July28, 2006

September:   Sept. 29, 2006   Sept. 28, 2006   Sept. 27, 2006   Sept. 26, 2006   Sept. 21, 2006   Sept. 20, 2006   Sept. 19, 2006   Sept. 14, 2006   Sept. 13, 2006   Sept. 12, 2006   Sept. 07, 2006   Sept. 06, 2006 JULY:   Jul. 28, 2006   Jul. 27, 2006   Jul. 26, 2006   Jul. 25, 2006   Jul. 24, 2006   Jul. 20, 2006   Jul. 19, 2006   Jul. 18, 2006   Jul. 17, 2006   Jul. 13, 2006   Jul. 12, 2006   Jul. 11, 2006   Jul. 10, 2006 JUNE:   Jun. 29, 2006   Jun. 28, 2006   Jun. 27, 2006   Jun. 26, 2006   Jun. 22, 2006   Jun. 21, 2006   Jun. 20, 2006   Jun. 19, 2006   Jun. 16, 2006   Jun. 15, 2006   Jun. 14, 2006   Jun. 13, 2006   Jun. 12, 2006   Jun. 9, 2006   Jun. 8, 2006   Jun. 7, 2006   Jun. 6, 2006 MAY:   May 25, 2006   May 24, 2006   May 23, 2006   May 22, 2006   May 19, 2006   May 18, 2006   May 17, 2006   May 11, 2006   May 10, 2006   May 4, 2006   May 3, 2006   May 2, 2006 APRIL:   Apr. 27, 2006   Apr. 26, 2006   Apr. 25, 2006   Apr. 6, 2006   Apr. 5, 2006   Apr. 4, 2006 MARCH:   Mar. 30, 2006   Mar. 29, 2006   Mar. 28, 2006   Mar. 16, 2006   Mar. 15, 2006   Mar. 14, 2006   Mar. 9, 2006   Mar. 8, 2006   Mar. 7, 2006   Mar. 2, 2006   Mar. 1, 2006 FEBRUARY:   Feb. 28, 2006   Feb. 16, 2006   Feb. 15, 2006   Feb. 14, 2006   Feb. 8, 2006   Feb. 1, 2006 JANUARY:   Jan. 31, 2006 DECEMBER:   Dec. 16, 2005   Dec. 15, 2005   Dec. 14, 2005   Dec. 13, 2005   Dec. 8, 2005   Dec. 7, 2005   Dec. 6, 2005 Archives

Don’t get caught flat-footed in front of the press!  Below is a quick rundown of today’s “must reads.” – John T. Doolittle, House Republican Conference Secretary

The Morning Murmur –  Friday, July 28, 2006

1. True friends of Israel cannot let the Dems take power - The Hill
Clinton's willingness to use American power to force a cease-fire on Israel before it had fully eradicated Hezbollah ten years ago stands in stark and sharp contrast to George Bush's insistence on letting Israel proceed with its attacks until the terrorist group is neutralized.

2. How to Really Help the Poor - USA Today Op-ed
Everyone agrees we should do everything we can to help poor Americans earn more. But one of the worst ways for Congress to attempt to do that is, paradoxically, one of the most popular: raising the minimum wage.

3. Chertoff hails end of let-go policy - Washington Times
The Bush administration said yesterday it has nearly ended catch-and-release on the southern border, has almost tripled the number of criminal arrests this year of employers who hire illegal aliens, and will gain operational control of the border by 2008, two years earlier than expected.

4. Tax Foes Push State Spending Caps - Wall Street Journal
Voters in at least half a dozen states likely will vote in November on ballot initiatives that would set strict formulas limiting the growth of public programs.

5. We Don't Need Beavis and Butt-head Voters - Los Angeles Times Op-ed
A proposed $1-million lottery to amp up voting would cheapen citizenship by trolling for votes among people who don't appear to take their citizenship very seriously and embarrassing true voter activists.

For previous issues of the Morning Murmur, go to www.GOPsecretary.gov

FULL ARTICLES BELOW:

1. True friends of Israel cannot let the Dems take power - The Hill

By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

Ten years ago, on April 18, 1996, Israel attacked Hezbollah in Lebanon for 16 days in an operation called Grapes of Wrath. The global condemnation of Israel was fierce, especially when it bombed a U.N. refugee camp, killing 107 people, an attack that Tel Aviv said was a mistake.

