Obama's Viet Nam?

President Kennedy- Circa-1960
Upon taking office John F. Kennedy sent 16,300 Americans to save South Vietnam from the Vietcong. This was the initial escalation from the original force of "advisers" sent by the Eisenhower administration, which would continue to expand under President Johnson just a few years later. The Vietcong, the lightly armed South Vietnamese communist insurgency, largely fought a guerrilla war against anti-communist forces in Viet Nam. The North Vietnamese Army engaged in a more conventional war, at times committing large-sized units into battle. U.S. forces relied on air superiority and overwhelming firepower to conduct search-and-destroy operations, involving ground forces, artillery and air strikes.

President Obama- Circa 2010
President Obama sent 20,000 Americans to save Afghanistan from the Taliban. The Taliban, the lightly armed Islamic-Fundamentalist insurgency, is largely fighting a guerilla war against anti-Sunni muslim forces in Afghanistan. The U.S. supported Afghan military is fighting a conventional war with it's approximately 180,00 troop army, while the U.S. relies on air superiority and overwhelming firepower to conduct search-and-destroy operations, involving ground forces, artillery and air strikes.

I am not attempting to make an exact correlation between the America's policy in Viet Nam in the 60's to our current positions towards Islamic Fundamentalism as defined by former President Bush & current President Obama. There are obvious and striking differences, not the least of which being the fact that the U.S. suffered over 50,000 fatalities. As bad as the situtation has been and continues to be in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, one struggles to imagine a course of action that would lead to such a high casualty rate. However, through much of the Bush administrations activities in Iraq many on the left chose to make that very camparison, and now that they left is firmly in charge it does seem ironic that they will in fact move in a direction much closer to a modern day Viet Nam situation.

While candidate Obama, as well as the rest of the Democrats, like to compare Bush's Iraq war to the second coming of Viet Nam, the chances of Afghanistan turning into quagmire are far greater than Iraq ever was. You can't beat a international terrorist organization by occupying tribal villages. Yet this is what Obama seems intent on doing. Rather than cut ties with Pakistan for its continued harboring of terrorist groups, and its utter inability to track them down ,we will be spending 3 billion a month and sending another 20,000 troops into a backwards third world country to fight a guerrilla war against an enemy with nothing to lose. Escalation of American troop levels without explicit goals and timetables is a slippery slope as history has shown.

"Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course. Instead, we will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable. We’ll consistently assess our efforts to train Afghan Security Forces, and our progress in combating insurgents.....The world cannot afford the price that will come due if Afghanistan slides back into chaos or al Qaeda operates unchecked."- President Obama

Aside from sounding an awful lot like the President he railed against for 18 months on the campaign trail, Obama doesn't seem to have a clear idea on how to accomplish this. We need a concrete strategy. Although the administration is attempting to develop specific benchmarks for Afghanistan and Pakistan, officials said they would be the most explicit demands ever presented to the governments in Kabul and Islamabad. The still-to-be-determined strategy then, according to Obama, would be to require two broken countries, dogged by ancient tribal warfare and modern political hostility, to find ways to work together and transform their societies- a long-shot indeed. Besides putting the bulk of our effort into Afghanistan is ignoring the real issue. Pakistan is the core of this problem.

Since 2001 the U.S. has given Pakistan nearly $11 billion to fight Islamic terror. Obama is pushing for an additional $7.5 billion.What exactly do we have to show for it?

• U.S. officials openly accused elements in Pakistan's powerful intelligence agency of abetting Al-Qaeda.
• Al Qaeda -and almost certainly its leader, Osama bin Laden -have moved to safe havens in the mountains on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan.
• An intensifying insurgency in Afghanistan is getting support from the Pakistani side of the border.

President Obama is right to be focusing his attention on defeating al Qaeda, and Islamic terror in general. However, defeating al Qaeda will take a broader effort that faces the realities of the region.

"Mr. Obama himself has spent so much time questioning America's antiterrorist mission abroad. While he tried, during the campaign, to distinguish Iraq (Bush's war) from Afghanistan (the good war), the truth is that they are both exercises in counterinsurgency and nation building. The irony is that both tasks are arguably easier in Iraq, because of its denser population and history of a stronger central government. " WSJ

Let's hope the financial turmoil we are dealing with has not created an intellectual vacuum within Obama's team of best and brightest. We need clear and strong thinking on this issue if we are to avoid another 10 years of constant U.S. military involvement.

