The Middle of DC

AWOL

2006-07-11T21:30:00.000-04:00

Sorry about the disappearing act for the past few weeks. I don't have much of an excuse - simply been overwhelmed with being a working father of a 17 month old who insists that she's ready to leave for college next month. By the time I'm done chasing her around at night and get work done for my day job I just haven't had any time to put any coherent thoughts down about the idiotic things politicians in America do or say on a daily basis.

I'm going to come back - perhaps something later tonight or tomorrow. And, from now on, I promise at least one or two posts a week. But, I can't guarantee much more for the time being.

been away

2006-06-22T21:00:00.000-04:00

sorry that I've been away for a week or so. Came down with a rather stubborn cold / cough / etc that has completely sapped all my energy. Haven't been able to find the effort to concentrate enough to write anything the last week or so. Will be back on line more regularly starting Monday.

Rep. Jefferson about to lose seat on Ways and Means

2006-06-15T22:59:00.000-04:00

The Democratic Caucus has voted to force Rep William Jefferson off the powerful Ways and Means Committee pending the outcome of an investigation into charges of corruption. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi pushed the issue forward.

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus and Jefferson himself have alleged that race was a factor in the effort to have him ousted from the seat on Ways and Means.

Asked if he thought race was a factor in Pelosi's decision, Jefferson replied before the vote, "It's not happened before. The first time it's happening, it's happening to an African-American."
The assertion that race is a factor has already been floated by members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including Watt, who question why Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia, a white Democrat who also is under investigation, was allowed to keep his seat on the equally powerful Appropriations Committee.

I find the accusations that this decision is being motivated by race absurd. It’s being motivated by the fact that the FBI videotaped Jefferson accepting $100,000 in illegal bribes, the fact that the FBI found $90,000 in his freezer, the fact that two individuals have plead guilty to giving Jefferson bribes, and the fact that Democrats want to play the “Republicans have abused their power” card in the upcoming elections – something they can’t do if they don’t come down hard on one of their own Members who is almost assuredly guilty of something (bad judgment if not accepting bribes and lying to investigators) in this case.

Race undoubtedly plays an important role in our country – despite all the progress we have made towards equal rights over the past 50 years not all things are equal. However, in this case, it’s not about race. It’s about corruption.

The party line

2006-06-14T16:44:00.000-04:00

CNN is reporting that HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt has taken a government owned jet that is supposed to be used to respond to emergencies for 19 trips to more than 90 cities. I’ll leave the debate about whether or not this is a waste of taxpayer money (it is. He can fly commercial like all the other Secretaries) to others to debate. What I’m more interested in is the response by Republican staff on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which has authority over the CDC and HHS.

"The scope of his work has required extensive travel and might not have been possible without the use of a government-owned aircraft," said spokesman Craig Orfield in commending Leavitt’s work.

First, I find it very unlikely that Orfield could tell anyone the details of any of the 19 trips that Leavitt took on the government-owned aircraft. And, secondly, I’m more certain that Orfield is not familiar with the intricate details of the Secretary’s schedule and whether or not the Secretary could have met his government requirements while using other forms of transportation.

In other words, Orfield is simply blindly defending the Secretary without any independent, non-partisan thought. When did politics become about blindly defending members of the party over what’s right? And, while I’m on this topic, the decision by the Congressional Black Caucus to oppose the removal of Congressman William Jefferson from his Ways and Means Committee seat is on par, if it doesn’t exceed, this case of blind partisanship. Jefferson is the target of a federal investigation and was caught with over $19,000 of ill-gotten cash in his freezer. Asking him to step down from his committee seat while the investigation is still open does not set a precedent. Supporting him sets the precedent – a precedent that we should not be setting.

Lieberman in trouble in Dem primary?

2006-06-14T15:58:00.000-04:00

The AP is reporting that Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman may consider collecting signatures to run for the Senate in '08 as an Independent as his rival for the the Democratic nomination continues to gain ground in the polls.

If Lieberman is on the ballot, he's a virtual lock to win. This simply demonstrates the undue influence that registered "party loyalists" have during the primary season at the expense of centrist / moderate voters.

Crime & Drugs

2006-06-14T12:43:00.000-04:00

As the government has focused efforts over the past several years to prevent terrorist attacks and, more recently, to secure our borders, we are losing the fight on crime at home. Today, CNN is reporting that numerous packages of drugs, marijuana and cocaine, have been found by individuals purchasing vanities at Home Depot (bought one last week myself – no illicit drugs included). This rather humorous story comes days after the FBI released reports showing that our nation’s violent crime rate has seen its biggest increase since 1991 (something not nearly as funny).

Department of Justice officials, of course, have rejected the idea that resources have been taken away from fighting crime to combating terrorism. DOJ officials are also quick to point out that fighting crime has historically been largely a local responsibility, unlike national security and terrorism, which are federal obligations.

What they fail to point out is that during the early and mid-1990s, the Federal government passed a number of laws that required states and localities to send more people to jail for longer periods of time (Truth in Sentencing and 3-Strikes laws). The promised federal funding for these initiatives quickly dried up over the last decade and is virtually non-existent today. In addition, federal funding for juvenile justice programs has been cut by approximately 2/3rds over the past 8 years. Funding for drug treatment and substance abuse programs in jails and prisons is virtually non-existent nationally.

Preventing terrorism starts at home. Those who are sent to our nation’s jails and prisons should be given a second chance (the President’s term, not mine). If they are not given opportunity these people could become the next generation of recruits for organizations dedicated to destroying America.

A government handout at a strip club?

2006-06-14T12:42:00.000-04:00

The GAO is reporting that FEMA funds distributed after last year’s hurricanes hit the Gulf Coast were "not necessary to satisfy legitimate disaster needs."

A lot has been made about the handling of the disaster recovery by the Department of Homeland Security and it’s too easy to pile on after this latest development. We should remember that DHS is designed to prevent terrorist strikes. FEMA, which was rolled into DHS, was originally designed to respond to the aftermath of disasters (natural or man-made). There is a contradiction in missions that only Members of Congress and the Administration can be held responsible for causing.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi killed by US airstrike

2006-06-08T11:37:00.000-04:00

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is was killed killed in a U.S. air strike yesterday.

al-Zarqawi has been a target of the US for his role in leading the uprising in Iraq for several years and his death will undoubtedly undermine the structure of al Qaida's leadership and, at least in the short-term, limit the organization's ability to carry out missions against the US military and the Iraqi people/government.

There will also be many people trying to fill al-Zarqawi's shoes. The death of the leadership of al Qaida will not win the war and ensure a lasting peace in Iraq. The death of al-Zarqawi is a posititive step for peace, but there are many more steps we need to ensure happen.

Fear wins over nothing

2006-06-06T11:35:00.000-04:00

Yesterday afternoon I listened to former Republican presidential candidate Pat Robertson discussing immigration policy. He threw out several statistics that demonstrated that the number of immigrants who have entered this country since WWII outnumbers those who entered our country from the time of the founding of the Jamestown Colony in Virginia until the start of WWII. He then discussed how these immigrants – both legal and illegal – were changing our country irreconcilably. He believes that in order to leave our country in better shape for our children than the country we inherited from our parents we must stop immigration.

This rhetoric is the rhetoric of fear. A politician tells the public what they want to hear and provide a group to focus on and blame for the nation’s problems. This gets votes and drives poll numbers, but does little to solve our nation’s problems. Unfortunately, the Republican Party – and not just Pat Robertson – is reliant upon this type of rhetoric.

The president has defended the collection of information about citizen’s phone calls to prevent a terrorist strike. He has endorsed the building of a fence along the Mexican border to stop illegal immigration. And, today, he claimed that we must adopt a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage or see our country undermined. In short, the president is leading us based on partial truths, mistrusts, bigotry and, most importantly, fear. His is not a vision of the future, but a vision of how great our country was in the past before all these “problems” emerged.

Unfortunately for our country, the Democratic Party is simply void of fresh ideas and the ability to connect with average Americans. And, when faced with the choice between a vision of grand times of the past and no vision at all, Americans will chose the vision of the past.

Is marriage under attack?

2006-06-06T11:34:00.000-04:00

The president held a news conference yesterday to endorse a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The president believes that this action is necessary because “activist judges” are taking this issue out of the hands of the American public.

The president believes that marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization and that it should not be redefined by activist judges. He stated his belief that the union of a man and women in marriage is the most enduring relationship in human history. That this traditional union is crucial to the well being of families. He spoke of the important role that families play in raising our children and in passing along values to the next generation of Americans. And, the president stated that “changing the definition of families would undermine our society.”

Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization. But, it’s place in our society has evolved greatly over our nation’s history (not to mention the history of the human race). In fact, much of our society has changed remarkably over the past 50 years – the number of marriages ending in divorce and the number of single parents have both soared.

But, neither of these facts is a compelling argument to ban same sex marriage in our country. It is too simple in today’s society to define a marriage as simply a union between a man and a woman. It is much more than that. It is a loving, committed relationship in which two individuals pledge to stand together as one. It is a relationship that our government should be encouraging – regardless of the sex of the two individuals who are entering into that relationship.

By claiming that the recognition of same sex marriage is being driven by the courts and “activist judges” rather than the people, the president is failing to recognize the role of the courts as the protector minority rights in our nation. Even if a majority of Americans do not approve of gay marriage it does not make a ban on those individuals entering the bonds of matrimony right.

If the courts were silent during the 1950s and 1960s would black Americans still be second class citizens relegated to segregated water fountains and bathrooms?

As the president himself said “every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity.” It is time that our society recognized that two women can enter into a loving, committed relationship, that two men can be good parents who will raise their children to be virtuous members of our society, and that it is wrong to ban same sex marriages.

National building a tough task

2006-05-31T10:01:00.000-04:00

I’ve written before that I believe that the US government failed to understand the long-term impacts of removing Saddam Hussein from power and was unprepared to win the peace in Iraq. Troop levels were significant to win the war, but assumptions that stability would return quickly and that the people of Iraq would flock, peacefully, to democracy were short-sighted. The fact that insurgent groups have flocked to Iraq from neighboring states has fueled the violence and discontent.

The result of this lack of preparation and foresight is that the US now faces a nearly impossible task of winning the peace and building a stable government (ideally democratic, but even stable will be hard to achieve). Rival factions within the government have little incentive to cooperate absent a strong central government and the Iraqi military and police forces have been unable to prevent violence.

The longer that US troops are required to provide security the more resentment there will be (the latest incident bound to fuel resentment occurred last night when coalition troops killed two women, one in labor, while on their way to a hospital) and the more difficult it will be for us to shape the future of Iraq.

Republican Moderates an endangered species?

2006-05-30T21:11:00.000-04:00

It looks that way in both NY and Kansas. In separate stories, the AP discusses the challenges GOP moderates are facing in NY state and the decision by former Kansas Republican Party Chairman Mark Parkinson to join the Democratic party.

Student kicked out of prom b/c he wore a dress

2006-05-26T13:53:00.000-04:00

If it’s not against the school’s dress code for a woman to wear a dress, how is it against the dress code for a man to wear a dress?

This is an issue where I will, once again, come out on the side of individual choice and freedom of expression. The principal and the school district were wrong, despite whatever personal beliefs school officials hold about whether being gay is moral or immoral.

Gen. Hayden confirmed to lead CIA

2006-05-26T13:45:00.001-04:00

All the opposition to General Hayden being appointed to lead the CIA seemed to have faded away over the past few weeks and, today, the Senate confirmed his appointment.

Gen. Hayden is eminently qualified to lead the agency. He will face many challenges and I hope that he will showcase independent thought and independence from the Pentagon.

Gen. Hayden confirmed to lead CIA

2006-05-26T13:45:00.000-04:00

Will amnesty and a path to citizenship fuel more illegal immigration?

2006-05-26T13:28:00.000-04:00

This is the question that is almost certainly to be the main sticking point as House and Senate members meet to reconcile immigration reform legislation. And, it’s apparent that House Republicans believe that the answer is yes.

House Majority Leader John Boehner said House negotiators will oppose "troubling policies that encourage open borders and invite more illegal immigrants into our country."

"Our most important priority is to secure our borders and stop illegal immigration," said Boehner, R-Ohio.

GOP Rep. Peter King of New York, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said he would vote against any legislation that included amnesty or legalization for illegal immigrants. King is expected to be among the House negotiators.

What these Republican leaders are failing to understand is that immigration reform and securing our borders are two distinct issues that require more than simply building a fence and making everyone who is here illegally a felon.

Any effort to reform immigration must first start with securing our borders. We certainly need to take steps to begin the process of strengthening our nation’s border security, but we must do so in a manner that addresses all types of illegal immigration – not just that directed at stopping illegal immigration through the southwestern boarder with Mexico.

We must recognize that any fence or other type of barrier and an increased presence of personnel at the border will not immediately stop all illegal immigration. It will take time to build the infrastructure, train and deploy personnel and technology, and even after resources are deployed that gaps will still exist. We should also remember that the individuals who attacked our nation on Sept 11th entered our country legally. They may have overstayed their visa and been here illegally at the time of the attacks in some cases, but none of the Sept 11th terrorists came through our nation’s border with Mexico illegally. Proposals to end illegal immigration targeted entirely at our nation’s southwestern border smack of racism, not security.

