FederalRepublic.net

The Associated Press 

Two new polls gauging Americans’ views on government openness found a majority believe the federal government leans more toward secrecy than openness, while eight in 10 are convinced that an open government is necessary for an effective democracy.

The polls released Sunday also found, however, that the public believed government should keep some information private, particularly if it was necessary to combat terrorism.

One poll, by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University, found that 64 percent of respondents thought the federal government is somewhat or very secretive, while more than a third think their local and state governments lean more toward secrecy. Fifty-five percent said state and local governments were somewhat or very open.

But Americans were more closely divided on when government information should be made public, according to the telephone poll of 1,007 adults.

Forty-six percent said government records should be considered public and their release should only be blocked when it “would do harm”; 42 percent said the government should protect its information and only release it if there is a “sound legal case” for it to be public.

A separate poll released Sunday found respondents were supportive of open government and access to public records — though solid majorities also said that government officials should keep records secret if “necessary”, or to help in the war on terrorism.

Link

There are two issues here that I think are not understood by many Americans when it comes to government. While an educated body politic is to the advantage of the American republic, there are many issues which must be kept secret for legislative or national security reasons. The first statement “Two new polls gauging Americans’ views on government openness found a majority believe the federal government leans more toward secrecy than openness” is just not accurate. Most all legislation, executive orders, and Supreme Court decisions are available on the internet or from other government resources (excluding those affecting national security). I’ve looked up laws many times over the years and I believe most American people are lazy and not willing to look up the information they care about. Our country is ruled by a media which promotes nothing but 30 second sound bites, and those sound bites are what feeds most Americans. There cannot be an educated electorate when most listen to sound bites for their news.

Second, John Jay established and explained the need for secrecy in Federalist #64:

It seldom happens in the negotiation of treaties, of whatever nature, but that perfect SECRECY and immediate DESPATCH are sometimes requisite. These are cases where the most useful intelligence may be obtained, if the persons possessing it can be relieved from apprehensions of discovery. Those apprehensions will operate on those persons whether they are actuated by mercenary or friendly motives; and there doubtless are many of both descriptions, who would rely on the secrecy of the President, but who would not confide in that of the Senate, and still less in that of a large popular Assembly….So often and so essentially have we heretofore suffered from the want of secrecy and dispatch, that the Constitution would have been inexcusably defective, if no attention had been paid to those objects.

Here, John Jay explains that secrecy is of key importance, not only for the ratification of treaties or defining foreign relations, but keeping the Senate at bay. As we’ve seen with the modern issue of domestic spying (which is perfectly legal under FISA), the Senate has been up in arms because it was kept out of most FISA dealings, which by legislation, is an executive branch responsibility. Here, the Congress is not paying attention to separation of powers principles, but that is another issue.

Third, I have an issue with the second to last paragraph of the above article: “Forty-six percent said government records should be considered public and their release should only be blocked when it “would do harm”; 42 percent said the government should protect its information and only release it if there is a “sound legal case” for it to be public.” The American People must understand the above paragraph is essentially the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act. As it is common knowledge that our government is ultimately responsible to the people, it is essential we have the resources to find out what the government is doing. If people want to know what the government is doing and can’t find the information online or in other resources, they can simply file a Freedom of Information Act request for the information. Again, the above paragraph demonstrates a lazy American electorate, not willing to keep informed about their government.

On a different note, our founders knew that is was to our advantage to have an educated electorate. But they knew, as I know now, there are plenty of people who have no idea what the proper role of government is, nor do they understand how to find information about our government. That is why we have an electoral college.

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

WASHINGTON — New post-recession revenues are pouring into state coffers across the nation, but activists in several states are leading “revolts” to make sure their governments don’t use this new wealth for tax and spend schemes without taxpayers’ approval.

“We are in a major revolt right now,” said Mary Adams, head of the petition drive to get a Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) on the November ballot in Maine. Last month, the office of the secretary of state in Maine verified 50,519 citizen signatures in favor of putting the measure on the ballot.

Like in other states across the nation, the Maine effort for a TABOR is aimed at setting spending limits on the annual growth of government. It outlines the percentage of future surpluses to be returned to taxpayers in the form of rebates and the rest to be put in a reserve account. The TABOR also allows taxpayers to vote on tax hikes.