Democratic Policies Make a Bad Economy Worse

Take a good look at this graph:

Those lines show the Congressional Budget office's latest projections: A historic deficit made worse by Obama's budget. From the CBO's report:

Proposed changes in tax policy would reduce revenues by an estimated $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. Proposed changes in spending programs would add $1.7 trillion (excluding debt service) to outlays over the next 10 years. Interest costs associated with greater borrowing would add another $1.0 trillion to deficits over the 2010–2019 period.

The cumulative deficit from 2010 to 2019 under the President’s proposals would total $9.3 trillion, compared with a cumulative deficit of $4.4 trillion projected under the current-law assumptions embodied in CBO’s baseline. Debt held by the public would rise, from 41 percent of GDP in 2008 to 57 percent in 2009 and then to 82 percent of GDP by 2019 (compared with 56 percent of GDP in that year under baseline assumptions).

"I realize there are those who say these plans are too ambitious to enact," Obama said in his weekend address. "To that I say that the challenges we face are too large to ignore. I didn't come here to pass on our problems to the next president or the next generation — I came here to solve them." Isn't creating $9.3 trillion in deficits " passing on our problems"?

So what we have is a situation made exponentially worse by the enacting of Democratic policies of raising taxes and increasing spending. Obama ran on change, and change we have gotten. Change for the worse.

There is enough blame to spread around in terms of our current deficit. I am concerned with our future. I am an unashamed deficit hawk. This is why. Per the CBO:

Because fiscal stimulus boosts aggregate demand through increases in government spending or reductions in taxes, such policies raise budget deficits in the short term. That effect is desirable for fiscal stimulus because it reflects the increased demand being delivered to the economy. Contemporaneous changes elsewhere in the budget-tax increases or cuts in spending-designed to offset those short-term effects on deficits would serve to reduce or eliminate the stimulative effect.

Those higher deficits, however, tend to slow economic growth in the long term if they are allowed to persist, because they tend to reduce capital accumulation and the upward trend in the economy's capacity to produce. Given the large projected shortfall of federal revenues relative to outlays in the medium term and long term, any policy designed to provide short-term fiscal stimulus will have to reckon with long-term consequences. Increases in spending and decreases in taxes that are intended to be temporary may be difficult to reverse later. Moreover, even if taxes and noninterest spending return to their baseline levels, the additional debt service from the period of larger deficits will-unless offset by greater fiscal discipline later-crowd out some amount of future growth.
In addition to their negative long-term effects, policies that substantially worsen the fiscal outlook can have negative short-term effects as well. The nation currently benefits greatly from the fact that investors worldwide tend to flee to U.S. Treasury securities in times of trouble. That tendency provides an important advantage in times of crisis, helping to increase liquidity and decrease interest rates. If investors lost confidence in the government's debt as a safe haven because of deterioration in the long-term fiscal outlook, the U.S. economy would lose that advantage, perhaps permanently.

Big Brother in the Bay State...and Beyond?

"There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized." - 1984, by George Orwell

Living in Massachusetts has always meant seeing the state government take more than its fair share from my wallet. But Governor Deval L. Patrick's latest idea goes beyond liberal tax policy and into the realm of the warning fiction of George Orwell's 1984. Struggling to pay for state transportation projects in an era of recession, Gov. Patrick is considering installing chips in state inspection stickers as a way to charge motorists for miles they drive on state highways. And this experimental, vehicle-tracking chip is evoking fears of "Big Brother," here in the Bay State and beyond.


The idea is that as cars become more fuel efficient revenues from gas taxes will decline. However, the cost of maintaining transportation infrastructure will continue to increase with inflation, requiring new sources of money. So rather than look for areas that the state could in effect tighten its belt, it will instead try to turn all public roads into toll roads. Trips would be measured by a chip installed in a vehicle inspection sticker. And while it is true that the idea is to give drivers a gas tax refund for their mileage to avoid double payments, a student of history should not necessarily take them at their word there. It is not hard to imagine a "sin tax" on gas powered cars which would in effect double tax most drivers. To add insult to injury, while the state is suffering a $1 billion deficit, the Legislature is being asked for $25 million to study the vehicle tracking system and other solutions.