Even if we can stop all new illegal immigration, we are still faced as a country with the question of what to do with those who are already here. It is not feasible to round these individuals up and deport them from either a logistical or economic standpoint. It is not wise to remove them from our national workforce as they hold jobs that are vital to our continued economic health. Threatening to remove these individuals or tagging them with a “felon” label will only encourage them to stay underground. By offering amnesty and a path to citizenship we will be welcoming them into our society and giving them hope for the future. And, as this is a one time amnesty, it should not spark concerns of a new wave of illegal immigration which would have hopes of gaining US citizenship.

The Republican leadership is wrong to outright reject amnesty and a path to citizens for those already in our country. We should be giving everyone in America hope and opportunity – principles our nation was founded upon. It is the right thing to do and it will make our country safer.

Here’s a quick recap of the major provisions of each chamber’s legislation:

The House bill, passed on a largely party-line vote last year, is generally limited to border enforcement. All illegal immigrants would be subject to felony charges and it has no provision for either a new temporary worker program or citizenship for men, women and children unlawfully in the country.

The Senate bill would increase security at the border by (1) urging the hiring of 1,000 more Border Patrol agents this year and 14,000 by 2011; (2) supporting the President’s plan for a short-term deployment of National Guard troops to states along the border with Mexico; and (3) calling for the construction of 370 miles of fencing on the border.

The Senate version of the bill would also (1) create a guest worker program that would admit 200,000 individuals a year. Under the program immigrants could eventually apply for a green card, which confers legal permanent residency; (2) allows for the admission of about 1.5 million immigrant farm workers who also may apply for permanent residency. And, for those who are already in this country illegally, the Senate version would (1) allow those who have been here for five years to stay, keep working and eventually apply for citizenship after paying at least $3,250 in fines and fees, settling back taxes and learning English; (2) those illegal immigrants here more than two but less than five years would have to travel to a point of entry before re-entering the United States legally to begin the process of seeking citizenship; and (3) any illegal immigrant in the country for less than two years would be required to leave with no guarantee of return.

Frivolous law suits

2006-05-26T10:04:00.000-04:00

In the latest example proving that something needs to be done to stop frivolous lawsuits, former Phoenix Coyote assistant coach Rick Tocchet and Janet Jones, Wayne Gretzky’s wife, could sue the State of New Jersey for $50 million each because state officials leaked information that the two were involved in an illegal gambling ring last year.

While I agree with the claims made by Mr. Tocchet and Ms. Jones that their reputations and future earning potential has been severely damaged, it’s their own fault. They each broke the law and undermined the integrity of their profession (or in the case of Ms. Jones, her husband's profession). The information that was leaked would have come to light at trial. The NHL would have suspended Tocchet regardless of whether or not the reports were made public. It’s a frivolous case that the tax payers of New Jersey shouldn’t have to defend.

Bush calls time-out

2006-05-26T10:03:00.000-04:00

President Bush has sealed for 45 days all documents obtained during the FBI’s raid on Congressman William Jefferson’s office last weekend in a move designed to buy time for negotiations between Congressional Leaders and the Justice Department.

Following last week’s raid, the first of its kind in our nation’s history, Congressional leaders, specifically Speaker Dennis Hastert, have claimed that the move violates the Constitution’s Separation of Powers clause and that the documents should be sealed and/or turned over to the House Ethics Committee.

For anyone concerned with justice in this matter, the Speaker’s solution is not acceptable. The House Ethics Committee has proven itself to be run by partisanship and the House has proven time and again in recent history that it cannot root out corruption (I’d argue that media coverage forced Randy “Duke” Cunningham and Tom DeLay to resign their seats while the House Ethics Committee has been remarkably inept at rooting out and punishing members for ethics violations). For several months at the beginning of the current Congress the Ethics Committee refused to meet due to partisan squabbling about the make up and division of powers within the Committee. There is no reason to believe that the House Ethics Committee would act in a clear and decisive manner to hold Rep. Jefferson accountable for his actions – as they should have immediately after it was discovered that he had more than $90,000 stuffed in his freezer in his home.

The FBI raid was unprecedented. And, if the FBI had taken any governmental records or Congressional property, my opinion on this issue would be markedly different. However, all reports are that the FBI seized only documents on Jefferson’s personal computer and information relating to donations to his legal defense fund.

The FBI was right to act swiftly and decisively to root out corruption inside our Federal government. It’s too bad that Congress couldn’t have acted earlier to police itself.

Immigration bill offers a second chance

2006-05-25T11:33:00.000-04:00

As the Senate considers an immigration bill that includes provisions to enhance border security, create a new guest worker program and give millions of illegal immigrants a path to citizenship as long as they meet certain conditions, conservative activists are up in arms against what they see as an amnesty program that will reward individuals who broke the law by immigrating to the United States illegally.

I’ve stated before that I don’t believe we can effectively secure our borders unless we undertake a massive effort to improve economic opportunities for individuals in their home countries and ensure that individuals can live free from oppression in their own countries. I also continue to believe that the vast majority of the illegal immigrants in our country are contributing to our society – both culturally and economically – and we should recognize their contributions. One way to do so is through a formal process that will lead towards citizenship.

Is this offering a reward for an illegal act? Yes. But, I find it hypocritical of Christian Conservatives to outright reject any type of amnesty for those who are here illegally. Why? Because my bible teaches forgiveness and redemption.

Luke, chapter 6 "37": Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

Luke, chapter 7 "48": And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.

Matthew, chapter 6 "14": For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

Ephesians, chapter 1 "7": In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

The word “redemption” is used 20 times in the King James version of the bible. The word “forgive” is used nearly 120 times (thanks to a quick search of The King James Bible at the Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia)

Those individuals who have come to our country in search of a better life, in search of freedom from repression, and in search of opportunity deserve a second chance. They deserve forgiveness for their sin – entering our country illegally – and recognition for the contributions that they make to our society and our economy. They do not deserve the treatment they have received, especially from those who preach forgiveness. And they deserve a chance at redemption.

A different take on FBI raid

2006-05-25T10:07:00.000-04:00

My former Yellow Line colleague, Alan Carl, has a different view of the FBI raid on Congressman Jefferson's office over the weekend. You can read it here.

I have to say that I agree with Alan that the FBI should NEVER be searching a legislative (or judicial) office for anything of a governmental or political nature. However, I still believe that the FBI had probable cause to search Jefferson's office for evidence of criminal activity unrelated to offical government duties.

I often say that Members of Congress should be held to the same, or a higher, standard than the American public. I'll extend this to their personal belongings and files in their Congressional offices. If evidence comes out that shows the FBI violated the Seperation of Powers and confiscated any political or government records, I'll be the first to criticize them.

Travel Diaries

2006-05-24T13:16:00.000-04:00

I must apologize for my absence from The Middle over the last week. It all started with a work trip to Chicago. My plan arrived on time last Sunday and I had a very pleasant flight with my 15 month old daughter. Until we went to baggage claim and discovered one of our suitcases was missing.

To make a long adventure much shorter, the bag missing was mine – which included my suit and other essentials for my 9:00 am meeting on Monday morning. The airline was exceedingly unhelpful saying that they wouldn’t have any information for “several hours” or “probably until the next morning” which, of course, did me no good since it was after closing time for most stores and I had a 9:00 AM business meeting the next day (and only the stained – thanks to an unfortunate applesauce incident on the plane – clothes on my back).

My luggage did show – it was actually picked up by another customer who didn’t think to check the luggage tag or notice the sticker on the side of the bag I use to ID it – but it was too late for me to have delivered that night. So, since I still had a meeting first thing the next morning, I spent a good deal of the night in the parking lots that are the Chicago Expressways going back to O’Hare to get my luggage.

My meetings went well, but as I didn’t get a lot of sleep that first night in Chicago and had 4 fun-filled days in of non-stop meetings and recreation (I just had to take in a game at Wrigley while I was there), I’m still trying to catch up on sleep (as well as work).

Separation of Powers?

2006-05-24T13:06:00.000-04:00

Congressional leaders are outraged by FBI agents raiding the office of Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson over the weekend. House Speaker Dennis Hastert has gone as far to call for the FBI to return all seized documents.

The question in this case is whether or not the Executive branch violated the Constitution’s Separation of Powers doctrine by entering Congress and, for the first time in our nation’s history, searching a Congressional office for evidence of a crime.

I have to side with the FBI on this issue. I’m a firm believer in individual rights – especially the right to privacy. And, in this case, the FBI went through all the proper hurdles to get a valid warrant. Jefferson, who is accused of taking money in exchange for using his position to help move forward an African telecommunications deal, has refused to cooperate with investigators. And, over $90,000 in cash was found hidden in the congressman’s freezer in his Washington, DC home – money that is believed to be part of the $100,000 Jefferson received last year during what he thought was a bribery-transaction but was really part of an FBI sting operation.

The FBI had probable cause to search Mr. Jefferson’s records in search of additional evidence that he committed crimes. They were not searching for information on political or government activities. The FBI is not in the wrong here. Mr. Jefferson is.

Illinois lottery sale

2006-05-24T12:56:00.000-04:00

Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich has a plan to either sell or lease the Illinois lottery to raise about $10 billion to fund school reform. Under the four-year proposal, the state would spend $4 billion to upgrade schools and invest another $6 billion which would earn about $650 million a year which would be reinvested in the operation of the state’s schools.

The proposal includes no details on how the Governor plans to offset the potential $2 billion falloff in revenue for schools after his four-year plan had ended. And, the problems with the plan don’t stop there. After 2024, if the lottery is sold outright, the state would not receive another penny from lottery sales. And, under any lease agreement, the state would no longer see growth in revenue from ticket sales.

At the time of the state lottery’s founding in the mid-1970s, Illinois’ school systems were woefully underfunded and the lottery was proposed as a means to raise revenue for the school systems. In practical terms, the school funding has grown – especially due to expansion of the number and types of drawings allowed in the state – but schools haven’t seen the windfall expected. The percentage of non-lottery revenue going to the school systems has decreased. And, the state’s schools – especially those in poorer, underdeveloped areas – have continued to lag behind.

While the State of Illinois guarantees each school district receives a certain level of funding per student, schools receive the majority of their funds from local tax receipts. As such, school funding levels in Illinois are strongly correlated with local property tax wealth. The result is a wide disparity among funding levels across the state.

Would Blagojevich’s proposal benefit the state’s schools? Almost certainly in the short-term as new construction, improved resources, increased teacher pay, and a number of other programs could be implemented across the state. However, the long-term consequences of his plan are too great to ignore. Schools operating budgets would be short-changed in just four years. And, the plan does nothing to correct the historical disparity between rich and poor districts.

Fixing Illinois’ schools can only be done by ending the tie to local property tax revenue.

The unrepresented middle class

2006-05-24T11:11:00.000-04:00

CNN’s Lou Dobbs takes President Bush and the US Congress to taks for being woefully out of touch with the nation’s largest group of constituents – some 200 million middle-class Americas. Read it here.

longer break than expected

2006-05-18T23:09:00.000-04:00

I'll be back on-line with some thoughts tomorrow.... busier and longer trip than I had expected.

Limited Posts

2006-05-14T23:10:00.000-04:00

I'm traveling through the corn fields of north-central Illinois the next couple of days for work, so my time to post will be limited. I'll try put up a few thoughts if time (and the ability to connect to the internet) allows. I'll be back to my regular postings on thursday.

Militarization of the Mexican boarder

2006-05-14T22:26:00.000-04:00

The Statue of Liberty reads:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Over the past few months, the issue of illegal immigration has captured the attention of the American public and our nation’s politicians. The issue – as it has played out – has centered around how to secure our nation’s borders (to prevent terrorists from entering our country) and whether or not to punish those who are already here illegally.

The Bush administration has come out against deportation of those already here (first, it’s impractical and, secondly, it would enact a tremendous cost on our economy) and in favor of strongly securing our borders (the subject of tomorrow’s address). The administration, and the majority of those in our country, has not addressed the issue of why people are coming to America.

America was founded as the land of opportunity. Individuals come to our country because it promises a better life – free from persecution and economic opportunity. Until standards of living around the globe improve and/or people believe that they have an opportunity at home, they will still try to enter our great country. Just last month, a human-smuggling ring was discovered running illegal immigrants into the United States through Canada.

Tomorrow night, the President of the United States is expected to address the nation to announce that military troops – likely national guard troops – will be deployed along our border with Mexico. The move is an appeal to conservatives – a move to showcase the Administration’s ability to be tough on immigration (cracking down at the boarder) while also preventing backlash from the business community (by not cracking down on those already here).

What’s the cost to America? First, the move will further extend an already over-extended military. Second, it will cost the nation millions (if not more) at a time of increasing budget deficits (and it’ll be paid for through “emergency spending” allowing the Administration to once again bypass the normal spending rules). And, finally, the impact will be…. That’s tougher to measure.

The assumption is that it will make our nation safer. That the individuals who are flocking to our nation are a threat to our nation’s safety. However, I continue to contend that these people are coming to our country in search of a better life. That doesn’t make it legal, but it doesn’t make it an affront to the safety and security of our nation. And it doesn’t mean that we should mobilize our military in response to this “threat.”