“In essence, it will put the taxpayer in control of future tax increases,” Adams said.

According to the National Taxpayers Union in Washington, D.C, similar ballot initiatives in Oklahoma, Montana, Nevada, Ohio and other states are a reaction to continued tax burdens despite recent windfalls in state revenues. As of 2005, 30 states already had some form of tax and spend limitations on the books.

States are recovering from the economic slowdown and are flush with revenues and are faced with a choice — restrain spending, build up reserves and set aside tax increases,” said Pete Sepp, spokesman for the NTU. Another choice, he said, is to “listen to the pent up demands from spending interests that feel they didn’t get enough from 2001 through 2003.”

Link

As a taxpayer and a resident of a state that recently increased sales and income taxes, I believe states must look at common sense reforms, including balancing their budgets and making spending cuts. The main problem with spending and appropriations is not inflationary, but rather its the legislatures of the states increasing spending at the same rate or more than rising revenues. This allows a state to feel financial pressures and go into deficit when a downturn hits the national economy. If states would live within their means, balance their budgets every year, and keep additional spending to a minimum (or at the rate of inflation), states would be much better off fiscally. It does not make sense to implement more government programs that take up most fiscal surpluses, but it is smart, as Joseph of the Bible found out, to save and prepare for disaster in a period of plenty.

By Nedra Pickler

A day before parts of the USA Patriot Act were to expire, President Bush signed into law a renewal that will allow the government to keep using terror-fighting tools passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Bush’s signature came two days after the House gave final approval to the legislation over objections that it infringes on Americans’ privacy. The president said the law has been vital to protecting Americans from terrorists.

“The Patriot Act has accomplished exactly what it was designed to do,” Bush said during a signing ceremony in the White House East Room. “It has helped us detect terrorist cells, disrupt terrorist plots and save American lives.”

Sixteen provisions of the old law were set to expire Friday. Political battles over the legislation forced Congress to extend the expiration date twice.

To get the legislation renewed, Bush was forced to accept new curbs on the Patriot Act’s powers.
These new civil liberties protections for the first time say explicitly that people who receive subpoenas granted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for library, medical, computer and other records can challenge a gag order in court.

Some say the protections did not go far enough.

“Today marks, sadly, a missed opportunity to protect both the national security needs of this country and the rights and freedoms of its citizens,” said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.

But Republicans want to take the law into the upcoming midterm elections to show they are acting to protect national security.

The legislation renews the expiring provisions of the original Patriot Act, including one that lets federal officials obtain “tangible items,” such as business records, from libraries and bookstores, in connection with foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations.

Link

It took far too long for the Patriot Act to pass both houses of Congress and be signed by President Bush. The Patriot Act gives law enforcement additional tools (which have been used to fight the proliferation of drugs) to fight and investigate terrorism. Though I have my concerns about civil rights and the proper balance between the so-called police state and the protection of civil rights, I think the Patriot Act is exactly what this country needs to fight the new war of this generation - the War on Terror. I am disappointed by the liberal establishment in Congress for working to delay the Patriot Act’s renewal, showing their obstruction and their passion to defeat anything proposed by President Bush or the Republican-controlled Congress.

With the advent of the internet, people have had increased and growing access to information. This is especially true in the world of politics. Today’s political information comes to us not only in the form of government or think-tank websites, but in the form of expression and personal opinions of web log authors.Web logs, or blogs, allow an author to express their beliefs and put their ideas unto the world wide web for others to read and consider, sort of like an online journal. In fact, if you are reading this website, you’re reading a blog.

The importance of political blogs was once underrated, but today’s politicians are beginning to understand the power of blogging. In fact, political blogs became mainstream in the 2004 federal elections. For example, bloggers first denounced National Guard documents concerning President Bush as fakery. The documents were later investigated and were confirmed to be false, thus allowing false information to affect Democratic Party campaigning. But this blog entry is not about the importance of blogs or the scandals uncovered by blogs. The purpose of this entry is to explain how blogs have become our modern pamphlet.

Pamphlets have been important publications in American history. John Adams described pamphlets in 1815 as a source of public enlightenment and information concerning the revolution:

The records of the thirteen legislatures, the pamphlets, newspapers in all colonies, ought to be consulted during that period to ascertain the steps by which the public opinion was enlightened and informed concerning the authority of Parliament over the colonies.

In the book The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, author Bernard Bailyn mentions the words of George Orwell in explaining the impact of revolutionary pamphlets:

The pamphlet is a one man show. One has complete freedom of expression, including, if one chooses, the freedom to be scurrilous, absusive, and seditious; or on the other hand, to be more detailed, serious and “highbrow” than is ever possible in a newspaper or in most kinds of periodicals. At the same time, since the pamphlet is always short and inbound, it can be produced must more quickly than a book, and in principle, at any rate, can reach a bigger public. Above all, the pamphlet does not have to follow any prescribed pattern. In can be in prose or in verse, it can consist largely of maps or statistics or quotations, it can take the form of a story, a fable, a letter an essay, a dialogue, or a piece of “reportage.”

Mr. Bailyn also describes pamphlets as ”Highly flexible, easy to manufacture, and cheap,” and were “printed in the American colonies wherever there were printing presses, intellectual ambitions, and political concerns.”

Revolutionary pamphlets show a distinct similarity to the political blogs of our day. Political blogs have been created by those with political ambitions or deep societal concerns. In general, political blogs are very easy to create and publish, with the creativity of the author being the only limit to the blogs look, topics explained, or format. Blog authors not only write about everything under the sky, but have complete power of personal expression. In many ways, political blogs have shown their importance in the free society, promoting the political passion of blog authors and addressees much like Thomas Paine’s “The Crisis” ignited the hearts of American troops when it was read aloud by General George Washington in 1776. Like Republican Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has stated, blogs have become “…a major part of the communication infrastructure in this country.”

By David Gram

Newfane, Vt.

In a white-clapboard town hall, circa 1832, voters gathered Tuesday to conduct their community’s business and to call for the impeachment of President Bush.

“In the U.S. presently there are only a few places where citizens can act in this fashion and have a say in our nation,” said select board member Dan DeWalt, who drafted the impeachment article that was placed on the warning, or official agenda, for the annual town meeting, a proud Yankee tradition in New England.

“It absolutely affects us locally,” Dewalt said. “It’s our sons and daughters, our mothers and fathers, who are dying” in the war in Iraq.

The article, approved 121-29 in balloting by paper, calls on Vermont’s lone member of the House, independent Rep. Bernie Sanders, to file articles of impeachment against the president, alleging that Bush misled the nation into the Iraq war and engaged in illegal domestic spying.

The impeachment item came at the end of a roughly four-hour meeting that was devoted mostly to the local affairs of the town of 1,600. Among the other items discussed was whether the town should fix some of the 100-year-old sidewalks in the village.

The impeachment discussion took up almost half an hour, reflecting the intense interest in the topic and something of a division over whether the town meeting was the appropriate place to debate it.

Ann Landenberger argued that it was appropriate. “As a teacher I can’t say to my kids that what happens on the national level doesn’t affect us at the local level,” she said. “Would that we could all be in a cocoon, but that is not the case.”

Greg Record, a justice of the peace, said in an interview after the meeting that the town is made up of people from the “far-left,” and he criticized the amount of time and attention such advisory votes get.

“We spend more time on these things than on a million-dollar budget item,” he complained.

Link

I posted this story because in my opinion, their efforts are totally laughable. While I respect the town for not acting violently and using their first amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, I am not impressed with their left-wing agenda of appeasement. Their commitment to a Bush impeachment is also severely two-faced. Where were these people when Clinton pulled our soldiers out of Somalia? Where were their calls for impeachment when Clinton called for American troops to bomb Serbia and Kosovo without a United Nations mandate? Where were their calls for impeachment when Clinton did not capture Osama Bin Laden when Sudan could’ve handed Bin Laden over on a silver platter? Enough said about this hypocritical group of appeasing nay-sayers.

By Tim Chapman

Tomorrow, conservatives in the House of Representatives, led by Mike Pence and Jeb Hensarling, will introduce a bold budget that is modeled after the fabled mid-90’s Contract with America. The conservative alternative will be a challenge to Congressional leadership in that it goes well above and beyong savings sought by the President’s budget.

The budget will move beyond the current $75 billion in savings to nearly $700 billion. It significantly reduces the size and scope of three federal agencies: Departments of Education, Energy and Commerce.

The NY Times reports:

The authors of the proposal describe it as a sequel to the Contract With America, which helped catapult Republicans to power in 1994. An outline of the plan says the proposals require “tough choices, but members have expressed a serious desire to do the hard things to save America.”

Mr. Bush’s push for the line-item veto could benefit from the current scrutiny over the growing practice by lawmakers of inserting spending for pet projects into legislation — a practice that has figured into continuing corruption scandals.

House conservatives are smart to bill this as The Contract II. Many of the votes that were there for the first Contract should still be there for the second. This billing also gives disallusioned fiscal conservatives a rallying flag. Like with Operation Offset, look for grassroots support for fiscal posterity to explode.

Republican Leadership would be wise to learn from Operation Offset. The initial indifference leadership should to that effort was overcome by vigorous grassroots support. Then Majority Leader Tom DeLay said there was no fat left to cut in the federal budget. He very soon after found out that he was wrong when many of the RSC proposals were passed into law with the help of House Speaker Dennis Hastert who saw the writing on the wall. Leadership would do well to embrace this new effort from the get-go.

Certainly, it is a tough budget. Certainly Democrats will demagogue it - they always do. Certainly, moderates’ knees will tremble in fear at the thought of making hard decisions. But this needs to be done.

Link

This country is in serious need of budget cuts if it is to survive the baby boom of the coming years. So-called entitlements like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid threaten to make up the bulk of all federal spending within two decades. While I respect that Congress has the “power of the purse,” they are not spending the taxpayers’ money wisely, nor is President Bush using his veto power like he should. Like Bush’s compassionate conservatism, I believe government should stand with the people and take care of the people’s business, but not at the expense of large government entitlements and needless regulation. It is time for Congress to make tough choices and for President Bush to demonstrate to his base why he calls himself a Republican. I am certainly thrilled with Mike Pence (this author’s representative) sponsoring this strong-cutting budget, hopefully helping to show Republicans in Congress what it truly means to be fiscally conservative. The midterm elections may be coming up, but that is NOT an excuse for Congress to be lazy when it comes to its priorities. We must defeat the coming budget crisis at all costs; not just for this generation, but for generations to come.

By The Associated Press

President Bush plans to send proposed legislation to Congress on Monday that would allow him to control spending by vetoing specific items in larger bills, a Bush administration official said.

The president, who has not vetoed any legislation during five years in office, asked Congress in his State of the Union address to give him line-item veto power.

Bush plans to announce that the proposed bill is headed to Congress during his remarks at the morning swearing-in ceremony for the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the announcement has not been made.

Both Republican and Democratic presidents have sought the power to eliminate a single item in a spending or tax bill without killing the entire measure.

President Clinton got that wish in 1996, when the new reform-minded Republican majority in the House helped pass a line-item veto law.

Two years later, the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional because it violated the principle that Congress, and not the executive branch, holds the power of the purse.

Link

While I agree with many of President Bush’s policy ideals and his strong leadership, I disagree with the administration that the President should be granted a power to cancel specific items within legislation after the legislation has become law. In my opinion, this clearly violates separation of powers principles as outlined in the Constitution. Let us explore this briefly.

Article one, section seven of the Constitution is as follows:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it…

The principle of the President’s power to veto applies to a bill submitted to him by Congress which is hoped to be passed into law. If we look at the text in this section, it says “Every bill,” and does not say anything in regard to appropriations within bills, which the President would be authorized to cancel if a line-item veto statute was constitutional.

Second, let us look at the recent Supreme Court decision on the unconstitutional Line Item Veto Act of 1996. In essence, the Line Item Veto Act gave the President the power to “cancel in whole” three types of provisions that have been signed into law: “(1) any dollar amount of discretionary budget authority; (2) any item of new direct spending; or (3) any limited tax benefit.”