At the time, the United States did nothing to stop the tide from turning against Israel and President Clinton said, "I think it is important that we do everything we can to bring an end to the violence."

In private, Clinton seethed at the Israeli attack, saying he had discussed with Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres the possibility of concluding a military defense treaty with his nation, pledging U.S. aid in the event of an attack.

"They really want this guarantee from us," Clinton told me. "I would have given them the commitment, too, but now I can't because of the uproar over the refugee camp bombing."

No such treaty was ever signed.

Clinton's willingness to use American power to force a cease-fire on Israel before it had fully eradicated Hezbollah stands in stark and sharp contrast to George Bush's insistence on letting Israel proceed with its attacks until the terrorist group is neutralized.

In a nutshell, this illustrates the difference between the Democratic and Republican approaches to Israeli security.

Bush and his administration clearly see the Israeli attack as an opportunity to clean out terrorist cells that have come to be pivotal in Lebanon. With Hezbollah's power extending into the cabinet in Beirut, it is clear that Israeli military action is necessary to forestall the creation of a terrorist state on its northern border.

While Clinton said he embraced the need for Israeli security, when the going got rough, he bowed to world opinion and called for a cease-fire. When the United States asks Israel to stop fighting, it is like a boxer's manager throwing in the towel. The bottom line is that true friends of Israel cannot afford to let the Democrats take power in Washington.

But American Jews have voted Democrat in the past and will continue to do so in the future. It is really the Christian evangelical right that stands up for Israel.

The reason Israel has to fight in Lebanon today is that the United States did not permit it to finish the job of destroying Hezbollah in the '90s. Now, fortunately for Israel's true friends, the White House is letting Tel Aviv win without reining her in.

Nothing so illustrates the generic anti-Semitism of the global community than its current obsession with proportionality in judging Israel's response to the kidnapping of its soldiers and the rocket bombing of its cities. The Vatican, the European Union and Russia have said nothing about the almost daily bombardment of Israel's northern border by Hezbollah or the constant attacks from Gaza after Israel magnanimously vacated the strip. But now that the Jewish state is defending itself, the global community is outraged at the "disproportionate" Israeli response. Only Jewish lives have to be dealt with proportionately.

Israel's defensive barrier has succeeded in sharply curtailing the once daily suicide/homicide bombing of civilian Israeli targets. Now the Israeli invasion will push back the frontiers from which the terrorists can work their mayhem through missiles.

Bush and the Republican administration realize that Israel is only acting in self-defense. It is obvious that she would not be attacking Lebanon if the terrorists had not made a habit of using it as a base for attacks on Jewish cities.

The global condemnation of Israel is simply illustrative of the low esteem attached to Jewish blood in this world where anti-Semitism comes disguised as morality and a commitment to peace.

Morris and McGann, husband and wife, have written several books together, including Rewriting History, a rebuttal to Living History by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/072606.html
 

2. How to Really Help the Poor - USA Today Op-ed

By William Beach

Everyone agrees we should do everything we can to help poor Americans earn more. But one of the worst ways for Congress to attempt to do that is, paradoxically, one of the most popular: raising the minimum wage.

There are several reasons why minimum-wage hikes don't achieve all their objectives:

* Most workers who earn the minimum wage - generally teenagers - don't come from low-income households. Indeed, the average household income for such a worker is $45,000 a year, and many workers with incomes close to the minimum wage come from households earning more than $80,000 annually.

* Minimum-wage jobs are nearly always entry-level positions, usually filled by new workers who, as they gain experience and become more productive, see their incomes rise without government help. About two out of every three workers hired at the minimum wage, in fact, are earning more within a year.

* Minimum-wage hikes increase labor costs, prompting businesses to create fewer entry-level positions. Employers forced to pay more to new workers naturally prefer to hire more experienced workers who require less training. Who loses out? Ironically, less-skilled workers who are poor.

Such workers are no better served by calls to retain the estate tax because this tax directly undermines job creation. The federal estate tax alone is responsible for the loss of 170,000 to 250,000 potential jobs each year, Heritage Foundation economists estimate. This additional employment never appears in the economy because the investments that would have brought higher employment aren't made.