The people who are coming to America are doing so because our nation presents opportunity. This is not about terrorism – though I’m certain that is what the Bush administration will try to sell tomorrow night.

Freedom of Assembly; Freedom Against Unreasonable Searches

2006-05-11T23:08:00.000-04:00

The Bush administration has been under fire since it was first reported last year that the NSA was monitoring, without a court order, calls between people in the United States and people overseas.

In January, the president first shed light on details on the program, telling an audience at Kansas State University that the congressional resolution passed in the wake of the September 11 attacks that authorized the invasion of Afghanistan and other counterterrorism measures gave him the legal authority to initiate the program. The president was clear at that time that the program did not infringe upon the civil liberties of Americans.

"These are not phone calls within the United States," Bush said at the time. "This is a phone call of an al Qaeda, known al Qaeda suspect, making a phone call into the United States.

Today, the USA Today disclosed that the Bush administration has been building a massive database of US phone calls.

According to reports, the program does not monitor or record the content of any calls but merely keeps records and looks for suspicious patterns that could suggest terrorist activities.

"The privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities," Bush said in a statement he read to reporters at the White House. "Our efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda and their known affiliates."

I find these programs increasingly troubling. If the President was truly concerned about the privacy and civil liberties of Americans he would require the NSA to obtain search warrants for the monitoring of calls between an individual in America and someone overseas. It would not be overly burdensome, especially given the potential utilization of sneak-and-peak warrants and the FISA court. This refusal is a slap in the face of the First Amendment, which reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Today’s disclosure opens up new constitutional questions. By keeping records of every phone conversation the Administration may be interfering with our Constitutional right of Assembly.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Administration has legitimate reason to believe that both these NSA programs can prevent terrorists from striking our nation. However, their refusal to provide information on these programs to Congress and the American people is alarming and is a clear violation of our constitutional rights.

Supporters of the Bush Administration's position claim that only those with something to hide should be fearful of these NSA programs. That is a slippery slope that we should not start down.

Bloggers in the news

2006-05-10T23:16:00.000-04:00

Washington Post staff writer Howard Kurtz had an interesting piece yesterday on the reaction of bloggers to the nomination of Michael Hayden to lead the CIA. Kurtz points out that many conservative bloggers have failed to rally behind Hayden and toe the party line. He then asks whether partisan bloggers should remain united behind their party in the hopes of promoting party loyalty as we near the 2006 midterm elections or whether bloggers should assert their independence and question their party’s leadership. The article is a good read.

Fortunately, those of us in The Middle are free to question both sides and seek out informed debate.

The internet has spawned a dramatic increase for average citizens to share their opinions and make their voices heard. It’s unfortunate that some will undoubtedly place uninformed partisanship above what is right for this country. We have an obligation to challenge our political leadership – regardless of where we are individually on the political spectrum.

Nebraska Republicans pick challenger to Moderate Sen. Nelson

2006-05-10T23:07:00.000-04:00

Republicans in Nebraska have selected Pete Ricketts, a multimillionaire political newcomer and former chief operating officer of online broker Ameritrade, to face moderate Democratic Senator Ben Nelson in the race for the US Senate.

Nelson has supported the Bush administration’s judicial nominees and has supported the Republicans' Medicare prescription drug plan. He has routinely demonstrated an independent mentality and a willingness to break with his party in the pursuit of sound policy.

Nelson will face a tough battle – not because he has not done a good job representing the people of his state but because he has a D behind his name in a state that is increasingly Republican.

Winning the Peace

2006-05-10T22:49:00.000-04:00

The Iraqi president’s office reported that 1,091 people were killed in the city in April.

I’ve previously used this space to question the handling of the War in Iraq. I believe that the White House and civilian leadership at the Pentagon underestimated the number of troops required to ensure peace and stability after the defeat of Saddam Hussein’s army. The White House had a mistaken belief that the people of Iraq would flock to democracy and peace and stability would naturally follow the removal of Hussein. They were misguided.

If we are to win the peace, we must engage our allies to build stability in Iraq and end the senseless violence against the Iraqi people.

They don’t make these things up….

2006-05-10T22:47:00.000-04:00

In 2004, it came out that the Bush administration (ok, the money came from the Education Department, but I’ll hold the administration responsible, not some department hack) paid conservative commentator Armstrong Williams $241,000 to help promote President Bush's No Child Left Behind law on the air. The fallout from that arrangement caused the Administration a great deal of political pain.

Now, the Administration, more specifically, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson is simply making up stories himself.

As an aside, I find it deplorable that the Administration would withhold funding from a qualified contractor because the group did not support the administration and/or raise money for GOP candidates. I find it even more outrageous that the Secretary of HUD would make up stories and present it as fact.

It’s My Party Too

2006-05-10T22:38:00.000-04:00

That’s the website that former NJ Governor and EPA Administrator is using to mobilize support for moderate Republicans. The list of advisors to the movement is impressive and the platform exposes many a good set of moderate principles including:

Recognizing that tax cuts not only leave money in the pockets of those who earned it, but, when combined with restrained spending and balanced budget, help to stimulate the economy;

Supporting an engaged foreign policy and a strong national defense;

Continuing the Party's recognition that government does have a role to play in protecting our environment; and

Respecting the individual as evidenced by limiting government interference in their lives.

I’m not ready to endorse this group as the group to lead the Centrist cause. But, it’s certainly an organization worth watching in 2006.

Will Hayden help reign in military spying?

2006-05-09T12:55:00.000-04:00

That's the angle that this Washington Post editorial takes.

And, as I wrote earlier today, I'm willing to give the Administration the benefit of the doubt in nominating Gen. Hayden to lead the CIA.

"Ahmadinejad's letter, an initiative in global diplomacy"

2006-05-09T12:25:00.000-04:00

This was the headline in the hard-line daily Resalat today as most of Iran’s newspapers devoted their front pages to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's message to President Bush. The moderate daily Shargh, or East, said the message may open a new page in relations with the United States.

The coverage of the first official, written correspondence between Iran and the United States since 1980 could be expected to get this sort of favorable coverage in Iran. But, what’s the impact of this development in the United States?

According to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,

"This letter is not the place that one would find an opening to engage on the nuclear issue or anything of the sort. It isn't addressing the issues that we're dealing with in a concrete way."

I agree, the letter doesn’t offer any new insight into issues that top the United States’ agenda with Iran. But, it does provide insight into the issues that top Iran’s agenda with the United States. In fact, it asks many of the same questions that the US public and/or the global community is asking the Bush administration.

In the letter, Ahmadinejad questions Bush’s handling of the Sept. 11 attacks, accuses the media of spreading lies about the Iraq war and rallies against the United States for its support of Israel. It also questions whether the world would be a different place if the money spent on Iraq had been spent to fight poverty.

"Would not your administration's political and economic standing have been stronger?" the letter said. "And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever- increasing global hatred of the American government?

Let us recap. First, the issue of spreading lies about the Iraq war. President Bush has been accused – in the American public – of deliberately misleading the American public into believing that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and possessed an immediate threat to the security of the region. The Administration has also been accused of selectively leaking classified material (which would have been declassified b/c the President choose to declassify it) to discredit critics of the Iraq invasion.

Second, the letter accuses the media of spreading lies about the Iraq war. This is actually something the Bush administration has also done – calling on the media to showcase not only the negatives of the War – death and destruction – but also the progress being made in the country. I’m sure this also refers to allegations of Iranian involvement in training insurgents that have not yet been publicly proven.

Third, the letter highlights the close ties between the US and Israel. Well, this has long been a bone of contention in the Middle East as Arab nations have refused to accept Israel’s right to exist and Israel has been the largest recipient of US military aid for decades. The fact still remains that the United States has prevented UN action or condemnation against Israel for actions ranging from the seizure of Palestinian land to the construction of the nation’s security wall. (Note: I’m not taking a position on these issues, just stating that the international community and the US have had very different positions on the issues)

Fourth, the letter asks if the money spent on Iraq could have been better spent to eliminate poverty. As the US budget deficit approaches $8.3 trillion dollars, it’s unlikely that the current administration (or any other) would have spent the money that we’ve allocated to Iraq on anything. Nevertheless, there has certainly been a debate about the wisdom of the country’s current spending practices, the wisdom of tax-cuts, and the ever-expanding national deficit.

And, finally, the issue of the global perception of the United States. Given that the President brought Karen Hughes out of retirement to head the nation's image-building effort abroad, it certainly seems like this is a real issue that even the Bush administration is trying to combat.

President Ahmadinejad's message to President Bush may not be what the Bush administration was looking for. But, perhaps they should pay attention to the message. It’s something that much of America, as well as the global community, would like to see addressed.

And, yes, I do believe the letter was sent to distract from the UN vote on Iran’s nuclear weapons program. But, that doesn’t undermine the significance of the letter or its content. Perhaps by addressing the concerns of the Iranian President, our nation could open a broader dialogue that allows us to address the issues that our country feels need to be addressed.

A dying dog

2006-05-09T12:24:00.000-04:00

The Associated Press has an interesting article on the slow death of “yellow dog” Democrat.

The “yellow dog” is certainly a dying breed. Following the adoption of the Civil Rights Act in 1965, the national Democratic Party began its drift to the left, leaving many old, conservative Democrats in the South without a home. As these loyal “yellow dogs” supporters continue to pass away, they are being replaced by individuals who are solidly Republican – fiscally conservative and religious.

Without the “yellow dogs” we’ll continue to see the Democratic Party abandon The Middle.

Hayden not to blame for domestic spying

2006-05-09T12:23:00.000-04:00

Sen. John Kerry has stated that he is “very troubled by the nomination” of Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden to head the CIA because Hayden “is one of the main supporters representing Donald Rumsfeld who helped to put in place the programs of spying on Americans and has been one of the biggest defenders of it."

The decision to implement the program was not Hayden’s – it was the Bush administrations’ and only the President can be held accountable for the creation and use of the domestic spying program. Hayden, by all accounts, did an admirable job in administering the program and should not be held responsible for its creation and use.

Hayden’s involvement in creating the program and his public defense of it does show Hayden’s loyalty to the Bush administration – a degree of loyalty in implementing the policies of the administration that the Bush administration should expect from someone who it appoints to a high-level position. The only question of importance is whether or not Hayden can be relied upon to provide non-politically biased advice to the Administration as Director of the CIA. No one has yet questioned Hayden’s integrity and insight into intelligence matters.

Centrist Conference

2006-05-08T16:59:00.000-04:00

Last weekend, a group of Centrists met at Theodore Roosevelt's birthplace in New York City for the first National Centrist Conference. Unfortunately, I had to cancel my plans to take part in the meeting at the last minute.

Alan Carl, the newly elected executive director of the Centrist Coalition, has a good overview of the meeting and links to other recaps here.

Alan, I wish you and the others luck. Only wish that I could have been there to take part.

Bush picks Gen. Hayden for CIA post

2006-05-08T10:48:00.000-04:00

President Bush formally announced that Air Force General Michael Hayden is his choice to lead the CIA.

Hayden’s credentials for the job are unquestionable and there is no reason to reject his appointment based solely on his military background, though numerous voices on the Hill are raising questions about whether it is wise to put all the nation’s spying activities under the leadership of military officers.

What’s more intriguing to me about this appointment is the manner in which the Bush administration announced it. There was widespread speculation on the identity of the nominee at the end of last week, allowing the news to be vetted through the weekend talk shows. Administration supporters made the rounds supporting the nominee in a well coordinated defensive media strategy. For past appointments, the Administration was less defensive and prepared for possible negative responses (see Harriet Miers).

The nomination will be tough because of questions about Hayden's military background and his oversight of domestic spying at the NSA. However, it seems that the Bush administration is laying the groundwork to effectively fight those challenges.

Gen. Hayden should not be opposed simply because he is a military officer. It will be interesting to see, however, if Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa, uses Hayden's nomination to raise questions about the legality of the domestic surveillance program, as he promised on Fox over the weekend, and how Hayden response to those type of tough questions.

Bush & Congress at new lows in poll

2006-05-05T10:13:00.000-04:00

According to a new AP-Ipsos poll public support for both the Bush administration and the Republican leadership of Congress are at a new low. According to the poll, 44 percent of the public approves of Bush’s job performance down from 36 percent at the start of April. And only ¼ of the public approves of the job Congress is doing, down 5 percent from April.

These new lows demonstrate that both the Bush administration and the GOP leadership in Congress are failing to satisfy anyone in America. On foreign issues, Americans are growing increasingly disenchanted with rising the handling of the War in Iraq. Many believe that the administration misled us into the War and has failed to accept responsibility for underestimating the insurgency and the resources need to combat it. Some view the escalating tensions with Iran as another example of the short-sightedness of the current administration and their single-minded view of international relations.

On the domestic front, the administration and GOP leadership in Congress has failed to reform social security, reign in government spending, has mishandled immigration reform, and been involved in numerous ethical scandals. And, today, CNN reports that domestic job growth is at its lowest point since Hurricane Katrina.

The current administration and the GOP leadership in Congress have failed the nation – pandering to special interests and placing political gain above good policy. Unfortunately, I’ve seen nothing from the Democrats to make me believe that they would be doing anything differently.

