Printer Friendly
July28, 2006
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
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
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 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
Apr. 27, 2006
Apr. 26, 2006
Apr. 25, 2006
Apr. 6, 2006
Apr. 5, 2006
Apr. 4, 2006
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
Feb. 28, 2006
Feb. 16, 2006
Feb. 15, 2006
Feb. 14, 2006
Feb. 8, 2006
Feb. 1, 2006
Jan. 31, 2006
Dec. 16, 2005
Dec. 15, 2005
Dec. 14, 2005
Dec. 13, 2005
Dec. 8, 2005
Dec. 7, 2005
Dec. 6, 2005
|
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
### |