A Zero Sum Game

Long standing Democrats are concerned with security, immigration, healthcare, terrorism, education, the environment, the cost of living and energy. These are our neighbors, friends and business associates. Most believe in a deity and cherish traditional values.

They can be pro-choice or pro-life. They support the rule of law and expect the government to protect the nation and our freedoms. They are not bigots, nor radicals, nor in most respects, much different from moderates and conservatives.

But they are the most dangerous people in America because they vote by habit. They still associate the party label with Truman, Kennedy and Roosevelt. By any reckoning these men have more in common with President Reagan than with Presidents Carter, Johnson and Clinton.

Traditional Democrats still associate their party with the protection of labor—a bulwark against big business. Most pull the Democratic lever based on the tenet that Democrats care more about the little guy.

The Democratic Party has not abandoned this principle. It has corrupted it by marginalizing the ability of private enterprise to respond to market conditions. Its quest to protect the little guy has been derailed by the socialist element that dominates its agenda.

This anti-business message is espoused by every Democratic presidential hopeful. They blame private enterprise for the nation’s ills. Their proposals universally demand government intervention and control of the marketplace—control of every aspect of our lives.

It’s now a contest between Democratic radicals and business for control the economy. Under the guise of protecting the little guy, the Democratic leadership is promoting unfettered government as the first and only solution for every crisis, for every problem.

This is more dangerous than unfettered business.

Once government is a power unto itself, it is the sole arbiter, the judge of what it deems appropriate for the common good. When the interpretation of rights is the sole domain of the government, there are no rights. There is no neutrality, no buffer and no protection.

The platform of the Democratic Party is filled with plans to displace private enterprise and personal freedoms with government programs and intervention. Whether the subject is healthcare, immigration, food, energy, or the environment, they offer one solution—more government control, more taxation, less choice.

Each dollar the government controls adds to its power. And power is finite. The government’s gain is our loss. It’s a zero sum game. So be wary of politicians who exalt the need for higher taxes. Taxes are a cancer which feed on our freedom of choice.

Currently a handful of Republican Senators and one battered Republican president are all that is standing between us and Speaker Pelosi and her radical comrades. If Senator Clinton is elected, private enterprise will not be able to protect our freedoms.

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 . . . .

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.

The Fairness Doctrine

The liberals’ re-introduction of the Fairness Doctrine is neither puzzling nor unexpected. Immigration is the powder cap that set off this year’s eruption. The Democrats blame the voters’ dislike of amnesty on conservative talk radio. They are now demanding a more balanced voice in this programming format through legislation.

As the topic escalates, keep in mind that the Fairness Doctrine was never law, but rather composed of the policies and guidelines of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for broadcasters. The government’s right to control content is embedded in the fact that “the public” owns the airwaves the “licensees” use.

Most of the early fairness policies were based on the “scarcity” of outlets. The rules paralleled Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937, which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all political candidates running for office. News programs, interviews and documentaries were not bound by this law. In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court validated the FCC’s position.

During the 1980s, the “scarcity” argument became moot. The abundance of news outlets, including cable TV, the popularity of FM broadcasting, and access to the Internet opened an incredible array of vehicles for information dissemination. The FCC issued a Fairness Report in 1985, which concluded the doctrine might actually have a "chilling effect" on news reporting, and could be in “violation of the First Amendment.” The FCC stepped back.

The Democrats were not deterred by this report. Their renewed efforts to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine were vetoed by Presidents Reagan and George H. Bush. Thus, the Democrats’ current attempt to implement the Fairness Doctrine into legislation is nothing new.

It’s common knowledge that liberal radio talk programs rarely raise or sustain an audience. Why? More than likely because their viewpoints are readily available in most every newspaper, weekly magazine, on the network news broadcasts and on most cable news programs. Plus, the left’s viewpoint dominates most Internet political blogs.

Conservative talk radio's success is the natural outcome of the liberal domination of other mediums which express political viewpoints.

Way back when, some savvy marketer realized the marginalized conservative and moderate voices might rally around talk radio. They did. Sponsors flocked to its popularity. Had the liberal and conservative voices been balanced in other media, talk radio would be a “me to” offering. Balanced news reporting would dramatically shrink its impact.

Because the left sees its opinions re-enforced in 80% to 90% of the media, it is led to believe its thinking is mainstream. Were this true, most all Independents and Democrats would have supported amnesty. But 80% of the population rejected it.

The left’s fervor to cripple talk radio may cause an implosion. The Democrats see the implementation of the Fairness Doctrine as a way to squash political dissent. Americans have witnessed the subjugation of the news outlets in Third World and totalitarian societies. The leftwing of the DNC believes mainstream America is ready to follow suit. We’ll see.

Where's the Trust?

The Republicans got skunked in 2006. No wonder the Democrats are feeling smug. They are winning by default.

America has a conscience. The Democrats prey on it and the Republicans are intimidated by it. And America’s working class is caught in the crossfire.

Remember George W. Bush’s compassionate conservative slogan? That was an admission of surrender before he was elected. The subsequent spending onslaught during his two terms would have made an avowed socialist blush. Of course, it didn’t. The two measly tax cuts he enacted caused apoplexy within the Democrats’ ranks. Only the expiration of these temporary tax reductions will heal their trauma.

Whether the subject was education, immigration, welfare or healthcare, Republicans generally caved on their less-government principle in fear of being labeled heartless. But that’s only part of the reason they were defeated in 2006. The Republicans also poked their fingers in the eyes of their constituents.

It’s obvious to Americans that our uncontested borders cater to Corporate America’s lust for cheap labor. That this occurred on the heels of companies receiving tax incentives to ship jobs off-shore, doesn’t ingratiate the voters. That the Democrats said nothing, seeing the invasion as a boon to party recruitment, doesn’t lessen their complicity, nor redeem the Republicans.

This pervasive attitude of corporate supremacy engendered headlines exposing outlandish bonuses and severance packages for failed chieftains, as ex-employees headed for unemployment offices. Most found new jobs in the service sector, where low wages and rotten benefits rule. For these wage earners, the low unemployment statistics belie the nation’s prosperity.

Most Americans will admit that they are doing okay. But there is a reason they don’t believe the country is moving in the right direction. Put simply: They don’t feel safe. Too many have witnessed good paying US manufacturing, research and technical support jobs get shipped off-shore, while listening to CEO’s brag about staggering profits.

In this environment, workers know their job security only extends two weeks beyond a severance notice. The employed are looking over their shoulders as companies eye the hordes of immigrants ready to accept sub-standard wages. Americans are outraged when corporations like Dell and IBM fire workers, while simultaneously prodding the government to expedite their HB1 requests to import others. Who do they think they’re fooling?

How many workers want to scream when they hear the word “productivity?” To most Americans, the term “productivity” means watching their fellow workers get cut, while they are expected to pick up the slack. Many work off the clock to protect their families. Although this practice is illegal, more and more, it has become standard operating procedure.

The availability of cheap labor has made companies—large and small—ruthless. This tension doesn’t spur voters to support the party that enables it.

Only the talking heads and shallow thinking politicians believe the voters tossed the Republicans into the bleachers because of Iraq. The voters may believe it was a mistake to stay in Iraq, but they don’t want to see the US turn tail and run. They remember 9/11 and know the stakes.

Voters will return the Republicans to office when they are convinced its candidates will close the borders, pursue and fine companies that hire illegal aliens, control entitlements, end earmarks, offer tax incentives to companies that generate US based manufacturing jobs, declare English the national language and stay out of their pockets.

A note to John McCain: You’re lucky to still be a Senator.