According to the Supreme Court decision in “WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL ., APPELLANTS v. CITY OF NEW YORK,” the court concluded the Line Item Veto Act was unconstitutional for several different reasons (I have shown what I sense to be the most important principles in the decision):

There are important differences between the President’s “return” of a bill pursuant to Article I, §7, and the exercise of the President’s cancellation authority pursuant to the Line Item Veto Act. The constitutional return takes place before the bill becomes law; the statutory cancellation occurs after the bill becomes law. The constitutional return is of the entire bill; the statutory cancellation is of only a part. Although the Constitution expressly authorizes the President to play a role in the process of enacting statutes, it is silent on the subject of unilateral Presidential action that either repeals or amends parts of duly enacted statutes.

…our decision rests on the narrow ground that the procedures authorized by the Line Item Veto Act are not authorized by the Constitution. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a 500-page document that became “Public Law 105-33″ after three procedural steps were taken: (1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of those three steps be taken before a bill may “become a law.” Art. I, §7. If one paragraph of that text had been omitted at any one of those three stages, Public Law 105-33 would not have been validly enacted. If the Line Item Veto Act were valid, it would authorize the President to create a different lawone whose text was not voted on by either House of Con gress or presented to the President for signature. Something that might be known as “Public Law 105-33 as modified by the President” may or may not be desirable, but it is surely not a document that may “become a law” pursuant to the procedures designed by the Framers of Article I, §7, of the Constitution.

This case has presented another unique aspect in that the President has authority to use up to specific amounts of funds Congress has appropriated in order to execute the bills which have been signed into law. However, the line item veto power would give the President authority to cancel, or to “not create the effect of law” with specific appropriations within a total bill. This is fundamentally different than not using all appropriated funds given for the execution of the law and is thereby unconstitutional. The Supreme Court tackled this very issue:

Thus, in both legal and practical effect, the presidential actions at issue have amended two Acts of Congress by repealing a portion of each. Statutory repeals must conform with Art. I, INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 954 , but there is no constitutional authorization for the President to amend or repeal. Under the Presentment Clause, after a bill has passed both Houses, but “before it become[s] a Law,” it must be presented to the Presi dent, who “shall sign it” if he approves it, but “return it,” i.e., “veto” it, if he does not. There are important differences between such a “return” and cancellation under the Act: The constitutional return is of the entire bill and takes place before it becomes law, whereas the statutory cancellation occurs after the bill becomes law and affects it only in part. There are powerful reasons for construing the constitutional silence on the profoundly important subject of presidential repeals as equivalent to an express prohibition. The Article I procedures governing statutory enactment were the product of the great debates and compromises that produced the Constitution itself…

I agree with the majority of the court here in their 6 -3 decision. For the text of this case regarding the line item veto, please click here. 

In today’s political arena, we’ve seen Democrats call President Bush a liar, a coward, a warhawk, a neocon, and many other names.We’ve seen John Kerry and other top Democrats mention that President Bush “mislead” the American people into war. We’ve seen others like Howard Dean claim they hate Republicans and “everything they stand for.”

For those of us who are grateful to President Bush for keeping his oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,” I submit these thoughts I found on the internet two years ago. Its words are powerful and demonstrates why we must win the war on terror not just overseas, but here in our own neighborhoods.

Imagine if you will…

You are an MP in the U.S. Marine, stationed in downtown Baghdad. You wake in the morning and get dressed. You are ready to start another busy day of
training Iraqi police officers who had been corrupted by decades of Saddam’s
rule.

You walk out onto the street. There is joy and laughter where there wasn’t
before. Children run and play. The women look at you and smile friendly. The
men walk up to you and shake your hand. The smell of freedom is in the air.

At the Baghdad police department, you spend the day teaching existing police officers to not rule over the people, but co-exist with them. You try to
break their habbits of torturing citizens for little more than parking
violations. Slowly, but surely, as you look into their eyes, you can see
that it is sinking in. Even Saddam’s police force can sense a different
Iraq.

After a long day of doing your part to “change the tone” in Baghdad, it is
time to go home. On your way is the one and only Burger King in Baghdad,
just opened after the fall of Saddam. You want a taste of home, so you walk
in for a whopper.