While the idea of tracking chips is new to Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, North Carolina and Idaho are all considering similar plans. And there are real concerns this idea could go national. Last week, President Obama's Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood, promoted the idea of taxing drivers based on vehicle miles traveled as a way to add revenue for the Highway Trust Fund.

In an era when credit card companies monitor all of our purchasing habits, when Google records every page we have every visited, when medical records are being placed online, how long before GPS like tracking devices follow our every move, finding more and more ways to tax and otherwise infringe upon our lives?

"Big Brother Is Watching You." 1984 - George Orwell

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

Is American Exceptionalism Dead?

"The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults."-Alexis de Tocqueville

Alexis de Tocqueville, French political thinker and historian of the 19th century best known for his Democracy in America, felt that the United States held a special place among nations. He said this over 150 years ago when the nation was only 50 years old. This idea gradually took hold and came to be know as American Exceptionalism. This is currently defined as the theory that the United States occupies a special niche among developed nations in terms of its national credo, historical evolution, strong democratic and religious institutions and unique origins. However, recent events have lead me to question whether the concept still resonates in the 21st century. If it does not then perhaps it is time to repair some faults.


"No natural boundary seems to be set to the efforts of man; and what is not yet done is only what he has not yet attempted to do." - Tocqueville

Are we still a nation of unbridled invention? What exactly is our national credo as we enter this new era in American history? What truths do we hold to be central to who we are as Americans? Once upon a time those truths were of Emersonian self reliance, frontier-style entrepreneurialism , and fierce independence. Do these still hold true in a time when we are conforming to societal norms as presented by banal TV sitcoms, regularly looking to the government for not just a hand-up but a hand-out, and seem to be bowing more and more to pressures from the international community when it comes to our foreign policy?


"Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot. How is it possible that society should escape destruction if the moral tie is not strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed? And what can be done with a people who are their own masters if they are not submissive to the Deity?" - Tocqueville

We are still, of course, the world's preeminent democracy, however, our religious character, which stood as the foundation of our society, has been called into question. Just last week the American Religious Identification Survey came out with data that showed since 1990, the percentage of Americans claiming no religion has nearly doubled, growing to 15% last year. America was not founded as a country of any particular religion, however, we have always held that basic religious principles were what held our democracy together. If we go the way of most of the European continent and become essentially non religious will our democracy hold?

Over at The America, Charles Murray has a nice piece on how America must decide exactly what it wants to be in the 21st century.

“The advent of the Obama administration brings this question before the nation: Do we want the United States to be like Europe? President Obama and his leading intellectual heroes are the American equivalent of Europe’s social democrats. There’s nothing sinister about that. They share an intellectually respectable view that Europe’s regulatory and social welfare systems are more progressive than America’s and advocate reforms that would make the American system more like the European system. It is the elites who are increasingly separated from the America over which they have so much influence. That is not the America that Tocqueville saw. It is not an America that can remain America."

What we are faced with today is more than a financial crisis, more than a depressed economy, even more than a bloated federal government. We are faced with a cultural crisis, and if we do not act soon we could see the America of our fathers and grandfathers disappear within our generation.

"When the past no longer illuminates the future, the spirit walks in darkness."- Tocqueville

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes.

Rush, Obama & Honeymoons: Articles of Note

With Rush Limbaugh all over the mainstream news lately, John Derbyshire has an interesting article over at The American Conservative. In How the Radio Wrecks the Right, he makes the case for a new middle-brow conservatism, as opposed to the often low-brow version in evidence on talk radio.

"Did the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Savages, and Ingrahams lead us to this sorry state of affairs?

They surely did. At the very least, by yoking themselves to the clueless George W. Bush and his free-spending administration, they helped create the great debt bubble that has now burst so spectacularly.