The estate tax also dampens wage growth. Workers are more productive when they have new tools, machines and factories, and increased productivity boosts wages and salaries. And let's face it: The estate tax is un-American. It strikes many people as a clear contradiction to a central promise of American life - that if you work hard, save and live prudently, you will be assured the enjoyment of your economically virtuous life.

Congress can best help low-income workers by leaving the minimum wage alone and permanently repealing the estate tax.

William Beach is director of the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-07-23-oppose_x.htm

3. Chertoff hails end of let-go policy - Washington Times

By Stephen Dinan
Published July 28, 2006


The Bush administration said yesterday it has nearly ended catch-and-release on the southern border in the past few weeks, has almost tripled the number of criminal arrests this year of employers who hire illegal aliens, and will gain operational control of the border by 2008, two years earlier than expected.

"With respect to every population, except for one, we have achieved essentially 100 percent catch-and-remove," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a House appropriations panel yesterday.

The policy of releasing non-Mexican illegal aliens and hoping they return to be deported, known as "catch-and-release," had become a symbol of how dysfunctional the immigration-enforcement system is. About 85 percent of non-Mexican illegal aliens used to be released, and few ever showed up for deportation.

But Mr. Chertoff said a recent infusion of money, President Bush's decision to have the National Guard aid the U.S. Border Patrol and a commitment to better turnaround times for deporting illegal aliens has allowed the department to detain almost all non-Mexican illegal aliens they catch. He also said it has deterred some illegal aliens from trying to cross. Catch-and-release doesn't apply to Mexican aliens, who are routinely sent back across the border.

The enforcement numbers come as the president is trying to convince Congress he is making progress on border security, hoping that House Republicans will then agree to pass a broader immigration bill that includes a guest-worker program and a path to citizenship for millions of illegal aliens.

Lawmakers, though, were skeptical. They told Mr. Chertoff they don't know whether they can trust his department to administer the massive program that would be required to legalize the estimated 12 million-to-20 million illegal aliens in part because they have been so ineffective in securing the borders.

"If we're ever going to someday get to a comprehensive immigration policy, you have to succeed first at a border-security plan, and no one that I know really has confidence that you can do this," said Rep. John E. Sweeney, New York Republican.

In a later hearing yesterday before the immigration panel of the House Judiciary Committee, Michael Maxwell, a former employee at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said that agency is not ready to handle the additional workload because it suffers from rampant corruption and cannot detect fraud.

Rep. John Hostettler, Indiana Republican and chairman of the immigration subcommittee, said those problems would only become worse with a guest-worker program and that would be unfair to those who have been waiting legally for years.

"How could this added burden not detrimentally affect aliens waiting to immigrate lawfully?" he said.

Mr. Chertoff said it would take "some considerable number of months" to get a program up and running but there is no alternative to a guest-worker program.

He said the cost of deporting just 10 percent of illegal aliens now in the country would be gigantic and that the cost for housing them during legal appeals could be $10 billion a year.

Mr. Chertoff yesterday acknowledged that operational control of the border is still two years away, though he said that's two years earlier than his prediction just months ago as a result of the recent infusion of money and manpower.

He also said criminal cases against employers who hire illegal aliens have been stepped up.

At one point, Mr. Chertoff said they have done such a good job on the border that the cost of smuggling has gone up, and so has violence.

But subcommittee Chairman Harold Rogers, Kentucky Republican, told Mr. Chertoff his own department had recently provided figures showing the average price people pay to be smuggled has dropped from $1,936 in 2004 to $1,798 in 2005 to $1,600 as of April.

Mr. Chertoff replied that he hadn't seen those figures and would want to know how his department calculated them.

http://washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20060728-123022-6096r

4. Tax Foes Push State Spending Caps - Wall Street Journal
 

Ballot Initiatives Seek to Impose Strict Formulas Limiting The Growth of Public Outlays



By CHRISTOPHER COOPER
July 28, 2006; Page A4

While economic conservatives have failed to curb government expansion in Washington, they're ramping up a campaign to impose spending limits on state legislatures around the country.