Inside, you are treated like a celebrity. People don’t mob you except for
with their eyes. Everyone smiles at you. You walk up to the counter after
everyone steps aside to let the American soldier go to the front of the
line. You don’t know the Arabic word for whopper, so you point to it on the
menu on the counter.

A young Iraqi woman rings up your order which comes to $4.39. You take your wallet from your pocket when you are interupted by an Iraqi man speaking broken English. In his hand he holds a five dollar bill.

“No, no, no,” the man demands. “I pay!”

You reluctantly accept the man’s generousity. In a land where almost 70% of
it’s inhabitants want you to stay, you are made to feel welcome. They
understand that you are there to ensure that those police officers you help
train become a service to Iraq as opposed to a ruling force. You are also
made to feel welcome by the 97% that was longing for your arrival and the
removal of Saddam in the first place.

You step into your apartment with your whopper, large fries and large coke
remembering the generousity and kindness of the Iraqi people. You beem with pride for yourself and your brothers who ran missions through Baghdad under the cheers of the people. You remember returning enemy fire in the streets as people poured out of their houses to cheer you as though it were a parade, not a military mission. These people hungered for freedom, and you helped deliver it.

You turn on the television. Satellite TV is new to the people of Iraq as
well. For the first time in three decades, their media is no longer run by
the state. As you flip through the channels, you stop on CNN and take a bite
of your whopper. You wonder how many Iraqis are watching as well in the
city.

Your whopper tastes good, not as good as home, but good nonetheless. You think of the days back home and you long for your own freedom, but your president has asked of your service. You are a soldier, and duty calls,
besides, seeing the look on the faces of the Iraqi people make it all seem
worth it. You are proud of yourself, your brothers, your nation and
commander-in-chief, George W Bush for giving you the strength and
inspiration to free an oppressed people.

Your attention turns to the TV, where presidential candidate, Richard
Gephardt is speaking. You are drawn to it, especially when he says this
president is a misserable failure. All your work has just been cheapened by
a man who simply wants his party to once again control the White House.

You look out the window at the city of Baghdad and wonder, how many Iraqis are watching satellite TV.

By Eliot Peace

COLUMBIA, SC — Why has Mitt Romney spent so much time in South Carolina recently? Perhaps his own words shed some light: “I don’t think it’s lost on anyone who is considering a national run that no Republican has been elected president that didn’t win the South Carolina primary,” said Romney. 

Of course, Romney won’t admit he’s running for president, he’s merely “keeping [his] options open.” But, he continues, “to keep your options open, you have to get out and be seen and do some work for, particularly the early primary states.”

Few who pay attention to the rumor mill in politics doubt that Romney will make an all-out effort to capture the Republican nomination in 2008. He has the national profile: CEO of the Salt Lake City Olympic Games; conservative Republican governor in the nation’s bluest state; and opponent of the Massachusetts same-sex ‘marriage’ debacle, his name is no stranger to the front pages of newspapers nationwide—by the way, on the judges who made the ‘marriage’ decision, he said, “I think they’re wrong.” 
 
Governor Romney has ventured to the Palmetto State several times in the past year, most recently in late February for events in the top three most heavily Republican counties in the state. Townhall.com attended two of the three events and garnered some insight into his chances to capture the First in the South primary in 2008.

Romney, who identified himself as a nuanced pro-choicer in his Senate battle against über-liberal Ted Kennedy in 1996, is a changed man. “I’m pro-life,” he offers, “So, the issue is settled.”  Skeptical pundits believe he might have flip-flopped on abortion with the gleam of a 2008 run in his eye and decided to reach out to the GOP base. Certainly, being pro-life is a pre-requisite for achieving victory in South Carolina these days. 

Other pundits say that the GOP base, many of them evangelical Christians, might reject a Mormon candidate. However, Romney chalks those assertions up as total bunk. “Most people in South Carolina want a person of faith as their leader. But they don’t care what brand of faith that is,” he said. Surprisingly, he may be onto something. 

Dr. Bob Taylor is a dean at Bob Jones University, an evangelical school in Greenville, and generally the political thermometer for the most faithful of South Carolina voters. Political types close to Taylor quote him as not viewing Romney’s religion as a crippling issue. As long as Romney maintains his faithfulness to conservative principles, the faithful will accept him. 

