trustworthy proponent of traditional values. The only things left on his plate are a few more meetings with Senator Kennedy and writing his memoirs.

Senator Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich are sitting on the sidelines. Only the latter has first class credentials, but alas, Speaker Gingrich is a polarizing figure. And Senator Thompson’s delayed appearance on the Republican roster hasn’t added to his luster. He seems more like a lurking opportunist than a man hell bent on leading the nation.

After a decent showing in Iowa, Governor Michael Huckabee is the leading dark horse. He is being hammered on his tax policies by conservative watchdogs. But it should be noted that he was re-elected, which indicates the voters in Arkansas liked what he was doing. His handling of the Hurricane Katrina aftermath was exemplary. With sufficient campaign financing, he could be a real challenger.

That said, it’s obvious that the conservative and moderate voters haven’t found someone they uniformly respect and are willing to coalesce around. This dampened enthusiasm doesn’t bode well for Republicans.

Patriots?

When the Shiite cleric, al-Sadr, and his henchmen quit the Iraqi Cabinet, after Prime Minister al-Maliki refused to set a deadline for a US troop withdrawal, his Shiite stronghold became fair game. This opened the door for General Petraeus to actually clean house in Baghdad.

A real inconvenient truth is now emerging. And it doesn’t bode well for any presidential or congressional candidate who has yammered for America’s retreat. The General’s initial success has dampened the cut-and-run yapping, as it is no longer guarantees a politically safe haven.

This explains the sea change in the Democratic Party’s anti-war rhetoric. They have already stopped referring to the Iraqi War as “their war,” inferring only conservatives have a vested interest in its success.

But this doesn’t automatically clear the path for an Iraqi victory. A new test is emerging. The “surge” in Baghdad is taking its toll on our military. Extended tours of duty are tough on the troops and their families. By early spring, 2008, many of our best and bravest will head back to the states. There are few reserves ready to take their place.

Ten of the eleven new Iraqi Divisions are fully trained, but barely battle tested. Whether they can fill the void is open to conjecture. It would be pitiful if the blood and treasure the US expended to calm Baghdad is eroded by the Iraqi troops’ inability to sustain the gains.

And hold they must, as the remaining US troops engage the retreating al-Qaeda and Shiite forces regrouping in northern Iraq, and clamp down on the Syrian jihad gateway. A US ultimatum to Damascus could end this al-Qaeda support machine, and indirectly temper Iran’s interference.

But in truth, it appears President Bush has capitulated to the Democrats’ distress over potential civilian casualties. The leftwing is still wringing its hands over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It’s a twisted morality that prefers American deaths to ending the hostility; and one which equates retreat with reduced losses.

The Iraqi dilemma is further compounded by the lack of statesmen in its government. They’re still mired in yesterday’s tribal hatreds and mistrust—a shining example that all politics are local. But Iraq’s Shiite Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is a survivor.

His recent trip to Tikrit, a Sunni stronghold, underscores his realization that the Democrats’ demand for an immediate US troop withdrawal places intense pressure on the administration. To persuade the Republicans, President Bush and the American public to stay the course, he made an all out effort to win Sunni cooperation. He also structured a new alliance with the Shiite Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and the major Kurdish political parties to bolster his parliamentary support.

The political progress, although disappointing, is bending in the right direction.

Watch the Democrats’ reaction this September. If we see them gnashing their teeth and tearing their garments, know our nation is winning, despite their best efforts to achieve a defeat.

If the reports of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker encourage the nation that a win in Iraq is feasible, the Democrats will feel betrayed. They will all but call the General a liar, claim the reports are filled with deliberate distortions, and scream for a national military draft to undermine the nation’s willingness to continue.

And they call themselves patriots . . . .

Retire as a Winner Mr. President

President Bush’s second term is on its last legs. He is not in retreat. More accurately, he is licking his wounds. His final efforts in office will concentrate on Iraq and salvaging what little is left of his conservative credentials.

During this sixteen month hiatus, he will dust off the nearly forgotten power of the presidential veto. The Democrats will pass bloated spending bills which he will promptly trash. But it doesn’t have to be this way. He can go out a winner.