Much as their blind loyalty discredited the Right, perhaps the worst effect of Limbaugh et al. has been their draining away of political energy from what might have been a much more worthwhile project: the fostering of a middlebrow conservatism. There is nothing wrong with lowbrow conservatism. It’s energizing and fun. What’s wrong is the impression fixed in the minds of too many Americans that conservatism is always lowbrow, an impression our enemies gleefully reinforce when the opportunity arises. Thus a liberal like E.J. Dionne can write, “The cause of Edmund Burke, Leo Strauss, Robert Nisbet and William F. Buckley Jr. is now in the hands of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity. … Reason has been overwhelmed by propaganda, ideas by slogans.” Talk radio has contributed mightily to this development."

This is an important idea if conservative want to make inroads in the Northeast and on the West Coast. ________________________________________________________________________

A popular item among bloggers and editorial pages alike has been the recent poll numbers showing President Obama's approval rating actually going lower than Bush at the same point in his presidincy. Over at The Washington Post David Broder writes about the apparent end of Obama's honeymoon.

"Two months into his presidency, it is far too soon to make any judgments about Barack Obama's prospects. All we really know is that he has assembled the rudiments of an administration and launched a batch of ambitious but unproven initiatives.

Meantime, on the main challenge -- fixing the economy -- the criticism has begun to infect the mainstream media, as well as the conservative wing. I was struck last week to read heartfelt pleas to Obama from David Ignatius of The Washington Post and David Brooks of The New York Times to get his priorities straight and concentrate on the crucial task of rescuing banking, credit, housing and jobs.

These are people who deeply admire and respect Obama and wish him nothing but success. But, like some thoughtful congressional Democrats with whom I have spoken, they worry that he has bitten off more than he can chew.

_______________________________________________________________________

New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin adds to the sobering opinion of the Obama administration in his article, More Than a Bad Day: Worries grow that Obama & Co. have a competency problem.

"Not long ago, after a string of especially bad days for the Obama administration, a veteran Democratic pol approached me with a pained look on his face and asked, "Do you think they know what they're doing?

The question caught me off guard because the man is a well-known Obama supporter. As we talked, I quickly realized his asking suggested his own considerable doubts

None other than Warren Buffet, an Obama supporter, has called the administration's message on the economy "muddled." Even China says it is worried about its investments in American Treasury bonds. Ouch. "

Conservatives can issue an I-told-you-so, but they have not offered a viable alternative yet either.

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes.

Can We Trust a Blue Dog? Do We Have To?

Democratic Reps. Jim Matheson of Utah and Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona have joined a quiet revolt in the House that could slow some of President Obama's fast-moving priorities.

The two are among 49 Democrats from congressional districts that backed Republican Sen. John McCain 's 2008 presidential race and whose support for the Democratic majority's progressive agenda is increasingly not assured.

A dozen of them were among 20 House Democrats who voted against the $410 billion discretionary fiscal 2009 spending package (HR 1105) on Feb. 25. Another group later forced House leaders to sideline a contentious bill (HR 1106) to allow bankruptcy judges to modify home loans. - By Alan K. Ota, CQ

Is a conservative’s best hope in this new congress actually a Democrat? The recent reemergence of a vocal Blue Dog delegation may just be our best hope of reigning in some of Obama’s and Pelosi’s more grandiose spending plans. Democrats who identify with the Blue Dogs tend to be closer to fiscal conservatives. Many Blue Dogs are strong supporters of gun rights and receive high ratings from the NRA, some have anti-abortion voting records, and some get high ratings from immigration reduction groups. But is this enough? Has it really come to this?

According to The Hill, leaders of the centrist Democratic coalition have expanded their membership up to 56 members. The upward pressure is a result of the Democrat’s success in recruiting conservative Democrats to run in Republican districts. Now many of those conservative members are challenging the extreme left of their party over big spending plans such as the stimulus and the current Omnibus-spending bill. Those who are up for re-election in 2010 may need to vote against the current budget because of voter anger that seems directed at Congress rather than the President.

While normally conservatives would flock to the Republican Party to further their cause, it may actually behoove them to work with some congressional members from the other side for now. The unfortunate reality for the congressional Republicans is that they are virtually powerless to stop legislation. However, the Blue Dogs can exert some pressure on their own party and Pelosi and Obama have to placate them to some degree, if they want them to hold on to those seats.