In one of his speeches, Romney identified three potential problems facing America today: fiscal, military and economic. 

On the fiscal front, he identified the challenges, including out of control spending. “We’re spending too much and we’re borrowing too much; it can’t keep on going like this,” the governor said. The budget is too large, government is too irresponsible,” he said. 

Spending too much on entitlements threatens the defense budget, which leads right into his second front, the military. While the world is under attack by extremist Muslim terrorists, only one power keeps a radical caliphate from controlling the entire Middle East: the United States. Thus, the American president and the military must ensure that that doesn’t happen.

Leading into his final front, Romney said, “We want to make sure that this country always remains the superpower economically and militarily on this planet. And you can’t be a tier one military and a tier two economy.” Though the economy is growing so well, he said, we’re losing a lot of high-tech jobs to Asia. Asian high-tech workers are cheaper, say several business executives, and Asia has more ‘knowledge workers.’ China and India have more engineers than the U.S. “Nothing is more vulnerable than entrenched success…let’s avoid becoming the France of the 21st century,” Romney said.

Link

I believe the prospects of Mitt Romney running for the Republican nomination in 2008 should be quite interesting. As governor of Massachusetts, he has proven himself to be a fighter in my opinion, being a popular conservative leader in a state many call “taxachussetts” for good reason. Though he seems to favor popular conservative principles such as limited government, low taxes, a strong military, and laizzez faire economic policies, I’d like to further know his views on many social issues like abortion, gay marriage, immigration, etc. As Romney’s been known to be pro-choice in the past, I hope his recent stance as pro-life is not simply a ploy to lure conservative Republicans to his campaign. I want to know he means what he says.

By Tim Chapman

Last night 66 senators cast their vote to disregard the congressional budget act in order to increase spending primarily for one part of the country.

The action came on an amendment from Maine Senator Olympia Snowe. Snowe has been pursuing this amendment which increases funding for the Low Income Heating Assistance Program (LIHEAP) in the Northeast states. Her amendment breaks the budget the Senate passed by $1 billion and increases LIHEAP funding for her state alone by 1500 percent! But budgets matter not to moderate Republicans and Democrats.

A good sign of what fiscal conservatives are up against came moments before last nights vote to waive the budget act with respect to the Snowe amendment. Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, a proponent of the Snowe amendment and a primary beneficiary, sanctimoniously took the Senate floor to scream at fiscal conservatives at the top of his lungs. His face red with self-righteous indignation, Dodd looked across the aisle and pointed his finger in the direction of Jeff Sessions, a budgetary realist and fiscal conservative “You tell my people they can’t have what they need!” shouted the New England liberal.

Nevermind that Senator Sessions was right. Shame on him to point out that this winter is one of the warmest winters on record. And who cares that spring is just around the corner. And what does it matter if we rob fiscal year 2007 funds to pay for fiscal year 2006 allocations? Sessions pointed out the folly of such a plan. “What happens if in 2007 the winter is actually a cold one?” asked Sessions? Do we just go on breaking the budget year after year?

Even Senator Ted Kennedy (who of course got it wrong in the end by voting with the budget busters) agreed with the merit of the argument. On February 22 Kennedy told the Boston Globe that “Robbing 2007 funds to pay for 2006 home heating costs makes no sense.” One wonders why he did it anyway.

But this kind of logic is lost on bleeding hearts who are always looking for the next federally funded happy meal to bring home to their constituents.

Link

One of the ultimate problems in Washington is the problem of pork barrel legislation; it’s been a problem for decades. I do not see why Congress continues to raise the debt limit and the deficit when most Americans must live within their means. Sure, there are emergencies one must pay for from time to time (i.e. the War on Terror). However, there needs to be some control. We must not let politics get in the way of sound financial planning and the care of the PEOPLE’S money! Since the beginning of the income tax collection, our country has gone deeper and deeper into debt. I am disappointed in Congress for letting pork somehow get into all major pieces of legislation and I am disappointed in the President for not vetoeing one piece of legislation which includes massive pork appropriations.