The theatrical fits and frenzy of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and Senator Reid, the Majority leader, are not inspiring. With the Democrat’s congressional poll numbers in the tank, it’s obvious the electorate isn’t depending on them for solutions. Their mock, anti-war legislation and mouthy, witch hunts haven’t endeared them to the public.

It would be foolish to believe any meaningful, presidential sponsored legislation would see the light of day. But this doesn’t prevent the President from setting the stage for the 2008 showdown. He can outline an agenda which contrasts and unmasks the fiscal lunacy of the social prescriptions offered by the Democratic candidates.

A good douse of common sense will devastate them. As the “shared responsibility” rhetoric soars, there is but one question: Where’s the money? The Democrats’ boilerplate answer: If we cut and run in Iraq and sell the Islamic jihadists as concocted bogeymen, we can raid the Pentagon.

If President Bush and the Republicans can’t counter this pitiful strategy, they had best retire to San Francisco where they can read about the glorious virtues of socialism in the Chronicle.

The country is looking for thoughtful, well constructed solutions—not excuses, finger pointing and temper tantrums. President Bush must use the left wing’s ranting and vitriol as a foil to a sanguine, intelligent fiscal agenda. Where to begin?

Brian Riedl, Grover M. Hermann Fellow for Federal Budgetary Affairs, was recently asked to highlight the top three (3) federal budget policies that would bring the current US fiscal mismanagement under control.

His answer:

1) A federal law capping the growth of the federal government at the inflation rate plus population growth.

2) Legislation overhauling Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This would include Social Security personal accounts and bringing more choice/competition into Medicare . . . to bring intergenerational equity [which would] improve retirement and health care policies.

3) Movement towards a flat tax or sales tax, whereby consumption is taxed only once and at the source with minimal economic distortions.

These concrete objectives, coupled with Representative Richard Burr’s revenue neutral proposal to provide health insurance to an additional 24 million Americans, are a winning formula. When contrasted to the trillions of extra tax dollars the Democrats are demanding for federal handouts, the American voters will unite behind this fiscal sanity. Yes, President Bush, you can leave the stage as a winner.

And Promises to Keep

Although the 2008 presidential election cycle is in its early stages, it’s apparent that neither side is ready to address the details, nor the consequences, of their proposals. The contenders are all stalling. It’s a familiar political pattern. Spouting about the state of the nation from 50,000 feet through tinted lenses leaves plenty of wiggle room.

So far we have heard nothing but standard boilerplate. Within a few degrees, the political platform shared by the leading Democratic presidential candidates focuses on new entitlements, higher taxes, abandoning Iraq, the introduction of nationalized healthcare and their disdain of Corporate America. The platform of the Republican front runners is the anti-thesis of the Democratic message.

There is a new element in this equation that both parties are ignoring—loss of faith. Americans are results oriented and are tired of trivia, bickering, name calling and platitudes. They feel forsaken and betrayed.

The vast majority of voters are moderately conservative, which explains President Bush’s low approval rating. He ran as a moderate conservative and fell in lockstep with the liberals. Setting aside the tax cuts and the appointment of two strict constructionist Supreme Court justices, his record is appalling.

His push for illegal alien amnesty was the last straw. Coupled with his unwillingness to veto out-of-control spending legislation and revenue busting earmarks, the electorate now regards his conservative credentials as doublespeak. The result: He is not a lame duck; he is a dead duck.

The two faces of President George W. Bush is a major problem for all the 2008 Republican presidential and congressional candidates. That he played fast and loose with conservative principles engendered no party loyalty. The current mistrust of the conservative label was also fueled by the congressional spending antics of the Republicans prior to the 2006 elections. They were arrogant, spendthrift fools.

The new Democratic, congressional majority misconstrued its 2006 win as a referendum on Iraq. While they concentrate on losing the war and administer over 300 separate investigations of theoretical White House misdeeds, they have become the ultimate do-nothing-important congress. This pandering to the ultra-leftwing has opened the door to a Republican resurgence.

Remember Newt Gingrich's “Contract with America?” It was a no nonsense litany of promises to be kept. It detailed specific legislative goals. America signed up! Republicans delivered!