Voters in at least half a dozen states likely will vote in November on ballot initiatives that would set strict formulas limiting the growth of public programs. Two legislatures this year have already passed such measures, often labeled a "taxpayer bill of rights."

The measures generally say that state spending can grow by only a certain percentage each year -- usually by either the rate of inflation or by the rate of population growth. Supporters say those ceilings force needed discipline on politicians. Critics say they impose overly strict restraints when there are legitimate needs for boosts in public spending, like when the federal government is forcing more health spending on states or college tuition costs are soaring.

This year's push comes despite a series of setbacks for antitax advocates in 2005. Last year, voters in California and Washington state rejected proposals to impose strict spending-limit formulas, and legislatures in six states declined to pass such measures.

Colorado voters last year agreed to override what until then was the nation's most restrictive spending limit, which prevented state lawmakers from increasing spending faster than the inflation rate. The measure also required that if the government racked up a surplus, the unspent revenue should be given back to taxpayers as rebates. Colorado voters agreed in 2005 to suspend the measure for five years, which had the effect of forgoing $3 billion in tax rebates.

The governor, along with many business interests, said the spending limit, in effect since 1992, was choking economic growth by imposing limits so tight they would be forced to make deep cuts in public services, curb prisons, and boost tuitions at state colleges.

But spending-limit advocates think they'll have better luck this year. In Maine, a moribund economy has helped the proposal garner 71% support in a recent independent voter poll.

"We're in awful shape up here. We've been in the hands of the left for a long time," said Mary Adams, who spearheaded the signature drive in Maine and has pushed antitax proposals in the state for 30 years. "I don't find anybody who's paying taxes is siding with the opponents."

Beyond Maine, the states likely to face such votes in the fall are Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada and Oregon. Legislatures in Ohio and Rhode Island passed laws on the issue, but those are weaker than the ballot initiatives. The Ohio measure covers only one portion of the budget, however, while the Rhode Island version is nonbinding.

The push comes as many states around the country are boosting spending. The National Conference of State Legislatures says state spending is expected to grow nearly 6% this year, while inflation is running under 4%. That spending is fueled largely by a jump in funds for Medicaid and for education.

About 30 states have limits on revenue or spending growth, but antitax groups have pushed stronger measures to keep budgets in check in the states where ballot initiatives are allowed. Even opponents say that fighting the measures is a challenge. "It's a gimmicky issue but it'll be tough to beat where it gets on the ballot," said Kristina Wilfore, of the left-leaning Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, a Washington activist group that opposes the efforts.

Advocates of the measures have also adapted to complaints about apparent flaws in earlier measures. For example, the Maine measure doesn't require the government to return unspent funds to taxpayers. Rather, it allows local governments to sock away some of the surplus in rainy-day accounts.

The spending-limit proposals generally are orchestrated by national antitax organizations from out of state that pay canvassing companies to gather signatures and often bankroll advertising campaigns. In Missouri this year, most of the $2.3 million spent gathering petition signatures for a measure came from out of state. In Oregon, a Chicago-based group called Americans for Limited Government spent $100,000 pushing the measure. The group is providing money to backers in eight states that have entertained spending-limit formulas this year. "We're dedicated to this issue -- it's in our mission statement to help grass-roots groups get it on the ballot," said Heather Wilhelm, of Americans for Limited Government.

But it isn't always time well spent. Earlier this week, a Missouri court refused to let a measure go forward in the fall, saying that petitioners didn't follow the rules for gathering and submitting signatures. Also this week, a Supreme Court referee in Oklahoma declined to certify a petition on similar grounds.

Opponents have tried to halt the measures at the signature stage in almost every state where they have cropped up. In many cases, legal protests arise over the use of professional canvassers to gather signatures. Because many of them often are from elsewhere, they aren't always familiar with local rules governing such campaigns. "I call them carny campaigns -- signature gatherers who just roam from state to state," Ms. Wilfore says.