While conservatives will certainly not agree with everything a Blue Dog Democrat stands for, we can agree on one key issue: fiscal discipline. Blue Dogs have been a thorn in the side of House leadership for their repeated calls to adhere to pay-as-you-go budgetary rules. Even though they have had to give in on occasion, Blue Dogs have commanded attention from Speaker Pelosi. Let's hope that they continue to feel pressure from their conservative-leaning districts giving them impetus to push Obama more to the center.

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

Together We (Apparently) Can't

“I came here to change politics as usual. Because what’s missing from politics as usual is hope. We have been governed for too long by fear and low aim and salesmanship....Together we can!"

Sound familiar? It is Deval Patrick as he ran for Governor of Massachusetts in 2006. The similarities between Gov. Patrick's and President Obama's speeches was well publicized last summer. But the similarities go far beyond simple semantics. And unfortunately those similarities may forecast Obama's downfall.

Both are idealistic African-American leaders. Both have Chicago roots, a Harvard Law degree, and a gift for appealing to both blacks and whites. Both believe that people long for a new dawn of post-partisan, hopeful, and optimistic public leadership. Both staked their fates on grass-roots activism, fund-raising and David Axelrod. Both campaigned on changing the tone in government.

Patrick easily won office in 2006 after dazzling voters with a message of hope and change, using the now familiar "Together We Can" tag-line. However once elected things were not all that inspiring. First he was under siege for spending more than $10,000 on drapes for his State House office and upgrading his state car from a Ford Crown Victoria to a Cadillac. By his third month in office, Mr. Patrick had announced that his wife was being treated for depression, and by his fourth, he had overhauled his staff. Not an great opening act.

A year later he had suffered a demoralizing defeat at the hands of the Democratic-controlled House, which killed his proposal to increase revenues by allowing three casinos in the state, and he and then speaker of the House, Salvatore DiMasi, had taken to trading insults in the newspapers. More recently Patrick has come under fire for his proposed tax hikes, including doubling the state's gas tax making it the highest in the nation, and adding another $2 parking "carbon fee" at Logan Airport as part of his transportation overhaul. The carbon fee would mean that a 20 minute trip to pick up someone at Logan would cost $6 in parking alone, not including tunnel tolls, which have the potential rise to as much as $7 if legislators fail to pass the doubling of the gas tax. All of this as the states unemployment rises to 7.4 % in January.

And now Deval Patrick is the proud owner of a 28% approval rating.

Why rehash the Governor's lack of success? Because with all the similarities between Patrick and Obama one has to wonder if the country is about to see what Massachusetts residents already have. Let's review what we have seen from Patrick's doppelganger, President Obama, so far in his nascent administration as it related to the Governor's early start.

Has Obama gotten in trouble for his redecorating largess, or his penchant for fancier rides? Well, after snubbing England's Prime Minister, he did return the bust of Winston Churchill that has been in the oval office for nearly a decade, adding insult to injury. And as recently as last week at a White House summit meeting on fiscal responsibility, Mr. McCain seized the moment to chide Mr. Obama on cost overruns for a new fleet of presidential helicopters.

"Your helicopter is now going to cost as much as Air Force One," McCain said as he urged the president to make "tough decisions" on spending.

How about Patrick's need to completely overhaul his staff? While it is a little early in the game for Obama to have needed to do that, the constant reshuffling of nominees due to tax problems certainly foreshadows similar problems. However, these are not the real issues that have lead to Patrick's inability to effectively govern. What really matters is that with no real executive or legislative experience he has never been able to deal with the state house to get real reform accomplished. Is a similar problem on the horizon for Patrick fellow political neophyte?

There are already sings of a trying relationship between President Obama and Congress. First there was the stimulus package embarrassment, For a man who campaigned on bipartisanship the Democrat-only stimulus did not play well for the White house. Pelosi's "snubbing" of Republicans as she fast-tracked the stimulus package, according to a Newsweek story last week, denied the president some measure of the bipartisan support he sought. "Pelosi was very publicly undercutting the president," an administration official is quoted as saying. "Obama wants that to stop." Pelosi had in fact maneuvered to fast track the stimulus, cutting short any meaningful debate on the bill and cutting out Republicans. Conservatives felt that the White House lost control of the process when the bill was outsourced to Pelosi.