It’s time for a new Republican contract—solid, factual, achievable and imminent—one that doesn’t pander, hesitate or shift. Every Republican seeking office, speaking in one voice, should endorse and use it as a rallying point. Rather than untangling the nuances of similar policies, let the voters determine which Republican presidential candidate is the best qualified to implement the plan.

The voters are hungry for action and they don’t want fuzzy answers. It’s the right time for the Republicans to deliver hard and fast solutions. With a clear message and united front, they will sweep the 2008 contests.

Compassion Weariness

Middle and upper class Americans are choking on the cost of equality and fairness. Since the Democrats launched the Great Society in the mid 1960’s, wage earners have willingly financed the well intentioned, government remedies to end poverty, intolerance and racism. This era is coming to an end as more and more Americans come to understand that government entitlements are the problem and not the solution.

The leftwing agenda is unraveling. Their glorious success in preying upon America’s compassion has been found to be disingenuous. It’s become evident that their love of the downtrodden is little more than a ploy to build and retain a dependable, political constituency. The productive segment of society has become weary of being chastised and financially punished for being successful. Where is the proof?

The backlash against amnesty for illegal aliens was a bell weather reaction. The leftwing portrayed the rejection of amnesty as anti-Latino and anti-immigration sentiment. It wasn’t; it was a revolt. Average Americans ran out of patience. They are tired of watching their tax dollars being flushed down a sinkhole. This intransigence will reach a crescendo in the 2008 election cycle because good will is elastic.

The left’s pleas for affirmative action, busing, sanctuary states and communities, higher taxation, gay rights, animal, criminal and terrorist rights, illegal alien rights, socialized healthcare, government funded community service and daycare, welfare and entitlements and open borders no longer generate the key ingredient—sympathy.

After the Democrats drained this reservoir, they resorted to class warfare, reverse discrimination, religious bigotry and secularism to maintain their grip on the electorate’s conscience.

But the personal generosity of America’s taxpayers has reached a saturation point. They are tired of deficits, failed programs and broken promises. Democrats overreached and the Republicans cowered. That’s a major reason why the conservatives were run out of DC in 2006.

The near universal rejection of amnesty was shrill and remains unabated. In one voice Americans spoke: enough is enough.

The Democrats old reliable tactic of “moral indignation and intimidation” is faltering. The taxpayers see no reciprocity, no successes and no end to the left’s demands. The $9 trillion in taxes used for income redistribution (not including Social Security or Medicare) generated next to nothing, except for creating unending generations of welfare dependents.

The recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis begs the questions: Would the $9 trillion in tax funds spent on entitlements have been better spent on infrastructure? How many millions of people would projects of this scope employ? How many schools built? How many kids educated? How many diseases cured? How many environmental and energy solutions found?

The leftwing hasn’t gotten the message. They’re still sneering at private enterprise, personal responsibility, the US military, the wealthy, capitalism, Judeo-Christian principles, the religious, the entrepreneurial spirit, profits, judicial strict constructionists, English language only adherents, Fortune 500 companies and the American taxpayer.

Let’s hope Middle Americans, burdened by the highest taxation in the nation’s history, will sneer back in 2008, and demand the respect they deserve.

Every American Insured Health Act

The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is currently under review on Capitol Hill. This federal entitlement was initially intended to protect the children of families whose incomes were less than $40,000. Through loopholes, the states have exploited the program to include families with incomes as high as $82,000. Plus, they have creatively managed to enroll childless parents.

The Democrats are now demanding the entitlement parameters of SCHIP be expanded to include all the children of families whose incomes are up to 400% above the poverty line, which is about $80,000 a year. If passed, savvy parents with family health coverage, would immediately remove their children from their private medical insurance policies and let the government pickup the cost.

Of course, this is the Democrats’ goal—expand national healthcare, and marginalize the private healthcare insurance industry. The liberals have included eligibility for illegal aliens in this proposed legislation and raised the age of entitled children to 24. Their bill would also grant illegal aliens unrestricted access to Medicare.

The Democrats have brilliantly camouflaged the march toward national healthcare by centering the proposed legislation on children’s health. The Republicans find themselves in a political quandary. They don’t want to vote against helping children, and like most Americans, they realize that government controlled healthcare is a prescription for second-rate medicine.

Removing some of the more erroneous aspects of the bill, such as lowering family income eligibility or the age of eligible children, doesn’t stop the march of socialized healthcare.

Simultaneously, the Democrats are blocking the Republican, revenue-neutral efforts to reform healthcare with refundable tax credits and “vouchers” for the poor. Richard Burr (R-NC) and four other Republican representatives wrote and proposed the Every American Insured Health Act (S. 1886). It should be noted that President Bush, Senator John Kerry (D-MA), Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) support refundable, medical tax credits.

This legislative proposal would reduce the number of uninsured by about 24 million people. In effect, every American would receive a tax credit (money) to purchase medical insurance. Individuals would receive about $2200 and families about $5400. They would be free to select any private, medical insurance provider they wanted, tailored to their needs.

How is this revenue neutral? By changing the tax code! Rather than allowing deductions for private medical insurance and expenses (which reduces government revenues), the Burr bill simply contributes funds for the individual’s or family’s medical insurance. Of course, businesses providing healthcare benefits to employees could continue to deduct the expense.

The states are heavily burdened by the cost of medical treatment for the poor. Under the Burr bill, the federal government would reimburse the states for provisioning the poor with medical insurance. The reimbursement would require states to open their borders to all American insurance providers, eliminating the current gaggle of anti-competitive, inter-state regulations.

Additionally, small businesses could join buying pools, giving them the advantage of volume discounts. Depending on the source, these two measures will reduce the cost of medical coverage in the US by 20% to 30%.

The poor would not be eligible for coverage if they were enrolled in Medicare, the Federal Employees Benefits program, the military healthcare system or an employer sponsored health plan. However, nothing would prohibit those enrolled in these programs from changing to government reimbursed private medical insurance programs.

That’s why the Democrats despise the Burr bill. Within ten to twenty years, all government medical entitlements could easily disappear.

A Recession in Waiting

Brian Riedl is The Heritage Foundation's top budget analyst. His analysis of the current fiscal affairs in Washington, DC should be mandatory reading for any person who will vote in the 2008 election. The greatest attribute of the volumes of papers and articles he generates is the clarity he brings to the subject.

Mr. Riedl recently published a review of the Office of Management and Budget’s mid-year report card. Again, he has assembled the nearly unfathomable statistics into facts and figures that any layperson can understand. The following are paraphrased highlights:

Adjusted for inflation, federal tax revenues have increased 25% in the last three years—since Congress passed the Bush tax cuts.

Federal taxes are at an all time high, consuming over 20% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

For fourteen (14) consecutive years federal spending has increased faster than inflation.

Since 2001, federal spending shot up 26% above inflation. A major cause of this growth was/is the increased expenditures for national security since 9/11.

Current signed legislation will increase spending on education 129%, health research and regulation 46%, international affairs 55%, Hurricane Katrina and community development 301% and veterans' benefits 34%.

It was the failure of Congress and President Bush to put the nation on a sound economic war footing that caused the increase in the national deficit. Not one single program or expenditure was cut to balance the budget.

Despite the federal deficit, the Democratic congressional majority is demanding a 9.4% increase in discretionary spending. This spending proposal would automatically require families to pay an additional $2000 in taxes over the next ten years.

Without reform, funding for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will require each household to pay an additional $11,651 in taxes in the next decade. The alternative is the elimination of every other federal program.

It is fair to interpret what Mr. Riedl is telling us and put it in perspective.

Keeping in mind that the US Treasury will receive $2.7 trillion in tax revenues in 2007, the Democratic Presidential candidates are promising nearly $1.5 trillion in increased funding for current entitlements and new programs for healthcare, higher education, plus the estimated cost of $2.3 trillion to fund their promised illegal alien amnesty.

Only the mathematically challenged would believe the Democrats’ promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. It's a given. The election of Senator Hillary Clinton and a Democratic Congress guarantee the taxes of all middle class families (incomes below $84,000) will increase about 30%, and require a 80% tax increase in taxes on the wealthy.

Again, it's a given. The 2008 Democratic platform is a recession in waiting.

Politics Aside

Senator Hillary Clinton is the leading Democratic candidate running for the office of the President of the United States. That she views capitalism as a temporary vehicle to create a socialist government is well understood, as is her positions on entitlements, the military and taxes.

If Senator Clinton is elected, and the Democrats retain control of both branches of Congress, everyone knows the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens will be granted amnesty, and will have full access to all the entitlement programs. These are givens.

It is also understood that the vast majority of minorities, entitlement hounds, the National Education Association, the National Bar Association, unions, the NAACP and the national media will endorse and vote for her.

Conservatives and moderates, those who do not define the American Dream as being first in line for a new government handout, see her as the economic anti-Christ. So we know how this block of electors will vote. Therefore, the Independents will determine the outcome of the 2008 election.

Before those uncommitted to either political philosophy pull the Senator Clinton lever in the balloting booth, they should consider their answers to the following questions:

Would I trust her as my manager?

Do I think she would endanger her life to protect a stranger’s child?

Would I be surprised if she committed perjury in a courtroom?

Do I think she would keep a promise, if divulging it helped fulfill her ambitions?

Would I expect her to re-fill my gas tank after she used my car?

Would I expect her to be honest, if deception protected her reputation?

Would I believe that she expected nothing-in-return for a favor?

Would I trust her with the “Power of Attorney” as the executor of my living will?

Do I expect her to do anything for anyone that doesn’t benefit her personally?

Would I be surprised if she accused others to shield herself from blame?

Would I want to wakeup or retire to the sound of her voice each day?

Would I personally lend her money without a signed and witnessed IOU?

Would I want her to guide my children’s moral and ethical training?

All politics may be local, but most Americans ultimately cast their ballot based on their perception of the candidate’s record, character and integrity. Setting Senator Clinton’s politics aside, let’s hope the Independents ask themselves this question: Is she the character I want controlling the destiny of my family and our nation?

Beware of Human Resources

The Conference Board, best known for the Consumer Confidence Index and the Leading Economic Indicators, empathically states that job satisfaction is declining in the United States. Less than 50% of the US workers are satisfied with their employment or employers.

It cites a number of reasons for this downward spiral, but barely touches on the one element which seems the most obvious. People don’t trust the companies that employ them and they don’t feel secure. It has become an adversarial relationship. This trend started about the time Personnel Offices were renamed Human Resources, and became the labor purchasing departments.

This reclassification puts the value placed on employees in perspective. They are commodities. Employees are strictly overhead, as disposable as paper clips. And like the corporation’s other suppliers, they are subject to change with little or no notice. There is no loyalty. Corporations have squandered it.

Today, the Human Resource department’s primary responsibility is to protect the company’s reputation and financial interests. HR is bound by the hip to the legal department and the dictates of upper management.

There is nothing humane about Human Resource departments.

They function as a shield against any potential, external publicity from questionable or unethical corporate policies and decisions concerning personnel. Secondly, they form a bulwark against government intervention in employee disputes and possible government fines. In effect, they are in charge of maintaining the black hole of silence.

Human Resource personnel are not objective arbitrators. Their careers depend on eliminating problems, not solving them. It is easier, less expensive and more expedient to terminate the problem. The perfect resolution is convincing an “employee in dispute” to simply quit, rather than face the consequences of staying.

In today’s marketplace, government intervention is a two edged sword. If an employee files a grievance with a government entity, it becomes public knowledge, which marks the individual as a trouble maker. If the employee is then dismissed before a ruling, other companies will shun the job seeker. This is illegal, but it’s nearly impossible to prove why a specific rejection occurred.

It is not above a Human Resource department to set the stage to help the company manufacture evidence of incompetence and challenge general performance. Here is a common tactic. Non-exempt employees, those paid an hourly wage, are vulnerable to a perfect stratagem—forcing them to work off-the-clock, which is working extra time without being paid.

A marked employee, deliberately over-loaded with work, has three options to protect the family income: 1) work off-the-clock to compensate for the increased work volume, or 2) ask for assistance, or) find a new job. The employee can be fired for the first, condemned as incompetent and fired for the second, or resign, losing benefits accrued by longevity.

Even if the employee wins the dispute in court, his/her career is finished at that corporation. There is no winning, there is no loyalty, and there is no friendship. It’s just business.