Innocent man executed in Texas?

2006-05-03T10:13:00.000-04:00

A new report from the Innocence Project contends that the State of Texas has executed an innocent man. The report, issued by four of the nation’s top arson experts concludes that the conviction and 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham for the arson-murders of his three daughters were based on interpretations by fire investigators that have been scientifically disproved.

As I’ve written before, I’m not an advocate of the death penalty. My experience in the State of Illinois and as an advocate on criminal justice issues on Capitol Hill has shown that issues of crime and punishment are not nearly as black and white as our society would like to believe. While the majority of Americans serving time in jail/prison as well as those on death row deserve to be there because of the heinousness of their crimes there are cases where the criminal justice system fails those it was designed to protect. The case of Mr. Willingham clearly demonstrates this fact.

The fact that it can be proven that our government (well, “our” for those living in Texas) has executed an innocent man is a travesty of justice. As a nation we should allow the use of the death penalty to continue unless we can be 100 percent certain that another innocent life will never be lost.

The details of this case in Texas clearly demonstrate the strength and insight exhibited by former Illinois’ Governor George H. Ryan who was the first politician (and a fairly conservative Republican who has a long history of supporting the death penalty) for declaring a moratorium on the use of the death penalty in Illinois and later commuting the sentences of those on Illinois’ death row to life-in-prison.

Competitive elections? Not in Indiana

2006-05-03T10:12:00.000-04:00

One of the basic values Centrists is the need for election reform – an opening of the process to ensure that elections are competitive (ending gerrymandering and reducing the importance of money) and that those elected represent the interests of those living in the Districts they represent. As the Indiana primaries demonstrated this week, we have a long battle in front of us.

In Indiana’s primary election this week, all nine congressional incumbents easily won their race. Sen. Richard Lugar had no opposition in the Republican primary. Nationally, approximately 98 percent of Congressional incumbents can expect to return to Washington, D.C.

Last fall, John N. Friedman and Richard T. Holden from Harvard published a paper arguing that gerrymandering has not led to greater incumbency reelection rates. As they state: “This runs counter to the prevailing sentiment about the impact of gerrymandering. It implies that gerrymandering has become less of a contributor to the incumbent reelection rate over time.“

After skimming their paper, I tend to agree with their analysis. Gerrymandering because of the increased scrutiny that courts are placing on the process likely is not the main reason that incumbents are returned to Congress at such a high rate. As Friedman and Holden conclude:

Incumbents might have more access to the professional class of political operatives and campaign knowledge, decreasing the chance that a challenger could force her way into office. The change in the role of money - both legal and illegal - in politics over the past decades may have affected the fortunes of incumbents, as might have the increasing 24-hour coverage of political events in Washington, D.C., which provides free exposure for incumbents. On the other hand, Congressmen may simply be more suited to their jobs now than before, in which case citizens could be more satisfied with their Representatives.

If we look at the role of money a little more closely, we see that incumbents enjoy a significant advantage in their ability to raise money. And, while gerrymandering may play a role in how is able to raise money, I believe that money will continue to flow to incumbents regardless of whether or not they represent a gerrymandered district.

Despite my support for Friedman and Holden’s theory, I still believe that gerrymandering (especially the extremely partisan cases such as last year’s redistricting in Texas) must come to an end. Even if gerrymandering is not the cause of incumbents being reelected, it certainly contributes to uncompetitive elections. Districts that are narrowly drawn to represent single types of voters unnaturally limits the interests that a Member of Congress must represent and furthers the polarization of politics. Gerrymandering also limits competition. Even if it’s not the cause of incumbency reelection rates hovering near 98 percent, it is part of the problem.

“Bush Doctrine” comes full circle

2006-05-02T16:40:00.000-04:00

The government of Iran announced that it would take military action against Israel if the US “makes any mischief.” And, the Bush administration itself is to blame for the escalation.

Iran’s logic for threatening Israel is remarkably similar to the US’ logic for invading Iraq. During an address to the nation shortly after the Sept 11th attacks, the President said: “The United States has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security." The administration also contended that it alone has the right to evaluate the risk and respond to defend its national security, thus, the US set the precedent for acting outside of the UN system.

The Bush Doctrine, as the rational for pre-emptive war has become known, is defined by Wikipedia as:

the set of foreign policies adopted by the President of the United States George W. Bush in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. In an address to the United States Congress after the attacks, President Bush declared that the U.S. would "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them," a statement that was followed by the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Subsequently, the Bush Doctrine has come to be identified with a policy that permits preventive war against potential aggressors before they are capable of mounting attacks against the United States, a view that has been used in part as a rationale for the 2003 Iraq War.

In practical terms, the Bush Doctrine means that all formal constraints on war-making are officially defunct. The shortsightedness of the administration’s position means other countries have the authority to assess risks to their “national security” and to use unilateral military action to defend themselves.

In these terms, I cannot fault the Iranian government for its statements today.

Byrd is right on legislative veto

2006-05-02T12:52:00.000-04:00

It’s not often that I agree with West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, but he’s right that a White House proposal to create a legislative line-item veto would shift too much power away from the Congress and to the White House.

I’ve written before about fiscal discipline and my desire to see both parties held accountable for unwise spending and openly questioning whether the Republican party maintains a belief in fiscal responsibility. However, a line-item veto is not the solution nor would it promote fiscal responsibility.

First, under current practice, individual pork projects are not mentioned directly in the legislation sent to the President to sign. Pork is merely included in the Conference Reports that Congress prepares to accompany the legislation and provides “guidance” to the federal agencies that ultimately make decisions on where to spend federal funds. In practice, federal agencies are bound to follow the will of Congress or risk the loss of funds in future years. Unless lawmakers are forced to write this language into the text of legislation sent to the President the line-item veto may have limited impact.

Secondly, a line-item veto would give the President sole authority to determine what pork is in the nation’s interest and what is not. For example, under the current administration, I’m confident that “pork” that goes towards funding faith-based programming would not be stripped with a legislative veto. Further, the line-item veto could be used for political ends – hurting an incumbent by stripping federal projects from an individual member’s district.

If the president wants to end wasteful spending and the earmarking of federal funds, he should stand tall and use his veto power to its full extent – calling national attention to Congressional earmarks and challenging Members of Congress to end the earmarking of federal funds. The stripping of items here and there from Congressionally passed appropriations is not going to change the process or the culture that has allowed wasteful spending to balloon over the past decade.

Note: I spent several years as a lobbyist and pursued line-item funding for projects on behalf of those for whom I worked. I’m proud of my work and will continue to advocate for earmarks, if required by my employers. Until the system changes you cannot expect outsiders who depend on earmarks for their livelihood to change practices. The system is broken and is in need of a fix. Change must come from Congress itself.

Another turning point in Iraq?

2006-05-02T10:58:00.000-04:00

It’s been more than three years since President Bush proclaimed an end to major military actions in Iraq in a dramatic appearance on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln off the California coast on May 1, 2003. Three years later, the war is still being waged – and more than 2,250 Americans have lost their lives in the war since the president’s statement that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended'' and "we've seen the turning point in the war on terror.'' On Monday, Bush, in referencing the creation of a new government in Baghdad, again said we had reached yet another "turning point'' in the war.

All this comes at a time when Americans are increasingly doubting our nation’s ability to fulfill its promises to the people of Iraq and several former US military leaders, including former Bush Sec. of State Colin Powell, have questioned the government’s handling of the war.

I’ve previously written over at the Yellow Line (you’d have to search the archives) that while I didn’t support the decision to go to war because of a belief that the administration misled the American public combined with a belief that our nation should not act unilaterally to remove or install foreign governments that we must see the War in Iraq through to the end. So, for me the question is about where do we go from here rather than how did we get here. Yet, the second question tells us a lot about what we must overcome to see a peaceful end in Iraq.

In the lead up to the War in Iraq, the Bush administration played up claims of weapons of mass destruction and – apparently – selectively released intelligence to disprove critics of the war. At the same time, the administration went into the war with a plan that required many more troops to “win the peace” than many former military leaders recommended. These two facts lead me to believe that the administration strongly believed that the people of Iraq would embrace the US as liberators and rally behind a US –installed democracy that replace Saddam Hussein’s brutal rule. The administration was right to believe a small US military force could win the war. They were wrong to admit a small US military force could win the peace and they have yet to admit it.

If we are to succeed in Iraq – and I define success as seeing a unified and democratic government endure in the country – we must first admit our mistakes and take steps to correct them. The first mistake was destabilizing the country and allowing terrorists and regional tensions to emerge. The next mistake was in believing that the people of Iraq would embrace a new government – that is unable to provide economic or physical security – installed and supported by a foreign occupation force. And, the most recent mistake is the President continuing to promise Americans and Iraqis that “we have reached a turning point.” Until violence ends we will not be able to successfully withdraw our troops and the installation of a new government will not alone end the continuing bloodshed in Iraq.

Can these mistakes be overcome? First we must make a commitment to a united Iraq. Secondly, we must engage our allies and build troop strength to a point where citizens of Iraq feel safe and secure in their homes and neighborhoods. And, finally, we must ensure that the government is representative of the people of Iraq and not perceived to be a US puppet. All this will be difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish.

Congress void of ideas to reduce gas prices

2006-05-02T10:14:00.000-04:00

Actually there are two proposals being floated in Congress to provide consumers with some relief from soaring gas prices – which now top $3.00 a gallon in some markets and average about $2.90 nationally. The first, offered by Republicans, would provide a tax rebate to single taxpayers earning up to $145,950 and married couples earning up to $218,950 – the cost to US taxpayers would be $10 billion. The other idea, embraced by the Democratic leadership, is for a gasoline tax "holiday" to provide consumers a reprieve from the 18.4 cent a gallon federal gasoline tax for 60 days – the cost $6 billion. Neither idea is a good one.

While some consumers are undoubtedly hurting because of the increased price of gasoline, there is no indication that increased gas prices have hurt consumer spending or that the increases are dragging down the US economy. While the proposals being put forward by both parties on Capitol Hill would undoubtedly be popular in an election year, they would put our country even further in dept undermining our long-term economic competitiveness (I earlier posted about fiscal responsibility here and here).

Let’s look at the Democrat’s idea – suspension of the gas tax for 60 days costing $6 billion in tax revenue - first. The proposal contains no guarantee that retailers will pass the entire savings on to consumers. And, the proposal would benefit transportation businesses (long-haul trucking, delivery services) much more than it impacts the typical driver putting a few miles on their cars each day on their trips to and from work or to the corner store. More importantly, states are dependent upon transfer payments from the federal government – raised from the gas tax – to pay for the construction of roads and transit and to subsidize public transportation. The loss of $6 billion in funds from the highway fund would undermine the ability of the states to continue to rebuild and enhance their transportation infrastructure.

As for the Republican proposal - a tax rebate targeted at low and middle income workers – makes little more sense. The proposal would pay for 2-3 tanks of gas for the average American consumer without providing any long-term benefit or providing any value to US companies that are hardest hit by the increasing gas prices. In my opinion the proposal is too broad – targeting single taxpayers earning up to $145,950 and married couples earning up to $218,950. Most people at these income levels can afford an extra few dollars per tank of gas. Those who need this rebate would be those living at or near the poverty line.

Neither party is showing any vision on this issue and are simply pandering to their bases with old ideas that are shown to get votes but do little else.

Schwarzenegger mirrors much of country on immigration

2006-04-28T16:08:00.000-04:00

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has been in favor of building a fence to prevent illegal immigration and he has stated that walling off hundreds of miles of the California-Mexico border is a strategy from the Stone Age. He has favored cutting benefits for illegal immigrants and he has stated that the war against illegal immigrants should be fought at the border, not in schools and hospitals. He has praised the efforts of the Minuteman boarder-patrol while also saying that the economy needs a free-flow of workers.

Some would label him as “schizophrenic"; others will say he lacks conviction. I say he’s simply telling us the truth.

I do not believe that you can stop immigration – legal or illegal – unless you address the cause of immigration. In this case, that would mean either substantially lowering the US standard of living or a dramatic investment in Latin America designed to raise their standard of living to that of the United States. Neither is practical. But, it’s also not practical to deport all illegal immigrants or prevent more illegal immigrants from coming into the United States.

Some applaud politicians for taking a stand and sticking to it regardless of the facts. I applaud Gov. Schwarzenegger for realizing that we need to both improve security at our borders while allowing immigrants to enter our country to keep our economy growing. Unlike ideologues who are often guided by misplaced xenophobia, Gov. Schwarzenegger appears willing to look at the issue of immigration reform in a more comprehensive light – one that’s not so simplistic.

Spanish anthem

2006-04-28T14:21:00.000-04:00

According to CNN.com, “Some Internet bloggers and others are infuriated by the thought of ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ sung in a language other than English, and the [Spanish] version of the song has already been the target of a fierce backlash.” I’ve got one question…. Why is it wrong for anyone to honor our nation by singing the National Anthem in any language?

A few weeks ago, the country was up in arms over waves of illegal immigrants waiving Mexican flags as they protested against proposals to reform US Immigration law. The protesters responded by putting away their Mexican flags and waiving the Stars and Strips. Today, they are being criticized for taking their patriotism and love of their adopted country even further by singing our national anthem, albeit in their own language.