Next, when Obama said 35,000 to 50,000 U.S. troops might remain in Iraq after most are withdrawn, Pelosi said 50,000 seemed unjustified. Reid called it "a little higher number than I had anticipated."

Ok, how about something both Obama and McCain talked about endlessly during the campaign: earmarks. The White House recently said it will set new rules limiting their use. Reid and Pelosi were not pleased, but the sharpest response came from another team member, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland.

"I don't think the White House has the ability to tell us what to do," he told reporters.

Again, according to Newsweek, some White House aides are saying privately that the president has a Pelosi problem. In some ways, says a senior Obama official, "dealing with Democrats has been tougher than dealing with Republicans." But it is not just the extreme liberal left that is at time at odds with the new administration, even moderate Democrats are having issues. Sens. Bayh and Feingold announced earlier this week they planned to vote in opposition to a proposed $410 billion spending bill. Bayh and Feingold are bothered by pet projects included in the package. Blue Dog Democrats across the country are saying the same.

So far the comparisons between the Gov. of Massachusetts and the new President of the United States seem apt. For the first time this week Mr. Obama's approval rating dropped below 60% resting at 56%. While this is a far cry from Mr. Patrick's 28%, if they continue to travel parallel paths is that a glimpse of the future? There is a reason Hillary won the MA primary over Obama. We have seen this play before, and we don't like how it ends.

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

Charity begins with...Obama?

Most, if not all, of the world's religions promote charity as a very important moral value. Hinduism, Jainism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, and Sikhism place particular emphasis on altruistic morality. Here in the U.S. we have always been known as a charitable country. The United States is “a land of charity,” says Arthur Brooks, an expert on philanthropy and a professor at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School, who sees charitable giving and volunteerism as the signal characteristic of Americans. Total American donations for 2006 amounted to almost $300 billion, and individuals accounted for 75.6% of that. In terms of the percentage of GDP given to charity the U.S. more than doubles the second place country, Britain. The U.S. ranked first at 1.7%, Britain was second with 0.73%, while France gave at only a 0.14% rate. Why is this important? Because according to the Obama administration the government could be doing a better job than we are.

The administration’s proposed budget will cut tax deductions on charitable donations by those earning over $250,000 a year. These donations directly fund programs that feed, clothe, and house the poor, deliver after-school programs to disadvantaged children, build new facilities for colleges and other schools, and generally enrich most citizen’s lives. President Obama is saying that the federal government is better able than private citizens and the charities they endorse to decide how these donation dollars should be distributed.

A study by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University shows that if the provision had been in place in 2006, charities would have lost nearly $4 billion. As incomes plummet and taxes go up, it’s hard to see how limiting the deduction will not have a negative impact on charities. True the government will have more revenue in taxes over the short term to support its many initiatives, such as socializing health care, education and the banking industry. But what will the long-term damage be?

Let’s put aside for the moment the fact that this administration, which had appeared somewhat moderate at its inception, is turning us into a European-style socialist state. Forget for a second that just last week President Obama said he “didn’t believe in bigger government,” and then went on to submit a $3.6 trillion budget. Don’t fret over the fact that the democratically controlled Senate resoundingly defeated a McCain amendment on Tuesday that would have cut 9,000 earmarks worth $7.7 billion from the omnibus-spending bill. It seems clear at this point that the Democrats with Obama at the helm are (in the words of David Brooks) "a party swept up in its own revolutionary fervor — caught up in the self-flattering belief that history has called upon it to solve all problems at once." Put all of that out of your mind for the moment.

There is something even more troubling about all of this. Part of the call and duty of being a member of the human race is to look out for each other. No matter how they say it, all religions and secular philosophies promote altruism, which is simply an extension of the Golden Rule. We are supposed to be charitable; we need to be charitable. If the government takes away the means and opportunity to do so we will be less of a people. It is popular right now in conservative circles to criticize France, and I normally shy from such generalizations, but in this case it is apt. France has a socialist style democracy of the kind President Obama seems to be looking to emulate. What do we see in terms of their charitable giving as a nation: 0.14% of GDP as opposed to our 1.7%. Does this mean the French are fundamentally a less generous people? Maybe, maybe not. What it does say is that they have grown so used to the government jumping in to “save the day” that they have lost their sense of self sufficiency, and more importantly the sense that they are called upon, by the very reality of their own humanity to help their fellow man.