Opponents of initiatives often include public-employee labor unions and antipoverty advocates. Like spending-limit supporters, they also aren't limited to locals. In some states, national opponents bankroll "blockers," who shadow petition-gatherers and attempt to talk people out of signing. The national chapter of AARP, the retirees' lobbying group, has opposed formulaic spending caps in almost every state where it has been proposed, saying that spending collars damage social programs that benefit the elderly.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115404501097819834.html?mod=politics_first_element_hs

5. We Don't Need Beavis and Butt-head Voters - Los Angeles Times Op-ed

A proposed $1-million lottery to amp up voting would cheapen citizenship.

Jonah Goldberg

July 27, 2006

I DON'T KNOW about you, but when that Mega Millions jackpot gets really high I like to go down to the local convenience store and ask the good folks waiting for hours to buy a fistful of tickets, "Hey, do you think Condi Rice should cut a deal with Bashar Assad?" Or, "Excuse me sir, I know you're busy filling out those little ovals for the same 78 numbers you play every week, but I was wondering whether you think reimportation of Canadian drugs is a good idea?" I mean, where else can you find the distilled genius of the vox populi than a line of people at the 7-Eleven who have a lot of time to spare during working hours?

Nowhere, according to Dr. Mark Osterloh of Tucson. Which is why he wants to get the Lotto crowd to vote by turning elections into giant lotteries. His idea, which has received undue national attention, is simple: If you vote, you're automatically entered in a drawing for $1 million - and perhaps some fabulous consolation prizes too! His proposal will be on the November ballot in Arizona, and he hopes it will revolutionize the country by enlisting the lottery-line crowd to fix our democracy. He even has a slogan: "Who wants to be a millionaire? Vote!"

Osterloh, an ophthalmologist and political activist (he ran for governor by bicycling throughout the state a few years ago), is one of those classic American cranks who has the audacity to take our civic cliches seriously. Since the civil rights era, Americans have been indoctrinated with the message that voting is an essential yardstick of citizenship. Editorialists, civics teachers and an assortment of deep-thinking movie stars residing in Periclean Hollywood have gone to great lengths to tell Americans that voter apathy is, in and of itself, a terrible evil and that, conversely, high voter turnout is a sign of civic health.

Indeed, for several years, voting rights activists have been pushing to give prison inmates and younger teenagers the right to vote, presuming that giving rapists, killers and Justin Timberlake fans a bigger say will improve our democratic process.

The push to make voting much easier has been considerably less controversial. Weekend voting, voting by mail and online voting are constantly greeted as vital reforms of our electoral system. And although some of these reforms are probably benign, all assume that even the slightest inconvenience in voting is an outrage because democratic health is purely a numbers game: More voters equals a healthier society. My own view is that voting should be more difficult because things of value usually require a little work. That goes for citizenship too.

Consider Internet voting. In the conventional view, the only legitimate criticism of online voting is its susceptibility to fraud. Almost no one questions its advisability if it worked - even though online voting assumes that we desperately need to hear from people who otherwise couldn't be bothered to get off the couch. Voting fetishists often liken democracy to a national "conversation" or "dialogue." So, tell me: What intelligent conversation is aided by the intrusion of Beavis and Butt-head?

What is surprising about Doc Osterloh's wacky idea is that the franchise maximizers hate it. The New York Times dubbed it "daft" and "one of the cheesier propositions on the November ballot." USA Today called it "tawdry." Fair enough.

But I think part of the reason they're so scandalized is that Osterloh is taking their logic to its natural conclusion. Advocates of increasing voter turnout already frame the issue in terms of "what's in it for you." MTV's condescending Choose or Lose campaign, which aims to get 18- to 30-year-olds to vote, says it all right there in the name; the gravy train is leaving the station and the ballot is your ticket onboard.

Just beneath the surface of much of this voter activism is the assumption that increased turnout would move American politics to the left, by redistributing wealth to the poor and "disenfranchised." There's probably some merit here, which explains why so many get-out-the-vote groups are proxies for the Democratic Party. But that doesn't change the fact that they are trolling for votes among people who don't appear to take their citizenship very seriously. Osterloh's bribery scheme merely exposes this motivation in a way that embarrasses voter activists.

Osterloh admits that he's motivated by more than democracy worship. "One of the goals that I've had in my lifetime is to see that all Americans have healthcare like every other major country on Earth. One of the ways to do that is to make sure that everybody votes." At least he's honest about it.
 

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg27jul27,0,7173457.column?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

###