The real issue is no longer immigration reform or national security it’s about xenophobia. A few weeks ago, Alan Carl over at Maverick Views wrote the following:

Quite clearly there are a lot of people concerned that America is about to move in the wrong direction on immigration. But is this a movement spurred solely by the desire to preserve a porous border while guaranteeing that America’s low-wage jobs and public assistance programs remain available to illegal immigrants? Or is this outpouring also a reaction to some of the xenophobic rhetoric that currently masquerades as “immigration reform?”

Alan’s point is not that we should allow unfettered immigration into our country nor is it that we should not take steps to secure our borders. Rather it’s that even as we take steps to improve immigration and secure our borders we must also remember that America is a land of immigrants and melting pot of different cultures.

Immigration reform should not be used to force other cultures to adopt American cultures and customs. As Alan said in his post:

Assimilation into the American culture has never been a one-way street. Some native traditions are discarded when immigrant groups become Americans, but some traditions are adopted into the cultural fabric of America and define the cultures of our many regions….

Immigration has always created strife and there have always been those who refuse to assimilate.…. To claim that this involves cultural pollution is ignorantly divisive and will only complicate matters by angering all those who see nothing abhorrent in Mexican culture.

Singing the national anthem and waving the American flag should be seen as a positive – regardless of the language being spoken. Hopefully the demonstrators will continue to show their desire to be here with such patriotic fervor.

Congress OK for Dubai to own companies supplying military hardware

2006-04-28T14:19:00.000-04:00

Just a few weeks ago, members of Congress were in an uproar over the efforts of a Dubai-owned company, DP World, to operate several major US port terminals (here is a blog on the deal with some good links to the facts on this issue). Today, Congress reacted very differently to a Dubai-owned company taking control of some U.S. plants that manufacture parts for American military contractors.

Why the difference??? It’s politics. The vast majority of opposition to the ports deal was based on ignorance, bigotry and/or political opportunism. Those who profited by opposing the ports deal have already gained everything that they need from the issue.

In both cases, the Dubai-owned firms were the best option for our country to get the best return for our money. It’s about the free-market and we shouldn’t let political opportunism interfere with the free economy. Luckily the Bush administration handled this deal much better than the ports deal.

“Litmus issues” too much for GOP to overcome?

2006-04-27T09:34:00.000-04:00

As we look forward to the 2008 presidential race, the Republican Party will face a tough decision. Nominate a conservative who appeals to the party’s base or nominate a moderate who can expand the party and bring moderates and independents into the Republican column.

In 2000, Governor George W. Bush campaigned as a centrist (ok, a “compassionate conservative”) promising to work with Republicans and Democrats alike. He received the largest number of Hispanic votes ever for a Republican candidate and he significantly closed the gender gap that had crippled GOP hopes against Bill Clinton. In 2004, Bush largely won the election on the strength of his record in the fight against terrorism as the country did not embrace the notion of change during the War on Terror.

2008 will be a different campaign. The administration’s handling of the War on Terror has disenchanted many Americans who previously supported the administration. Bush’s policies have turned away moderate and independent voters.

So, when we begin to look at potential 2008 candidates for the Republican nomination, we need to find someone who can rebuild and enhance the coalition that Bush used in 2000 to win election (and, hopefully, someone who will not only campaign as a Centrist, but govern as a Centrist as well). Unfortunately, it’s unlikely that a moderate GOP candidate for the presidency could pass the “litmus tests” that Conservatives in the party place upon candidates.

Limited postings....

2006-04-19T21:51:00.000-04:00

My family and I are taking a short vacation the next few days. I may find time to post a few things here and there, but don't look for too much till next week. Enjoy the weekend.

WH shake up continues

2006-04-19T12:09:00.000-04:00

Major staff changes under new WH Chief of Staff Josh Bolten were announced today with the WH announcement that Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove is giving up responsibility for domestic policy development and that press secretary Scott McClellan is resigning.

McClellan’s resignation was predictable as many Republicans have expressed disappointment in his performance as the voice of the White House. Given the challenges he has faced, it’s hard to imagine anyone could have done a better job.

The decision to strip Rove of his oversight of domestic policy is more surprising. Rove will now focus more extensively on “politics.”

Earlier I posted on the conviction of Governor George H. Ryan of Illinois for racketeering and fraud. In that post, I state that “It’s virtually impossible to find the line between politics and government in Illinois” and allude to the fact that allowing “politics as usual” to occur in government circles is what led to the conviction of Gov. Ryan.

Today, the WH is placing perhaps the most influential person in the Bush administration in charge of “politics.” It’s unfortunate that we no longer demand that governance and politics remain separate.

Governance is about having a vision and doing what is right for the people of the country. Politics is about doing what is right for the party and acting for political gain. The White House should be above politics in its daily activities.
Karl Rove should move to a campaign if he wants to focus on politics. The White House should be focused on governance.

Should we hold our elected officials to a higher standard?

2006-04-19T10:51:00.000-04:00

A couple of days ago, former Illinois Governor George H. Ryan was convicted of racketeering and fraud. At the time, I wrote “I’m…torn on the issue of whether or not its an appropriate topic for me to speak out on. I respect the governor a great deal and believe he was unfairly singled out given the culture of Illinois politics. Yet, I’m also convinced that he let the people of Illinois down.”

The reason I’m torn on whether or not it’s appropriate for me to post on the conviction of the governor is because I worked for his office for more than 18 months and was on his staff for over a year. While I was far from his inner circle, I personally know and worked with virtually everyone who was charged, convicted, and/or testified in this case. It’s hard to separate what was right about Governor Ryan’s administration and where things went wrong.

As governor – it should be noted that the events the lead to his conviction happened prior to his election as Governor when he was serving as Secretary of State – Ryan showed remarkable vision and leadership. The governor took on Conservatives within his own party on issues such as tax/fee increases, he spent millions to improve Illinois’ roads and schools, he preserved thousands of acres of wetlands and open space, and – what he is most known for – he took a stand against a criminal justice system that he could not be certain was working.

The governor accomplished a lot. Yet, he also let the people of Illinois down.

As governor and for nearly 30 years in state government, Ryan allowed “politics as usual” to happen around him. Ryan was a very hands-off leader who delegated responsibility and took advice from his advisors and expected them to follow through on his decisions. Perhaps being more hands-on would have led him to clean up Illinois politics. But, I doubt it.

It’s virtually impossible to find the line between politics and government in Illinois. Everyone I know who works for a member of the state government – statewide or in the State House or Senate – has also worked on a campaign. It’s not a requirement, but it’s an expectation. There are former state officials and high-profile lobbyists who use their friendships to access the system. Money plays the supreme role.

I feel bad for the governor and his family. There are countless others throughout the years who have done the same or worse in Illinois and elsewhere who have not been charged and/or convicted. Yet, he also failed those who worked for him, those who elected him, and those who he represented.

We should hold our politicians accountable for everything that goes on under their watch. And, we should hold them to the highest of standards. It’s just too bad that George Ryan was singled out for prosecution.

It was an honor to work for George H. Ryan, and I continue to believe that he did more good for the State of Illinois than he did harm. I also believe that all politicians should be held to the highest of standards. Far too often money, access and “politics as usual” are more important than what “is right.” As governor, George H. Ryan did what was right more often than not. It’s too bad that he also allowed “politics as usual” to occur around him.

White House shake up?

2006-04-18T10:03:00.000-04:00

Jeremy Dibbell over at Charging RINO is calling for Joh Bolten to follow through on his pledge to WH staff to shake things up. Read it here.

I agree with Jeremy. Change is desperately needed. The appointment of Rep. Portman at OMB is a good first step that will greatly improve relations with Congress, but it's not enough. This WH has been led by a small, insulated group of advisors for too long, and it's time for individuals with new perspectives and new visions to join the ranks of the senior staff.

Portman a good choice

2006-04-18T09:57:00.000-04:00

President Bush is set to announce US Trade Representative and former Congressman Rob Portman as his new budget director. It is a good choice.

Rep. Portman was respected by members from both sides of the aisle while in the US House. On issues I worked on with his office, Rep. Portman demonstrated true leadership and vision. He worked in a bi-partisan manner and successfully built strong and diverse coalitions on several controversial issues.

Rep. Portman is an excellent choice to lead OMB.

School segregation and minority test scores

2006-04-18T09:48:00.000-04:00

Alan over at Maverick Views has some interesting thoughts on the decision to redistrict schools in Omaha, Nebraska. He questions the constitutionality of the decision and discusses the integrationalist spirit that “has driven American life for the last 50+ years.” This integrationalist spirit is being further questioned in light of an AP report showing that schools with small minority enrollments are excluding student’s scores in required racial categories.

I agree with Alan that states and localities should have the ability to experiment with new ideas. And, I support the basic ideas behind the No Child Left Behind Act (though, I agree with critics that the program has been horribly underfunded). However, taken together these two stories show that our educational system may be dividing our society AND leaving minority students behind.

Jury finds former IL Gov Ryan guilty

2006-04-17T15:44:00.000-04:00

A jury today found former Illinois Governor George H. Ryan and co-defendant Lawrence Warner guilty on racketeering and fraud charges. I’ve gone back and forth on whether I should post on the governor’s trial for a while (I worked in his office for well over a year). And, I’m still torn on the issue of whether or not its an appropriate topic for me to speak out on. I respect the governor a great deal and I believe he was unfairly singled out given the culture of Illinois politics. Yet, I’m also convinced that he let the people of Illinois down.

More later….

Happy Easter

2006-04-14T10:21:00.000-04:00

I wish everyone a Happy Easter. I'll be back sometime late Monday.

When is the death penalty simply revenge?

2006-04-13T16:43:00.000-04:00

I’ve been struggling with my thoughts about the death penalty case of al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui. First, I find it difficult to believe that Moussaoui’s lack of cooperation with US authorities led to the attacks on September 11th. I believe that the government failed to see numerous warning signs that an attack was coming and that the government should not depend upon self-incrimination to prevent crimes against our country (I’m not blaming the US government for not preventing the attacks. They were beyond what was imagined at the time,)

Second, I have deeply held beliefs against the death penalty. I worked in a governor’s office when 3 death sentences were carried out and 3 other times where an execution was delayed or commuted. While I had no part in the decisions, I was present for many discussions about the statements that would be issued after the governor’s decisions were final.

In at least one case, I witnessed the anguish that having the final say on whether or not a man would live or die – despite overwhelming evidence, including confessions, that the man had committed the crimes for which he had been sentenced to die. I also witnessed, first hand, the distress that individuals were put through as he waded through the facts on another case until about an hour before the scheduled execution when the state Supreme Court intervened by ordering a temporary halt to the proceedings.

Because of these experiences and several years of working on criminal justice issues on Capitol Hill (both for elected officials and as a lobbyist), I have very strong opinions on the use of the death penalty. There are some crimes that are so heinous that death appears to be the only response. Yet, I don’t believe it is right for the state to take a man or woman’s life. I don’t believe taking a life prevents crime in any meaningful way. And, the death penalty gives the United States a black eye in the rest of the world.

Despite my beliefs, I understand that the US Supreme Court has upheld the use of the death penalty and that it’s legal in many parts of this country. I also understand that the public is supportive of its use (though if given information on the cost of death vs. lifetime incarceration the support wanes as it does if the public is guaranteed that an individual would never be released from prison). I can respect the decision of a government to take an individual’s life after s/he has been awarded due process even if I cannot support it.

In the Moussaoui case, I don’t believe that due process can ever be given. Moussaoui argued, earlier this year when he was acting as his own attorney, that he cannot receive a fair trail for his role in the Sept 11th attacks. And, he had previously filed a motion seeking to move the trial out of Northern Virginia citing an overrepresentation of government employees in the area. He also said there was more intense media attention in the northern Virginia area due to the Sept. 11 attack on the Pentagon. His pleas for a new location were rejected. And, the judge stated that Moussaoui would be able to get an impartial jury.

Moussaoui was right. The judge was wrong. He cannot receive a fair trial in Northern Virginia. Nor do I believe that he can ever be tried in front of an impartial jury anywhere in the US or, probably, the world. The events of September 11th forever changed our society and the world in which we live.

Moussaoui’s role in the events – whether you believe he was a co-conspirator or simply a cog in a much larger machine – are not important. He is destine to receive the death penalty. And the US government is destine to take his life as revenge for the attacks on September 11th.

Despite the heinous nature of the crime all those connected with September 11th committed, I cannot stand silently while our government and my fellow Americans use the death penalty for revenge.

Illegal immigrants enter through Canada

2006-04-13T15:31:00.000-04:00

Maybe we should consider building a fence along the US-Canadian border?

The debate on immigration reform has largely focused on the issue of Hispanic immigrants entering the country through the Southwest boarder with Mexico. Today, authorities announced they broke up a smuggling ring that was operating along the US border with Canada.

It’s far to easy to make the debate on immigration reform about race. After all, that makes for good headlines as the two parties look to attract voters for both the upcoming mid-term election and the 2008 presidential election. The real debate needs to be about how the US can help provide opportunity around the world.

Our nation’s actions in Iraq clearly demonstrate that our government has abandoned the belief that we cannot be the world’s policeman and that we cannot be “nation builders.” It is time that we reexamined the cause of immigration rather than trying address it in a haphazard fashion.

Easter Egg Protest & Family Values

2006-04-13T13:44:00.000-04:00

Family values will be at the center of Monday’s White House Easter Egg Roll as a group of gay and lesbian parents are camping out at the White House to ensure that they get tickets to Monday’s event. Given the Bush Administration’s and the Republican Party’s strong support for a ban on gay marriage and opposition to civil unions, there are likely to be may prayers for rain to wash out Monday’s event.

Of course, some Republican groups are complaining that gay and lesbian groups are using a children's event to protest the Administration's position on gay marriage. Yet, I've got to ask "what can be a more appropriate venue to protest an Administration's policies on family values than a family event?"

I strongly support the President when he said (in November 2004, in declaring National Family Week, 2004):

Strong families are the foundation of our society. They provide stability for our citizens and instill responsibility and values in our children. During National Family Week, we underscore our commitment to supporting families and recognize the significance of family to our country.

Families have an important role in teaching our Nation's young people to understand the consequences of their actions and to recognize that the decisions they make today could affect the rest of their lives. In times of change, the family values of compassion, reverence, and integrity serve as steady guides. My Administration is standing with American families because children should have the opportunity to grow up in a stable home.

In declaring National Family Week, 2005, Bush wrote:

Families give our society direction and purpose. During National Family Week, we celebrate the many contributions families make to our country.

Throughout America's history, families have been the foundation of our society and a source of stability and love for every generation. Strong families teach children to live moral lives and help us pass down the values that define a caring society. By nurturing a child's personal development and providing a safe environment for growth, families prepare our Nation's youth to realize the promise of America. Family is one of the three cornerstones of the Helping America's Youth initiative, led by First Lady Laura Bush. We are working with families, schools, and communities to help children make right choices and build healthy, successful lives. Through USA Freedom Corps, my Administration is also providing opportunities for families to volunteer together and make a positive difference in their communities.

Despite this strong belief in the family, it’s clear that the White House and the Republican Party does not support all families.

In looking back at the debate over civil unions and gay marriage over the last few years, I came across the following statements made by then House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on Oct 1, 2004 in debate on the House floor on the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment to the US Constitution.

"This country will go down," DeLay warned, going so far as to say that without "ideal" unions of man and woman, "Gangs form, and gangs become the substitute for families. Everyone knows that."

In essence, Rep. DeLay is saying that an individual’s sexual orientation can make him or her unfit to be a parent. DeLay is also saying that children raised by these types of people will be unfit citizens raised by gangs. DeLay even predicts the end of our great nation should we allow gay men and women to be parents:

Insisting that "Peter and Paul cannot be mothers, and Mary and Jane cannot be fathers," DeLay argued in an emotional closing statement that such marriages would destroy the nation. "This nation knows that if you destroy marriage as the definition of one man and one woman, creating children so that we can transfer our values to those children and they can be raised in an ideal home, this country will go down.”

The Republican stance on gay marriage and civil unions contradicts their belief that “strong families are the foundation of our society” and that “families have been the foundation of our society and a source of stability and love for every generation.” There is no evidence whatsoever that gay and lesbian parents are any less loving, nurturing and caring than their heterosexual counterparts.

The Republican opposition to gay marriage and civil unions is a slap in the face of equal rights and to individuals who, in spite of (as the Republicans would say) their sexual preference, provide stable, loving, nurturing homes for their children.

I don’t believe that the government has the power to force any religious organization to perform a gay marriage. However, the government should make accommodations to gay and lesbian couples, perhaps the establishment of civil unions, to ensure that all loving, caring couples are able to enter into a relationship recognized by the law that affords them the same legal benefits as a married couple.

The distasteful politics of immigration reform

2006-04-12T13:46:00.000-04:00

I just posted a few short thoughts on the issue of prosecuting illegal immigrations. Now, I want to talk about some of the political maneuvering that’s going on around this issue. Specifically, the back and forth between the Parties on who is to blame for provisions within the legislation the House passed late last year that makes illegal immigrants subject to felony prosecution.

As I noted before, I applaud Speaker Hastert and Sen. Frist for coming out against this provision. Yet, the politics and political positioning around their position is appalling.

In their statement, the Republican leaders say that Democrats who voted against a provision last fall to reduce the felony provision to a misdemeanor had demonstrated a "lack of compassion." They fail to point out that 65 Republicans also voted to retain the felony provision. They also fail to mention that the felony provision was included in the original, GOP drafted, version of the legislation.

The Democrats are also letting politics get in the way of good policy here. First, when the House passed its version of the legislation last year, many Democrats, including members of the Hispanic Congressional Caucus, failed to support the replacement of the felony provision with a misdemeanor charge because they favored no criminal penalties for illegal immigrants. Yet, let me ask which is better? A felony charge or a misdemeanor? It may not be a perfect change, but it is an improvement to the bill that the Democrats, especially the members of the Hispanic Congressional Caucus, should have supported as an incremental improvement in the legislation (even if they opposed the final version of the bill on the House floor they should have supported the amendment).

Secondly, rather than stating support for the new position of the GOP leadership on the issue of felony charges for illegal immigrants and pledging to work towards the removal of the felon provision, Sen. Edward Kennedy continues to spout partisan rhetoric saying: "Actions speak louder than words, and there's no running away from the fact that the Republican House passed a bill, and Senator Frist offered one, that criminalizes immigrants.” Senator Kennedy is right both those things happened. But, he’s also putting rhetoric above what’s best for our country.

The Middle believes in debate around solutions that are good for this country. The removal of the felon provision from the immigration reform effort is good for the country. And, both parties could agree on this if only they would suspend campaigning for the Hispanic vote for a few moments.

Illegal immigrants are not felons

2006-04-12T13:45:00.000-04:00

House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist issued a joint statement saying that they will work to pass immigration reform that does not open up illegal immigrants to prosecution as felons. This is a positive development.

As I’ve previously written, we cannot consider immigration reform in a vacuum outside of global social-economic issues. And, I believe that prosecuting immigrants for leaving poverty and/or persecution for the opportunities that America provides is wrong. We should work to ensure that these people pay taxes. Prosecuting and/or deporting those who are living and working here is not the way protect our way of life.

Have the Democrats become the party of fiscal responsibility?

2006-04-12T11:28:00.000-04:00

I just posted some thoughts on the growth of the US national debt under Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush. It seems that NY Senator Hillary Clinton would agree with much of what I said. She told a group of business leaders in Chicago yesterday that “over the long term… red-ink fiscal policies will undermine America’s competitiveness.” Sen. Clinton continued, "I think a return to fiscal discipline, living within our means is essential for our long-term health."

In response, once again failing to see the bigger picture and clearly toting the party line, Republican National Committee spokeswoman Ann Marie Hauser said in statement Tuesday night that

"only Hillary Clinton would try to make lemons out of lemonade."
"Her eagerness to paint a negative picture of the economy despite the creation of five million jobs in three years is indicative of her willingness to manipulate an issue to her favor, without regard to the facts."

I applaud Sen. Clinton’s statements. The Republicans need to look at the American economy in terms other than tax cuts and job growth because while those two items may help them get elected, our nation’s fiscal health should be placed above political gain.

Republicans no longer party of fiscal responsibility

2006-04-12T11:15:00.000-04:00

I have long believed that we have an obligation to future generations to leave behind a solid, growing economy. I do not believe that spending and deficits are necessarily a bad thing – there are times when deficit spending is necessary. Yet, I believe that our nation’s debt is now out of control and, if left unchecked, may pose a threat to our future economic growth and security. Even the IMF, as early as January 2004 began calling attention to the growing US debt with a publication entitled “US Fiscal Policies and Policies for Long-Run Stability.”

Prior to the 1980s, there was not much difference between the growth of the national debt under either Democratic or Republican presidencies in the 20th Century (here’s a simple chart that shows the growth of the deficit under each President since WWII). Since the early 1980s, our deficit and debt have exploded. First under Ronald Reagan’s “voodoo economic” policies and again under George W. Bush. The deficit narrowed and the growth of the national debt stopped during the Clinton presidency. All this time, Republicans, especially the Conservative wing of the party, has preached “fiscal responsibility” while the Democrats have been portrayed as “tax and spend liberals”

Republicans are quick to point out that Democrats controlled Congress during the Reagan presidency and that Democrats, not Reagan, are responsible for the growth of the national deficit during the 1980s. You also hear the argument in Conservative circles that the end of the Cold War was brought about by the increased spending under Reagan. I don’t buy either argument.

First, Reagan, like all presidents wields the power of the veto. If my memory serves correctly, only President Bill Clinton used the veto to shut down the government b/c Congress refused to adopt a responsible budget. And, while it’s popular to claim Reagan “won” the Cold War it is clear in hindsight that the economic system of the Soviet Union was untenable and was destine to collapse under its own weight. Did Reagan’s policies accelerate the process? Certainly. Are they the reason the Soviet Union collapsed? No.

Last week, President Bush threatened to veto spending bills if Congress does not cut federal spending as he has requested. Yet, the president has taken no action to reduce the growth in pork within the budget during his tenure in office. As Citizen’s Against Government Waste reports:

The cost of pork in 2006 was 6.2 percent more than in fiscal 2005.
The cost of pork has increased by 29 percent since fiscal 2003.
Since 1991, CAGW had identified 76,421 projects totaling $241 billion.

(By the way, David Broder of the Washington Post had a good column on the process of adopting the budget in Congress last week – not all the blame for the rising deficit can go on the White House).

I’d applaud the President for his stance if I didn’t believe it was political grandstanding and an empty threat. In over five years in office, Bush has never vetoed any spending bill. And, I find it hard to believe that he’ll follow through on his veto threat in an election year when so many GOP lawmakers will be traveling through their districts highlighting the “pork” that they brought home for their constituents.

Limited postings until Wednesday

2006-04-09T22:56:00.000-04:00

There's a lot going on in the World - the White House talking about an attack on Iran, Immigration Reform falling apart, Budget negotiations failing, the President being linked to the Valerie Plame Affair..... But, I'm at a conference and won't have time to post much till at least Wednesday.

I will try to put a few thoughts up before then, but it's not likely.

Protesting at funerals crosses the line

2006-04-07T22:52:00.000-04:00

In one of the most outrageous and offensive stories I’ve ever heard, members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan. are traveling throughout the Midwest protesting at military funerals. The group began protesting soldier funerals in June and has been to about 35 states. The group says America’s war casualties are “God’s wrath for tolerating homosexuality.” Members of the church believe that Americans have turned their backs on God and that Hurricane Katrina, Iraq casualties, STDs, bird flu and other tragedies are God's payback for ignoring His message.

I have always found it distasteful when individuals rely upon religion to make a political argument. I believe in debate and understanding and those who deal in absolutes due to religious beliefs are typically unable to even acknowledge another side to an argument. The actions of the Westboro Baptist Chruch goes well beyond simply relying upon religion as their rational for action. There is just something reprehensible about protesting government policy at a funeral. And, for a religious group, a church no less, to protest at a funeral, well, I don’t have a word for it.

A funeral is a time for family, friends and loved ones of the deceased to reflect and remember. It is a personal event and is deeply emotional. It is inappropriate – for anyone – to use someone’s funeral to make a political statement, especially when the deceased is, at most, marginally connected to the issues that you’re protesting.

Like the Westboro congregation, I too do not agree with current American policy on many government policies relating to gay rights. Government regulations on homosexual behavior are an infringement to our right to privacy and violate the spirit of limited government and individual rights. I don’t believe that our government goes far enough in recognizing the rights of individuals to live with and marry whom they wish. Limiting benefits to gay couples discourages gay and lesbian couples from entering and remaining in stable, long-term relationships. At the very least, the government’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy towards gays in the military is hardly accepting of gays. I don’t agree with the positions of the Westboro Baptist Church, but I can respect them for their beliefs on the issues. At least I could have until they began their protests.

This story doesn’t even end here.

Following the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church members, several states including Indiana, Oklahoma, Missouri and Wisconsin adopted laws limiting the ability of the group, or any other, to protest at funerals. On the federal level, Rep. Mike Rogers plans to introduce legislation to restrict the group’s ability to protest at funerals.

The Westboro Church is pining for a First Amendment fight on the issue, claiming the government does not have the right to restrict their protests. Local chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union have even fought against laws in some states that have sought to restrict the Westboro protests.

I hope the Westboro Church and the ACLU get their fight on this issue. And lose.

“Vagina Monologues” at Notre Dame

2006-04-07T15:22:00.000-04:00

The Middle of DC congratulates the University of Notre Dame for its decision to allow events that go against Roman Catholic teachings on campus.

In announcing the decision, the Rev. John I. Jenkins said:

"To be a university means that we engage in diversity of viewpoints that are vigorously debated, some of which will challenge Catholic understanding. I don't think we should be afraid of that. That's what it is to be a university."

It’s too bad that politicians don’t embrace this same willingness to explore new ideas, challenge convictions and debate.

Will Playboy destroy the way of life in Indonesia?

2006-04-07T14:54:00.000-04:00

Playboy hit the streets, albeit in a toned-down version, of Jakarta, Indonesia yesterday. And, I’ve got to say that I agree with those who contend that the launch of the magazine in the predominately Islamic country “destroys the way of life in a systematic and long-term way."

Now, before everyone attacks me for this, let me first say that I’m a strong believer in our first amendment rights, and I support Playboy’s decision to launch the magazine. In fact, I believe their efforts to alter their magazine by moderating its content and featuring renowned Indonesian author Pramoedya Ananta Toer are to be applauded.

I am an internationalist and strongly support increased economic and cultural relations with the world. I support Playboy’s decision to launch an issue of its magazine in Indonesia. Yet, I think it’s short-sighted to believe that the continued push of western values and culture onto other societies does not have an impact on those societies and cultures.

I agree with those such as Muslim leader Yusuf Hasyim who said: “This is a kind of moral terrorism that destroys the way of the life of the nation in a systematic and long-term way." We should not export our culture with the attitude that it will improve the lives of those around the world. We should export it with an understanding that it will change lives around the world.

A sad day for college sports

2006-04-07T14:46:00.000-04:00

This may be the only post you’ll ever see on The Middle of DC about women’s college basketball, but it’s worth nothing that the game of basketball lost a young coach on Wednesday night when Army women’s basketball coach Maggie Dixon died from heart arrhythmia.

I can’t say that I knew who Maggie Dixon was two months ago. But, in the run up to March Madness this season I saw her and her brother, Pittsburgh men’s basketball coach Jamie Dixon, do several interviews together. I came away from those brief interviews very impressed by her.

What caught my eye about Maggie Dixon was not her knowledge or dedication to the game of basketball but her love of her players, her respect for her brother and family, and the perspective she had on life. She was a good coach and, based on everything I’ve seen and read, an even better person.

McKinney apologized, but the story keeps going

2006-04-07T14:43:00.000-04:00

It’s now being reported that even as Rep. Cynthia McKinney is trying to put the “misunderstanding” last week where she struck a Capitol police officer then blamed the incident on "racial profiling" and "inappropriate touching" behind her, a new scuffle occurred Thursday outside the Capitol between a man apparently protecting her and a reporter who asked the congresswoman whether she'd spoken to the grand jury.

"I'll put your ass in jail the next time you push me," the man told Cox Broadcasting correspondent Scott MacFarlane in video posted on WSB-TV's Web site.

McKinney's office refused to identify the man with her, but her spokesman, Coz Carson, said he is a "perfectly legitimate part-time employee" who works in her office and is on the House payroll. Carson said the man is 66 years old and was shoved by the reporter.
The longer this story continues the worse McKinney looks. Several Members of Congress have security assigned to them. Others have security personnel on their personal staff or campaign payroll. Yet, I fail to understand why Rep. McKinney would refuse to identify someone who is a “perfectly legitimate part-time employee” who is on the payroll of the US House of Representatives.

Rep. McKinney is once again showcasing her disconnect from both her constituents and Washington. You have to wonder if she can ever be an effective spokesman for her constituents when these stories continue to appear on the wire.

Winning an election

2006-04-06T16:07:00.000-04:00

There are two ways to win an election today (money aside). The first option is to have a vision and to demonstrate to voters why they should support you. The second option is to attack your opposition and tell voters why they should not support him/her.

Unfortunately, it appears that Governor Schwarzenegger may be moving towards the second option as he seeks reelection. It’s too bad because Gov. Schwarzenegger actually does have a vision – he championed four reform proposals that appeared on last November’s ballot (unfortunately, all were defeated) and he is currently working to get approval to spend up to $68 million to upgrade California’s highways, ports, water systems and schools.

Without getting into the details of Schwarzenegger’s proposals or commenting on their merits, I will say that far too often politicians lack vision and govern based on polls or strict ideology. Gov. Schwarzenegger, like him or not, has at the very least proposed new initiatives and demonstrated that he has a vision for the future. I hope he will continue to sell his vision for the future rather than engage in negative advertising and smear tactics as he seeks reelection.

Libby points finger at Bush over leak

2006-04-06T13:15:00.000-04:00

The Associated Press is reporting that, according to court papers, former Vice Presidential Chief of Staff I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Vice President Richard Cheney told him to leak sensitive information to reporters and that it was President Bush who authorized the leak.

This is a stunning admission that further erodes the credibility of the White House, and not just on its decision to invade Iraq. While there is no direct information yet available that indicates either Bush or Cheney authorized the specific leak about Valerie Plame’s CIA identity (here’s a good story that provides a refresher about this case), this new information is a clear indication that our President and Vice President were at the center of efforts to silence critics of the Administration’s policies toward Iraq.

When the Plame affair was first making national headlines last summer, I wrote over at The Yellow Line that

“I continue to believe that President Bush and the White House should come forward and address this issue to the American public rather than hiding behind an ‘ongoing investigation.’ I also believe the president should follow through on his initial pledge to remove any individuals involved in the leak from his administration rather than raising the standard for removing individuals who leaked information to being convicted of a crime.”

I continue to stand by those words. The White House needs to come forward and provide detailed information about the role of the President and the Vice President, as well as other senior officials, in the disclosure of sensitive intelligence information. Furthermore, anyone else shown to have been involved in the leak of classified information should be removed from their position at the White House.

Those who leaked information – even if they will never be convicted of any crime – have undermined the public trust and cannot remain in their office. I’m not calling for the President to resign – at least not yet. Until we know specifically what the President authorized and what he did not authorize, it’s premature to call for his removal from power. Yet, I continue to believe that there is a lot of information relating to this affair that the nation would benefit from knowing.

Rep. McKinney appologizes

2006-04-06T12:52:00.000-04:00

It only took 8 days. But, Rep. Cynthia McKinney finally apologized for altercation with a Capitol police offer. Somehow, I’m not satisfied.

Rep. McKinney’s statement on March 29th, the day of the altercation said:

“I appreciate the work that they [Capitol Police] do. I deeply regret that the incident occurred. I have demonstrated my support for them in the past and I continue to support them now.”

Her actions over the last week have demonstrated nothing be contempt for the Capitol Police. The allegations that the incident was racially motivated and/or that she was assaulted by the officer who stopped her show nothing but disrespect for the Capitol Police and the job that they do. Yet, in her apology today, outside of a vague reference to the “escalation” of the event, McKinney failed to address her actions since March 29th.

Maybe once McKinney’s staff get around to posting the full text of her apology on her website (it wasn’t there at 12:52 PM today), I’ll change my mind and believe that she actually feels some contrition for the events of the last week – though, I doubt it.

Now, to be sure I’m not being accused of being partisan here, I also feel it’s appropriate to criticize the actions of the GOP over the last week.

Several Republican lawmakers have responded to this incident and its escalation by advancing legislation to commend the Capitol police for their professionalism while others have sported pins expressing their support for the police. Why is it always necessary for the GOP (or when a Republican makes an ___ of him/herself the Democrats) to try to score political points? There was no reason for either side to contribute to the media frenzy that was feeding off of Rep. McKinney’s actions. The efforts of the lawmakers who attempted to score political points from this situation are acting almost as distastefully as Rep. McKinney.

More on Rep. McKinney

2006-04-05T11:11:00.000-04:00

US Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer responds to allegations by Rep. Cynthia McKinney that was has been singled out because of her race and sex by Capitol Police.

As I said earlier, there is no excuse for anyone, including a Member of the US House of Representatives, to strike an officer of the law and Rep. McKinney should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Yet, I continue to be astounded by the actions of Rep. McKinney in the aftermath of her alleged assault on the Capitol police officer. Her claims that the act was a result of racism and that she was sexually assaulted are unfathomable. It simply shows that some politicians, and some people, would rather blame others for their actions than apologize and accept responsibility – something Rep. McKinney has refused to do throughout her career.

MD lawmakers leave chamber in protest

2006-04-05T11:09:00.000-04:00

Last week, in a story that has largely been overlooked, Republicans in the Maryland Senate staged a walkout in protest of a push by Democrats to pass a list of contested bills. The lawmakers walked up stairs to Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich’s office who praised them for their actions.

Last year, Republicans in Texas loudly criticized Democrats for a similar move that prevented the Texas Legislature from considering a Republican-drawn redistricting plan that cost the Democrats seats in the US Congress.

I supported the Democrats in Texas; I cannot support the Republicans in Maryland.

In the Texas case, the GOP was attempting to gerrymandering legislative districts to remove Democratic votes from the U.S. House. The legislative map had been approved by the Texas legislature and should have remained in place until after the next census and reapportionment of legislative districts among the states. (As an aside, I strongly support the non-partisan drawing of legislative districts at both state and federal levels, a discussion for another day.)

In Maryland, the Republicans walked out of the chamber because they opposed numerous pieces of legislation that had worked their way through the legislative process. Yes, the Maryland Democrats were limiting debate on the legislation in order to get them passed before a legislative deadline that will allow the bills to come back to the General Assembly in the event (fairly likely) they are vetoed by the Governor. Yet, I cannot fault the Maryland Senate Leadership for acting as they did. The party in power - at all levels of government - has the right to limit debate on legislation. The Republicans could have attempted to stage a filibuster or delayed the passage of the bills through the legislative process. A walk-out was not warranted.

I also find the hypocrisy of the Republicans in this instance astonishing. The Party was quick to criticize Texas Democrats for leaving the state to prevent to consideration of the Texas redistricting plan last year. This weekend, Republicans are praised for attempting similar tactics? Ahhh, this is why I love politics….

More on DeLay

2006-04-05T10:31:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, I wrote:

“Mr. DeLay is a visionary and a leader. He, in many ways, has been the driving force behind the Republican agenda for the past decade. While I don’t agree with his vision, I do respect him for having a vision and convictions. All that said, I'm glad he's going and hope he stays retired.”

Dennis Sanders over at NeoMugwump said that my post “might set some teeth to grinding.” So, I wanted to explain a little more about what I mean by my brief comments yesterday.

First let me say that I have very little respect for what Tom DeLay believes in. I found his actions last year when he manipulated the political system in Texas to redraw Congressional districts reprehensible. I believe that he should have been forced out of the Leadership long before he was, and I believe that he should have resigned his seat months ago.

Yet, in today’s political world, Tom DeLay is a remarkable leader and visionary. He was instrumental in bringing the Christian right into the Republican fold. He has been a steadfast advocate for policies that this cohort of voters supports. And, as Majority Whip and Majority Leader he did a tremendous job in keeping a fractured GOP together and on message, helping to pass (at least through the House) many major pieces of legislation.

Tom DeLay is one of the major reasons that I believe that the Republican Party that has left me. Yet, he is a remarkable leader for those with similar ideological views and within the US Congress.

DeLay to step down

2006-04-04T09:07:00.000-04:00

Having just reentered the world of blogs, I haven’t had the opportunity to put my thoughts about Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff and corruption in Congress down here (though there are a few posts on the issue in the archives at The Yellow Line). For simplicity, I’m just going to say that I believe that we should hold our elected officials accountable for their behavior and that of their staff in all public endeavors. They should be held to a higher standard than those in the general population and they should be punished severely when they violate the trust of the American people.

I congratulate Tom DeLay for his decision to resign from the US House of Representatives, only wishing he had made the decision many months ago. His unwillingness to accept responsibility for his actions and his ongoing pursuit of politics for politics will be his legacy.

Mr. DeLay is a visionary and a leader. He, in many ways, has been the driving force behind the Republican agenda for the past decade. While I don’t agree with his vision, I do respect him for having a vision and convictions. All that said, I'm glad he's going and hope he stays retired.

Immigration and Opportunity

2006-04-03T22:48:00.000-04:00

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, yesterday, called for the Senate to act this week on immigration reform. Frist said:

"There are 3 million people every year coming across our borders illegally. We don't know who they are; we don't know what their intentions are. We absolutely must address it," said Frist, R-Tenn.

He is only partly correct. We do not know specifically who the illegal immigrants are and our country must address illegal immigration. However, he is wrong in stating that we do not know what the intentions of the people coming to America are. They are coming to America for a better life. To work. To live. To support their families. Yes, there may be a few individuals coming here for less savory pursuits. But almost all of these illegal immigrants that Frist is speaking of are coming to America because of the opportunities that our country has afforded us and because of the opportunities that it affords them.

Immigration reform cannot be considered in a vacuum outside of global social-economic issues. The deportation of all illegal immigrants is not practical. We do not have the capability to locate, arrest and deport all those here illegally. Not to mention the deportation of all illegal immigrants currently working in our country could cripple our economy.

Building a big fence along the boarder (an idea included in the House –passed immigration bill) will not prevent illegal immigration. Threating arrest and deportation will not stop illegal immigration. Forcing those who have come here illegally to learn English to stay will not stop illegal immigration.

I believe we should strongly defend our boarders and stop those coming here illegal from entering our country. However, the issue of immigration reform is much bigger than "securing our boarders." It is about changing the world and raising standards of living around the globe.

The only way to prevent illegal immigration is to ensure that individuals have freedom and economic opportunity at home. It's too bad that the Republican Party leaders can only see how illegal immigration presents a political opportunity for the Party and cannot see how it also is an opportunity for those who risk their lives to come to America.

Rep. McKinney should be charged

2006-04-03T21:57:00.000-04:00

In a previous life, I traveled daily through the House and Senate office buildings and routinely made my way into the US Capitol for meetings. Each time, I placed all my belongings on x-ray machines and walked through the metal detectors. It was not uncommon to see Member of Congress walk past the metal detectors and go on with their life. On the many occasions where a member had forgotten to wear his/her ID pin, you would see them either flash their ID card or chat with the security guards who normally – though not always – recognized them.

Last Wednesday, as CNN reports (here and here), Rep Cynthia McKinney scuffled with a police officer when she entered a House office building without her identifying lapel pin and did not stop when asked. Several police sources said the officer, who was not identified, asked her three times to stop. When she kept going, he placed a hand somewhere on her and she hit him, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

It’s bad enough that a Member of the US House of Representatives failed to stop when requested by the officers who are there to protect them and the security of our Capitol. It is beyond comprehension that she would strike the officer.

Yet, the story doesn’t end there. At a press conference, attended by the likes of actor Danny Glover and singer Harry Belafonte, on Friday, McKinney declared that she was a victim of inappropriate touching and racism and was considering pursuing civil action against the officer who stopped her.

As the Rev. Darrell D. Elligan, president of Concerned Black Clergy and a McKinney constituent, said "She [McKinney] is not a threat to the security of our country." Too bad this isn’t about our nation’s security. It is about arrogance and abuse of power. Rep. McKinney is guilty of both.

There is only one word for Rep. McKinney’s actions – deplorable. The District Attorney should pursue charges. And, the people of her district should remove her from office.

Power Outage at the Capitol

2006-04-03T21:51:00.000-04:00

The lights went out at the US Capitol today.

Some may wonder if they were ever on.

Baseball & Politics

2006-04-03T21:30:00.000-04:00

I’m a partial season ticket holder for the Washington Nationals. I have arranged at least two business trips to Chicago this summer around Cubs homestands and another to St. Louis – all so I have the chance to sit in the sun, have a couple beers and enjoy an afternoon of baseball. In short, I’m a baseball fan. I always look forward to opening day because it means it won’t be long before I get to spend evenings grilling out, playing softball on the National Mall, and going to National’s games.

I began today with a similar feeling. Checking the Internet for the line ups and scores shortly after the first games began. Yet, soon something changed. Something that happened in Cincinnati this afternoon tainted the day - and possibly the whole summer. Baseball became the stage for a political rally.

President Bush threw out the first pitch of the season this afternoon in Cincy (where the Cubs were playing the Reds). The president walked to the mound at The Great American Ballpark flanked by by two injured soldiers and a father who lost his son in Afghanistan. Little American flags were distributed to the crowd of 42,000 before the game.

The game had become a PR event for the Republican Party and George W. Bush’s presidency. Granted, I should be used to the game of baseball being used for political gain after watching the petty squabbling as members of the DC City Council pandered for votes over the last two years. Yet, some part of me had hoped that everything that had happened in DC over the past two years with the Nationals would simply go away with the start of a new season. I was wrong – it got worse.

I’m all for honoring the men and women, as well as their families, who are serving in our armed forces. Yet, something seemed wrong about today’s event. The president’s throw was high and wide, but, as Bush stated, it was his “best pitch, which was kind of a slow ball.”

I can’t think of anything else that better sums up the current state of politics in America. I'm just disappointed that my one escape has once again been brought into The Middle of it all.

Florida - UCLA

2006-04-03T21:25:00.000-04:00

Maybe it's just me, but I've had a hard time getting up for tonight's National Championship game. Perhaps it's the fact that I'm an Illini and nothing will ever match last year's tourney. It wasn't just the fact that the Illini got to the Championship game, but how they got there. The OT win over Arizona. A tight game in the semi-finals. And, you also had Michigan State - Kentucky go down to the wire. UNC almost got upset by an upstart Villanova.

This year - yes, George Mason was a great story - but I don't think anyone thought their run would continue. UConn and the other powerhouses seem to take it for granted they get to the Final weekend, and it showed on the floor. The Big Ten went out in the first weekend.

Perhaps the game will exceed expectations. It will be tough for it not to.

Should 9/11 911 calls be released?

2006-03-31T11:48:00.000-05:00

New York City released nearly 9 hours of emergency calls detailing the response of city emergency service workers in the moments after the first plane struck the World Trade Center. The tapes do not include the voices of those who made the calls. Some family members of Sept 11th victims and the NY Times are suing the city to have the full audio tapes released.

While it may provide a sense of closure for some families who lost a loved one during the tragic events of Sept 11th, there is no compelling public interest in releasing the full audio tapes. Numerous panels have already concluded that the dispatchers and emergency service workers were overwhelmed and failed to comprehend the scope of the day’s events (rightly so, give the historical nature of the attacks). I’m certain that the tapes would provide remarkable insight into many personal tragedies that occurred on Sept 11th. They would also show some cases where the actions of individual emergency personnel gave information or instructions that contributed to individuals losing their lives. In short, they would be news.

Releasing the tapes will only be a painful reminder of what happened on that unfortunate day. It will do nothing to help protect us against another attack or to heal the wounds that still exist.

Debt clock to reach $10 trillion

2006-03-31T10:57:00.000-05:00

Yes, that’s right, the United States government is in debt an astonishing $8.1 trillion, $8.2 trillion, no, wait….$8.3 trillion dollars. And, counting. The debt is expected to reach $10 trillion within the next two years.

I’ve stated before that I’m a fiscal conservative. I believe that our nation should balance its books and begin paying down the national debt. I believe this not because we have to – I don’t believe that the growing debt posses any danger to the growth of our economy or predicts the collapse of the US dollar. In fact, it largely signifies that the world continues to have confidence in US markets. Yet, at some point the debt payments will become unmanageable and the US will face a situation familiar to that of many nation’s in the Third World – the prospect of payments on the debt that exceed their ability to pay. This isn’t going to happen in my life time and it probably won’t happen in my daughter’s lifetime. But, it’s still an issue that we should face rather than pushing off to future generations to face.

My real problem with the growing deficit is the hypocrisy of the Republican Party on the issue. Republicans have long claimed to be the Party of fiscal discipline and conservatives within the Party have long fought (at least rhetorically) against pork and wasteful spending while accusing Democrats of "tax and spend" policies. Yet, the rise in the US deficit began in earnest under Ronald Reagan (you can say all you want about how Reagan increased spending to end the Cold War, but I’m not buying it) and after Bill Clinton balanced the budget, the deficit began to grow again under George W. Bush (again, say all you want about recessions and 9/11, I'm not going to buy it). What do these two leaders have in common? They promoted short-sided economic policies of tax cuts over the long-term health of our nation’s economy.

It is time that our leaders took a stand against increased spending not by cutting vital social service, education, or defense but by reducing waste, eliminating bureaucracy and returning power to the states. Yes, there will be hard choices to make but the public will support a true vision for improving our economic future over the shallow rhetoric of tax cuts.

Iran tests radar avoiding missile

2006-03-31T10:22:00.000-05:00

Iran has tested a missile with the capability to avoid radar and strike multiple targets. I can’t help but wonder if the US is responsible for this development.

During the 1970s, our government supported Iran with both technology and military hardward, including several, then state-of-the-art, F-14 Fighters and other weapons systems. The Nuclear Threat Initiative has a timeline of the sales here.

With the 1979 revolution and the installation of Ayatollah Khomeini and a Islamic government US policy towards Iran suddenly changed and the US began supplying Iraq with weapons. During the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, the US continued to supply Iraq while maintaining an Arms embargo against Iran. This action spurred Iran to begin developing the weapons systems that led to the development of the missile just tested.

I’m not a defense expert and I can’t say I know enough about the political history of the Middle East and the US involvement in the region during the 1960s through 1980s to say the US made a mistake. Yet, it does seem clear that our government’s actions during this period led to not only the consolidation of power of a brutal dictator in Iraq but also the strengthening of an enemy in Iran.

What’s the lesson here? It’s simply that the US cannot or should not be playing king-maker and supply military equipment around the world. President Bush has pledged that we will not be “nation builders” in Iraq. Yet, that is what we need to be. We cannot leave the country with a government we put in place and supply with military hardware. We must build the nation and leave a democratically elected government that is accountable to the people. And, we must support this government not with weapons and military hardware, but with economic development and trade.

MLB investigation of steroids a witch-hunt

2006-03-30T22:40:00.001-05:00

Major League Baseball today announced a long overdue probe into steroid abuse. What’s the probe going to find? Nothing that hasn’t already been established in a number of places – namely that many of the sports biggest names and many of its lesser stars probably did use illegal steroids. Yet, as the Washington Post points out,

Regardless of the results of Selig's investigation, Major League Baseball would appear to face difficulties in penalizing players for steroid use that occurred before owners and the players' union agreed on drug testing and penalties.

My problem is simply that it was and is against US law for anyone to possess or use the types of steroids in question without a prescription. Yet, no player involved is ever likely to face any type of criminal charge. MLB is simply playing a public relations card to appease the public that has demanded an investigation into steroid abuse.

Something does need to be done to make amends for past transgressions, but a witch-hunt isn’t the solution. MLB and the players union should begin a joint effort designed to educate America’s youth about the dangers of steroids. The two sides should also strengthen the testing program to include any and all illegal substances and performance enhancing drugs as well as enhance penalties for those found to be using any type of banned substance.

Rather than engaging in a witch-hunt, the game should do what is right and lead the charge against both performance enhancing and illegal substances throughout our society.

Duke University overreacts to allegations of rape

2006-03-30T22:03:00.000-05:00

Duke President Richard Brodhead announced Tuesday night that he was suspending the team "until there is a clearer resolution of the legal situation involving team members." Brodhead’s actions are in response to an allegation of rape made by a North Carolina Central University student who worked as an exotic dancer at a party organized by and attended by many members of the Duke team.

I cannot, in any way, defend the actions of those involved in this affair. Not only should the three individuals who allegedly committed the act be tried and prosecuted to the full extent of the law (including expulsion from Duke), all others who committed any illegal act or violated the Duke University student code should face legal charges or university disciplinary sanctions. Any student-athletes who refuse to cooperate with university or criminal investigations should be suspended from their team and face expulsion from the university.

Yet, I still believe that the actions of the Duke administration go beyond what is warranted here. The decision to suspend the season not only punishes those involved in this unfortunate act but those who were not involved in any manner. Further, the University administration has failed to protect the innocent students who have been subjected to harassment by other university students who have, among other actions, placed flyers around campus with the photos of the entire team.

Duke University should not allow it students to be tried in the court of public opinion rather than in a court of law.

Mass supreme court undermines “Full Faith and Credit”

2006-03-30T21:33:00.000-05:00

The Massachusetts Supreme Court today ruled that same-sex couples from states where gay marriage is prohibited cannot tie the knot in Massachusetts.

This ruling is unjust. Article IV, Section I of the US Constitution states that: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” The Massachusetts Court ruling directly contradicts this tenet of American government, even if you support the position of Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney who stated that the Court ruling legalizing same sex unions put the state on “the wrong course.”

The issue here is not same sex marriage (which I happen to support), it’s about equal recognition under the laws of the Constitution. This ruling sets a precedent that would allow states to pick and choose whether or not to enforce the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of other states. It also relegates gay couples to second class status and denies them equal protection under the laws of the land.

Welcome to The Middle

2006-03-30T16:26:00.000-05:00

I left the Republican Party because of the national leadership’s hypocrisy during the final days of Terry Schiavo’s life. Yet, anyone who really knows me would have said I was never really a Republican.

I was and still am a Republican at heart. I believe in the Party of Lincoln. I believe in fiscal discipline, limited government, and individual rights. I strongly believe that we should engage the world and open our borders not only to trade but to people as well. Unfortunately, the Party of Lincoln seems to have abandoned many of these principles. It is not I who has left the Party, but the Party that has left me.

Those who used to read me (some time ago) at The Yellow Line know that I have become (and probably always was) a Centrist - I believe you can be both a Centrist and a Republican. TYL allowed me to find a new home on the political spectrum – a home that is not yet completed. The Centrist movement in this country has a foundation – as evidence by the growing number of Centrist bloggers and the increased organization of the movement. I will not be a schill for Centrists, but my sympathies lie with this movement.

The Middle of DC is who I am and where I live. It’s an outlet for my thoughts on what it’s like to watch the world from The Middle of DC.

I may not write real frequently – I try to be a good husband and father and I travel fairly frequently for my day job – but I will write on most days. I will comment on the news, my life, and anything else that I think is important. I love sport almost as much as I love politics.

I don’t know where The Middle will take me. But, I’m looking forward to the journey.

I'm back.... and staying in The Middle

2006-03-28T22:06:00.000-05:00

A good friend of mine, Alan over at Maverick Views, recently wrote his thoughts on his first year as a blogger. Alan's post reminded me of how much I, too, missed the outlet that blogging provides.

Alan got his start at The Yellow Line, and I spent many months as TYL's co-author. The blog grew into an idea blog and included several prominent Centrists bloggers. However, it also become something that we didn't intend, and we both grew increasingly disenchanted with both politics and blogging.

Since TYL was Alan's child, I thought it best to come back on my own. And, I could think of no place I'd rather be than in The Middle of DC.