Is this the future we really want?

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

Pro-Family, Pro-Business, Pro-America

Conservatives are feeling pretty dejected lately. After 3 decades of near dominance on the national stage we have been relegated to the wilderness. It's been a generation since we have been here and some are wondering what exactly should be done. Should we be looking for the next savior, the next Reagan? Should we be drafting a new populist platform? Should we purge the party of all those who do not hold an ultra-conservative view? In the meantime we soldier on. The united stimulus felt good for a while, but it did not really do anything lasting for us or the nation. Rush has once again risen to national promise as conservatives flock to any voice that is sympathetic and authoritative. But what we really need to do is to retrench and rethink about what we have traditionally stood for as a party; we need to remember what we stand for, not just stand against. The Republican Party can once again be the major force for change in America, but it will not get there with a personality-driven messiah. Conservatives should work to create a movement that changes the culture from the ground up rather than top down. We can do this with a strong focus on to vital areas in the American pysche. We need to become the party of the family and middle America.

One of the Founding Father's of modern conservatism, Russell Kirk, stated that “the institution most essential to conserve is the family.” Yet we have fallen away from this ideal in the recent past. Since the sixties our common culture has supported things which have helped to break down the family: two-income families, preschool, cradle-to-grave social welfare, a society so mobile that extended families often live hundreds of miles from each other. Conservatives are quick to bemoan the societal ills that the break down of the family leads to. Issues such as drug use, failing educational systems, abortion, youth crime are all common fodder for any right-wing talk radio host. But how many of us really stop to think of the root cause of all this. We, as conservatives, need to conserve that most important of American institutions, the family.

Two ideas come to mind which are concrete and relatively straight forward to implement. First we need our tax system to support the development of strong nuclear families. Tax breaks for families that choose to have one parent stay at home is a good place to start. These families cost society less money as children that come from homes with strong parental involvement generally do better in school and have less childhood health problems. Additionally youth crimes have been shown to occur most often in the 3-6PM range. Exactly when the traditional latch-key kid is on his own without any parental supervision. With all these societal benefits it makes sense to cut these families a financial break as they attempt to get by on a single income. For those who make the ultimate commitment and decide to homeschool their children additional incentives could be offered. This would not effect huge numbers of Americans at first, but it would send the message that Republicans really do put families first.

Another pro-family move would be to support a nationwide movement on the lines of the "Say no to drugs" campaigns of the 1980's. These times of multimedia cultural messages are used by prolife and antidrug organizations all the time. Unfortunately these programs are like cold medicine, they help with the effects but don't really cure the problem. Let's start one that targets the root of the issue instead of the symtoms. A push for family dinner nights, or national unplugged days, could at least be a way to start a national conversation.

The next area conservatives could rally around would be a vigorous support of Main Street over Wall Street. Fiscal conservatism should always stand for free markets and a capitalistic attitude towards business, but that doesn't go far enough. Small business is the real engine of the economy and we need to tell Americans that we know this, and do more than just give it lip service. Small business needs three things to survive and thrive. The first step is obviously creating a tax situation that supports and encourages entrepreneurial behavior. Next, real solutions to health care for its employees, not just penalties and forced inclusion. Lastly, and possibly most intriguing is the need for a well educated workforce. Some educational theorists have posited the idea that the college system needs to radically change. One possibility is moving toward a more certification-based system rather than the traditional degree-based one. It has worked for accounting and technical programs for years. If it was expanded then students could get certified faster at a much lower out of pocket cost. Another idea that would be less radical but no less effective would be to actually cut federal college tuition aid. It has been shown that colleges adjust their costs to such a degree that students require federal aid. This way they have a larger pool of potential "customers." If colleges actually had to provide their services at a reasonable cost instead of the de facto government subsidy rate they have been getting, we would see a much leaner, meaner and affordable college system.

Being a conservative used to stand for something, but over the past generation we seem to have lost our way. I don't agree with Ralph Nader about much, but he is right when he says the two major parties are really not that different anymore. We talk a good game, but too often the results seem the same. We need to retrench; we need to stand for something. Standing for families and middle America is a solid place to start. Let's give people a real choice in the ballot booth.

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes.