Last night I was having dinner with a couple of friends and globalization theory came up. I explained parts of it and went back to find my favorite link that explains it, http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2004/040510_mfe_barnett_1.html. I was saddened to find that it was no longer availableat that link. It is, however, now available at this link: http://www.esquire.com/ESQ0303-MAR_WARPRIMER. To make sure I don't lose it I'm replicating its contents here. All credits to the author, Thomas P. M. Barnett. The article was originally published on 3/1/2003.
The Pentagon's New Map
By Thomas P.M. Barnett
3/1/2003, 12:00 AM
IT EXPLAINS WHY WE'RE GOING TO WAR. AND WHY WE'LL KEEP GOING TO WAR. BY THOMAS P. M. BARNETT, U. S. NAVAL WAR COLLEGE [MAPS BY WILLIAM MCNULTY]
Since the end of the cold war, the United States has been trying to come up with an operating theory of the world--and a military strategy to accompany it. Now there's a leading contender. It involves identifying the problem parts of the world and aggressively shrinking them. Since September 11, 2001, the author, a professor of warfare analysis, has been advising the Office of the Secretary of Defense and giving this briefing continually at the Penta-gon and in the intelligence community. Now he gives it to you.
LET ME TELL YOU why military engagement with Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad is not only necessary and inevitable, but good.
When the United States finally goes to war again in the Persian Gulf, it will not constitute a settling of old scores, or just an enforced disarmament of illegal weapons, or a distraction in the war on terror. Our next war in the Gulf will mark a historical tipping point--the moment when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization.
That is why the public debate about this war has been so important: It forces Americans to come to terms with what I believe is the new security paradigm that shapes this age, namely, Disconnectedness defines danger. Saddam Hussein's outlaw regime is dangerously disconnected from the globalizing world, from its rule sets, its norms, and all the ties that bind countries together in mutually assured dependence.
The problem with most discussion of globalization is that too many experts treat it as a binary outcome: Either it is great and sweeping the planet, or it is horrid and failing humanity everywhere. Neither view really works, because globalization as a historical process is simply too big and too complex for such summary judgments. Instead, this new world must be defined by where globalization has truly taken root and where it has not.
Show me where globalization is thick with network connectivity, financial transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security, and I will show you regions featuring stable governments, rising standards of living, and more deaths by suicide than murder. These parts of the world I call the Functioning Core, or Core. But show me where globalization is thinning or just plain absent, and I will show you regions plagued by politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and--most important--the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global terrorists. These parts of the world I call the Non-Integrating Gap, or Gap.
Globalization's "ozone hole" may have been out of sight and out of mind prior to September 11, 2001, but it has been hard to miss ever since. And measuring the reach of globalization is not an academic exercise to an eighteen-year-old marine sinking tent poles on its far side. So where do we schedule the U. S. military's next round of away games? The pattern that has emerged since the end of the cold war suggests a simple answer: in the Gap.
The reason I support going to war in Iraq is not simply that Saddam is a cutthroat Stalinist willing to kill anyone to stay in power, nor because that regime has clearly supported terrorist networks over the years. The real reason I support a war like this is that the resulting long-term military commitment will finally force America to deal with the entire Gap as a strategic threat environment.
FOR MOST COUNTRIES, accommodating the emerging global rule set of democracy, transparency, and free trade is no mean feat, which is something most Americans find hard to understand. We tend to forget just how hard it has been to keep the United States together all these years, harmonizing our own, competing internal rule sets along the way--through a Civil War, a Great Depression, and the long struggles for racial and sexual equality that continue to this day. As far as most states are concerned, we are quite unrealistic in our expectation that they should adapt themselves quickly to globalization's very American-looking rule set.
But you have to be careful with that Darwinian pessimism, because it is a short jump from apologizing for globalization-as-forced-Americanization to insinuating--along racial or civilization lines--that "those people will simply never be like us." Just ten years ago, most experts were willing to write off poor Russia, declaring Slavs, in effect, genetically unfit for democracy and capitalism. Similar arguments resonated in most China-bashing during the 1990s, and you hear them today in the debates about the feasibility of imposing democracy on a post-Saddam Iraq--a sort of Muslims-are-from-Mars argument.
So how do we distinguish between who is really making it in globalization's Core and who remains trapped in the Gap? And how permanent is this dividing line?
Understanding that the line between the Core and Gap is constantly shifting, let me suggest that the direction of change is more critical than the degree. So, yes, Beijing is still ruled by a "Communist party" whose ideological formula is 30 percent Marxist-Leninist and 70 percent Sopranos, but China just signed on to the World Trade Organization, and over the long run, that is far more important in securing the country's permanent Core status. Why? Because it forces China to harmonize its internal rule set with that of globalization--banking, tariffs, copyright protection, environmental standards. Of course, working to adjust your internal rule sets to globalization's evolving rule set offers no guarantee of success. As Argentina and Brazil have recently found out, following the rules (in Argentina's case, sort of following) does not mean you are panicproof, or bubbleproof, or even recessionproof. Trying to adapt to globalization does not mean bad things will never happen to you. Nor does it mean all your poor will immediately morph into a stable middle class. It just means your standard of living gets better over time.
In sum, it is always possible to fall off this bandwagon called globalization. And when you do, bloodshed will follow. If you are lucky, so will American troops.
SO WHAT PARTS OF THE WORLD can be considered functioning right now? North America, much of South America, the European Union, Putin's Russia, Japan and Asia's emerging economies (most notably China and India), Australia and New Zealand, and South Africa, which accounts for roughly four billion out of a global population of six billion.
Whom does that leave in the Gap? It would be easy to say "everyone else," but I want to offer you more proof than that and, by doing so, argue why I think the Gap is a long-term threat to more than just your pocketbook or conscience.
If we map out U. S. military responses since the end of the cold war (see the following pages), we find an overwhelming concentration of activity in the regions of the world that are excluded from globalization's growing Core--namely the Caribbean Rim, virtually all of Africa, the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Middle East and Southwest Asia, and much of Southeast Asia. That is roughly the remaining two billion of the world's population. Most have demographics skewed very young, and most are labeled "low income" or "low middle income" by the World Bank (i.e., less than $3,000 annual per capita).
If we draw a line around the majority of those military interventions, we have basically mapped the Non-Integrating Gap. Obviously, there are outliers excluded geographically by this simple approach, such as an Israel isolated in the Gap, a North Korea adrift within the Core, or a Philippines straddling the line. But looking at the data, it is hard to deny the essential logic of the picture: If a country is either losing out to globalization or rejecting much of the content flows associated with its advance, there is a far greater chance that the U. S. will end up sending forces at some point. Conversely, if a country is largely functioning within globalization, we tend not to have to send our forces there to restore order or eradicate threats.
Now, that may seem like a tautology--in effect defining any place that has not attracted U. S. military intervention in the last decade or so as "functioning within globalization" (and vice versa). But think about this larger point: Ever since the end of World War II, this country has assumed that the real threats to its security resided in countries of roughly similar size, development, and wealth--in other words, other great powers like ourselves. During the cold war, that other great power was the Soviet Union. When the big Red machine evaporated in the early 1990s, we flirted with concerns about a united Europe, a powerhouse Japan, and--most recently--a rising China.
What was interesting about all those scenarios is the assumption that only an advanced state
can truly threaten us. The rest of the world? Those less-developed parts of the world have long been referred to in military plans as the "Lesser Includeds," meaning that if we built a military capable of handling a great power's military threat, it would always be sufficient for any minor scenarios we might have to engage in the less-advanced world.
That assumption was shattered by September 11. After all, we were not attacked by a nation or even an army but by a group of--in Thomas Friedman's vernacular--Super-Empowered Individuals willing to die for their cause. September 11 triggered a system perturbation that continues to reshape our government (the new Department of Homeland Security), our economy (the de facto security tax we all pay), and even our society (Wave to the camera!). Moreover, it launched the global war on terrorism, the prism through which our government now views every bilateral security relationship we have across the world.
In many ways, the September 11 attacks did the U. S. national-security establishment a huge favor by pulling us back from the abstract planning of future high-tech wars against "near peers" into the here-and-now threats to global order. By doing so, the dividing lines between Core and Gap were highlighted, and, more important, the nature of the threat environment was thrown into stark relief.
Think about it: Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are pure products of the Gap--in effect, its most violent feedback to the Core. They tell us how we are doing in exporting security to these lawless areas (not very well) and which states they would like to take "off line" from globalization and return to some seventh-century definition of the good life (any Gap state with a sizable Muslim population, especially Saudi Arabia).
If you take this message from Osama and combine it with our military-intervention record of the last decade, a simple security rule set emerges: A country's potential to warrant a U. S. military response is inversely related to its globalization connectivity. There is a good reason why Al Qaeda was based first in Sudan and then later in Afghanistan: These are two of the most disconnected countries in the world. Look at the other places U. S. Special Operations Forces have recently zeroed in on: northwestern Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen. We are talking about the ends of the earth as far as globalization is concerned.
But just as important as "getting them where they live" is stopping the ability of these terrorist networks to access the Core via the "seam states" that lie along the Gap's bloody boundaries. It is along this seam that the Core will seek to suppress bad things coming out of the Gap. Which are some of these classic seam states? Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Morocco, Algeria, Greece, Turkey, Pakistan, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia come readily to mind. But the U. S. will not be the only Core state working this issue. For example, Russia has its own war on terrorism in the Caucasus, China is working its western border with more vigor, and Australia was recently energized (or was it cowed?) by the Bali bombing.
If we step back for a minute and consider the broader implications of this new global map, then U. S. national-security strategy would seem to be: 1) Increase the Core's immune-system capabilities for responding to September 11--like system perturbations; 2) Work the seam states to firewall the Core from the Gap's worst exports, such as terror, drugs, and pandemics; and, most important, 3) Shrink the Gap. Notice I did not just say Mind the Gap. The knee-jerk reaction of many Americans to September 11 is to say, "Let's get off our dependency on foreign oil, and then we won't have to deal with those people." The most naïve assumption underlying that dream is that reducing what little connectivity the Gap has with the Core will render it less dangerous to us over the long haul. Turning the Middle East into Central Africa will not build a better world for my kids. We cannot simply will those people away.
The Middle East is the perfect place to start. Diplomacy cannot work in a region where the biggest sources of insecurity lie not between states but within them. What is most wrong about the Middle East is the lack of personal freedom and how that translates into dead-end lives for most of the population--especially for the young. Some states like Qatar and Jordan are ripe for perestroika-like leaps into better political futures, thanks to younger leaders who see the inevitability of such change. Iran is likewise waiting for the right Gorbachev to come along--if he has not already.
What stands in the path of this change? Fear. Fear of tradition unraveling. Fear of the mullahs' disapproval. Fear of being labeled a "bad" or "traitorous" Muslim state. Fear of becoming a target of radical groups and terrorist networks. But most of all, fear of being attacked from all sides for being different--the fear of becoming Israel.
The Middle East has long been a neighborhood of bullies eager to pick on the weak. Israel is still around because it has become--sadly--one of the toughest bullies on the block. The only thing that will change that nasty environment and open the floodgates for change is if some external power steps in and plays Leviathan full-time. Taking down Saddam, the region's bully-in-chief, will force the U. S. into playing that role far more fully than it has over the past several decades, primarily because Iraq is the Yugoslavia of the Middle East--a crossroads of civilizations that has historically required a dictatorship to keep the peace. As baby-sitting jobs go, this one will be a doozy, making our lengthy efforts in postwar Germany and Japan look simple in retrospect.
But it is the right thing to do, and now is the right time to do it, and we are the only country that can. Freedom cannot blossom in the Middle East without security, and security is this country's most influential public-sector export. By that I do not mean arms exports, but basically the attention paid by our military forces to any region's potential for mass violence. We are the only nation on earth capable of exporting security in a sustained fashion, and we have a very good track record of doing it.
Show me a part of the world that is secure in its peace and I will show you strong or growing ties between local militaries and the U. S. military. Show me regions where major war is inconceivable and I will show you permanent U. S. military bases and long-term security alliances. Show me the two strongest investment relationships in the global economy and I will show you two postwar military occupations that remade Europe and Japan following World War II.
This country has successfully exported security to globalization's Old Core (Western Europe, Northeast Asia) for half a century and to its emerging New Core (Developing Asia) for a solid quarter century following our mishandling of Vietnam. But our efforts in the Middle East have been inconsistent--in Africa, almost nonexistent. Until we begin the systematic, long-term export of security to the Gap, it will increasingly export its pain to the Core in the form of terrorism and other instabilities.
Naturally, it will take a whole lot more than the U. S. exporting security to shrink the Gap. Africa, for example, will need far more aid than the Core has offered in the past, and the integration of the Gap will ultimately depend more on private investment than anything the Core's public sector can offer. But it all has to begin with security, because free markets and democracy cannot flourish amid chronic conflict.
Making this effort means reshaping our military establishment to mirror-image the challenge we face. Think about it. Global war is not in the offing, primarily because our huge nuclear stockpile renders such war unthinkable--for anyone. Meanwhile, classic state-on-state wars are becoming fairly rare. So if the United States is in the process of "transforming" its military to meet the threats of tomorrow, what should it end up looking like? In my mind, we fight fire with fire. If we live in a world increasingly populated by Super-Empowered Individuals, we field a military of Super-Empowered Individuals.
This may sound like additional responsibility for an already overburdened military, but that is the wrong way of looking at it, for what we are dealing with here are problems of success--not failure. It is America's continued success in deterring global war and obsolescing state-on-state war that allows us to stick our noses into the far more difficult subnational conflicts and the dangerous transnational actors they spawn. I know most Americans do not want to hear this, but the real battlegrounds in the global war on terrorism are still over there. If gated communities and rent-a-cops were enough, September 11 never would have happened.
History is full of turning points like that terrible day, but no turning-back points. We ignore the Gap's existence at our own peril, because it will not go away until we as a nation respond to the challenge of making globalization truly global.
THE WEST
MAPPING AMERICA'S WAR ON TERRORISM: AN AGGRESSIVE NEW TRATEGY
The maps on these pages show all United States military responses to global crises from 1990 to 2002. Notice that a pattern emerges. Any time American troops show up--be it combat, a battle group pulling up off the coast as a reminder, or a peacekeeping mission--it tends to be in a place that is relatively disconnected from the world, where globalization hasn't taken root because of a repressive regime, abject poverty, or the lack of a robust legal system. It's these places that incubate global terrorism. Draw a line around these military engagements and you've got what I call the Non-Integrating Gap. Everything else is the Functioning Core. The goal of this new strategy is simple: Shrink the Gap. Don't contain it, shrink it.
-- THOMAS P. M. BARNETT
HANDICAPPING THE GAP
My list of real trouble for the world in the 1990s, today, and tomorrow, starting in our own backyard:
1) HAITI Efforts to build a nation in 1990s were disappointing. · We have been going into Haiti for about a century, and we will go back when boat people start flowing in during the next crisis--without fail.
2) COLOMBIA Country is broken into several lawless chunks, with private armies, rebels, narcos, and legit government all working the place over. · Drugs still flow. · Ties between drug cartels and rebels grew over decade, and now we know of links to international terror, too. · We get involved, keep promising more, and keep getting nowhere. Piecemeal, incremental approach is clearly not working.
3) BRAZIL AND ARGENTINA Both on the bubble between the Gap and the Functioning Core. Both played the globalization game to hilt in the nineties and both feel abused now. The danger of falling off the wagon and going self-destructively leftist or rightist is very real. · No military threats to speak of, except against their own democracies (the return of the generals). · South American alliance MERCOSUR tries to carve out its own reality while Washington pushes Free Trade of Americas, but we may have to settle for agreements with Chile or for pulling only Chile into bigger NAFTA. Will Brazil and Argentina force themselves to be left out and then resent it? · Amazon a large ungovernable area for Brazil, plus all that environmental damage continues to pile up. Will the world eventually care enough to step in?
4) FORMER YUGOSLAVIA For most of the past decade, served as shorthand for Europe's inability to get its act together even in its own backyard. · Will be long-term baby-sitting job for the West.
5) CONGO AND RWANDA/BURUNDI Two to three million dead in central Africa from all the fighting across the decade. How much worse can it get before we try to do something, anything? Three million more dead? · Congo is a carrion state--not quite dead or alive, and everyone is feeding off it. · And then there's AIDS.
6) ANGOLA Never really has solved its ongoing civil war (1.5 million dead in past quarter century). · Basically at conflict with self since mid-seventies, when Portuguese "empire" fell. · Life expectancy right now is under forty!
7) SOUTH AFRICA The only functioning Core country in Africa, but it's on the bubble. Lots of concerns that South Africa is a gateway country for terror networks trying to access Core through back door. · Endemic crime is biggest security threat. · And then there's AIDS.
8) ISRAEL-PALESTINE Terror will not abate--there is no next generation in the West Bank that wants anything but more violence. · Wall going up right now will be the Berlin Wall of twenty-first century. Eventually, outside powers will end up providing security to keep the two sides apart (this divorce is going to be very painful). · There is always the chance of somebody (Saddam in desperation?) trying to light up Israel with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and triggering the counterpunch we all fear Israel is capable of.
9) SAUDI ARABIA The let-them-eat-cake mentality of royal mafia will eventually trigger violent instability from within. · Paying terrorists protection money to stay away will likewise eventually fail, so danger will come from outside, too. · Huge young population with little prospects for future, and a ruling elite whose main source of income is a declining long-term asset. And yet the oil will matter to enough of the world far enough into the future that the United States will never let this place really tank, no matter what it takes.
10) IRAQ Question of when and how, not if. · Then there's the huge rehab job. We will have to build a security regime for the whole region.
11) SOMALIA Chronic lack of governance. · Chronic food problems. · Chronic problem of terrorist-network infiltration. · We went in with Marines and Special Forces and left disillusioned--a poor man's Vietnam for the 1990s. Will be hard-pressed not to return.
12) IRAN Counterrevolution has already begun: This time the students want to throw the mullahs out. · Iran wants to be friends with U. S., but resurgence of fundamentalists may be the price we pay
to invade Iraq. · The mullahs support terror, and their push for WMD is real: Does this make them inevitable target once Iraq and North Korea are settled?
13) AFGHANISTAN Lawless, violent place even before the Taliban stepped onstage and started pulling it back toward seventh century (short trip). · Government sold to Al Qaeda for pennies on the dollar. · Big source of narcotics (heroin). · Now U. S. stuck there for long haul, rooting out hardcore terrorists/rebels who've chosen to stay.
14) PAKISTAN There is always the real danger of their having the bomb and using it out of weakness in conflict with India (very close call with December 13, 2001, New Delhi bombing). · Out of fear that Pakistan may fall to radical Muslims, we end up backing hard-line military types we don't really trust. · Clearly infested with Al Qaeda. · Was on its way to being declared a rogue state by U. S. until September 11 forced us to cooperate again. Simply put, Pakistan doesn't seem to control much of its own territory.
15) NORTH KOREA Marching toward WMD. · Bizarre recent behavior of Pyongyang (admitting kidnappings, breaking promises on nukes, shipping weapons to places we disapprove of and getting caught, signing agreements with Japan that seem to signal new era, talking up new economic zone next to China) suggests it is intent (like some mental patient) on provoking crises. · We live in fear of Kim's Götterdämmerung scenario (he is nuts). · Population deteriorating--how much more can they stand? · After Iraq, may be next.
16) INDONESIA Usual fears about breakup and "world's largest Muslim population." · Casualty of Asian economic crisis (really got wiped out). · Hot spot for terror networks, as we have discovered.
New/integrating members of Core I worry may be lost in coming years:
17) CHINA Running lots of races against itself in terms of reducing the unprofitable state-run enterprises while not triggering too much unemployment, plus dealing with all that growth in energy demand and accompanying pollution, plus coming pension crisis as population ages. · New generation of leaders looks suspiciously like unimaginative technocrats--big question if they are up to task. · If none of those macro pressures trigger internal instability, there is always the fear that the Communist party won't go quietly into the night in terms of allowing more political freedoms and that at some point, economic freedom won't be enough for the masses. Right now the CCP is very corrupt and mostly a parasite on the country, but it still calls the big shots in Beijing. · Army seems to be getting more disassociated from society and reality, focusing ever more myopically on countering U. S. threat to their ability to threaten Taiwan, which remains the one flash point that could matter. · And then there's AIDS.
18) RUSSIA Putin has long way to go in his dictatorship of the law; the mafia and robber barons still have too much power. · Chechnya and the near-abroad in general will drag Moscow into violence, but it will be kept within the federation by and large. · U. S. moving into Central Asia is a testy thing--a relationship that can sour if not handled just right. · Russia has so many internal problems (financial weakness, environmental damage, et cetera) and depends too much on energy exports to feel safe (does bringing Iraq back online after invasion kill their golden goose?). · And then there's AIDS.
19) INDIA First, there's always the danger of nuking it out with Pakistan. · Short of that, Kashmir pulls them into conflict with Pak, and that involves U. S. now in way it never did before due to war on terror. · India is microcosm of globalization: the high tech, the massive poverty, the islands of development, the tensions between cultures/civilizations/religions/et cetera. It is too big to succeed, and too big to let fail. · Wants to be big responsible military player in region, wants to be strong friend of U. S., and also wants desperately to catch up with China in development (the self-imposed pressure to succeed is enormous). · And then there's AIDS.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
Presidential Candidate Rundown
MSNBC.com recently reported their idea of the current Republican rankings. I've included them below along with my views on each of the candidates.
1. Rudy Giuliani - I like the guy but I won't vote for him. As a pure leader, he's head and shoulders above any one else running from either party. He's got a messy personal life that sets a bad example for our children though and he and I are very much at odds on some key issues including abortion and FairTax.
2. Mitt Romney - I have no idea who this guy is. His views are constantly changing. Personally he's probably a really great guy but I don't trust him. He's too much of a politician. One thing I really respected about Rudy was in one of the first debates when he was really drilled on abortion, he was upfront about things that he knew wouldn't be very popular with "the base." I don't see this from Romney.
3. Fred Thompson - I like Fred for the most part. He hasn't been in the spotlight quite as long as the others have so we don't know as much about him yet, though. The thing that concerns me is whether or not he wants it. There's a fine line. Romney wants it too much. He seems willing to compromise his beliefs to get votes. This definitely isn't the case with Thompson. I respect this to a degree. I just hope it's not a lack of passion. I want someone who believes very strongly in the vision and direction that they have for the nation. I'm not sure Thompson has that.
4. John McCain - I respect John. I think he's straight talk on most things most of the time but like most politicians he's got that political streak that rears its head from time to time. I can't stand the whole campaign finance reform, though. I also question if wants it a little too much.
4. Mike Huckabee - If I had to vote for president today I'd vote for Huckabee. He's got a great personality for an elected official. He seems to genuinely respect the office and the issues but at the same time he doesn't take himself too seriously. He and I see eye to eye on most issues. He also seems willing to listen to opposing views. He has strong views of his own but he's willing to listen and discuss other viewpoints. I really like the guy but I fear if he doesn't win big in one of the first couple of primaries that he won't have the cash to stay in the race.
6. Ron Paul - This guy is a character. He's in the race for entertainment value. His views are too libertarian some key issues for my taste. I refer to myself as a republicatarian so I agree with some of his issues. Isolationism isn't a valid option, though.
7. Duncan Hunter - From what little I know about Duncan Hunter, I like him. I don't think he has any chance at all of winning and I question his experience. Historically Governors have a better chance at winning the Presidency than do Congressmen.
8. Tom Tancredo - I like his position on immigration by and large. This guy's a one issue candidate. He'll end up bowing out of the race and lending his support to someone who's willing to back a portion of his immigration view. He doesn't have any real shot of winning, though.
1. Rudy Giuliani - I like the guy but I won't vote for him. As a pure leader, he's head and shoulders above any one else running from either party. He's got a messy personal life that sets a bad example for our children though and he and I are very much at odds on some key issues including abortion and FairTax.
2. Mitt Romney - I have no idea who this guy is. His views are constantly changing. Personally he's probably a really great guy but I don't trust him. He's too much of a politician. One thing I really respected about Rudy was in one of the first debates when he was really drilled on abortion, he was upfront about things that he knew wouldn't be very popular with "the base." I don't see this from Romney.
3. Fred Thompson - I like Fred for the most part. He hasn't been in the spotlight quite as long as the others have so we don't know as much about him yet, though. The thing that concerns me is whether or not he wants it. There's a fine line. Romney wants it too much. He seems willing to compromise his beliefs to get votes. This definitely isn't the case with Thompson. I respect this to a degree. I just hope it's not a lack of passion. I want someone who believes very strongly in the vision and direction that they have for the nation. I'm not sure Thompson has that.
4. John McCain - I respect John. I think he's straight talk on most things most of the time but like most politicians he's got that political streak that rears its head from time to time. I can't stand the whole campaign finance reform, though. I also question if wants it a little too much.
4. Mike Huckabee - If I had to vote for president today I'd vote for Huckabee. He's got a great personality for an elected official. He seems to genuinely respect the office and the issues but at the same time he doesn't take himself too seriously. He and I see eye to eye on most issues. He also seems willing to listen to opposing views. He has strong views of his own but he's willing to listen and discuss other viewpoints. I really like the guy but I fear if he doesn't win big in one of the first couple of primaries that he won't have the cash to stay in the race.
6. Ron Paul - This guy is a character. He's in the race for entertainment value. His views are too libertarian some key issues for my taste. I refer to myself as a republicatarian so I agree with some of his issues. Isolationism isn't a valid option, though.
7. Duncan Hunter - From what little I know about Duncan Hunter, I like him. I don't think he has any chance at all of winning and I question his experience. Historically Governors have a better chance at winning the Presidency than do Congressmen.
8. Tom Tancredo - I like his position on immigration by and large. This guy's a one issue candidate. He'll end up bowing out of the race and lending his support to someone who's willing to back a portion of his immigration view. He doesn't have any real shot of winning, though.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Deduct This
The purpose of taxes, as I've said before, is the influence behavior and buy votes. This is just the latest example. This guy (or girl?) wants to deduct $25,000 for a sex change operation. Seriously. The IRS has denied the deduction but the IRS is being sued as a result. The allegation is that it's discriminatory.
On one hand it seems completely ridiculious that you and I could have to pay for this guy's sex change operation. And yes, I said we have to pay. If his taxes are lower then mine are higher. That's because we're helping him pay for the operation. On the other hand I kinda hope he wins. If he wins maybe people will see how silly this whole aspect of allowing taxes to influence behavior is and we can change the system.
FairTax anyone?
On one hand it seems completely ridiculious that you and I could have to pay for this guy's sex change operation. And yes, I said we have to pay. If his taxes are lower then mine are higher. That's because we're helping him pay for the operation. On the other hand I kinda hope he wins. If he wins maybe people will see how silly this whole aspect of allowing taxes to influence behavior is and we can change the system.
FairTax anyone?
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Giuliani Just Lost My Vote
I like Giuliani. I really do. He's got his share of problems, from a messy personal life to views that I don't agree with on abortion and things like that. In my mind a lot of that was offset by the fact that he was such a strong and commanding leader. The man has charisma. He doesn't have my vote, though. The top two priorities in my mind are the security of our nation (read - in no particular order - Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, terrorism, and open borders) and our increasing dependence as a society on government (read welfare, taxation, lack of personal accountability, etc.).
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Life, Liberty, and... a Balanced Checkbook?
I'm sure this story doesn't exactly seem like big news to most. A lot of people may even be in favor of some of these proposed regulations. I think it's a great illustration of how skewed as a society our opinions of the role of government have become.
Red Tape Chronicles stated goal is in part to "unmask government bureaucracy." So what exactly is bureaucracy? Dictionary.com lists several definitions including "government by many bureaus, administrators, and petty officials," "excessive multiplication of, and concentration of power in, administrative bureaus or administrators," and "administration characterized by excessive red tape and routine." Surely RTC doesn't need to unmask the fact that our government is comprised of may bureaus. The goal must be, simply put, to identify areas of the government that have excessive power and red tape. Makes sense to me.
Now with that definition in mind, lets see how Red Tape Chronicles does. The recommend a few things:
1. ATMs should provide a warning screen that in the event you're going to withdraw more than your available balance you are alerted to the impending fee.
2. ATM fees should be classified not as a fee but as a loan. Loans are subject to much more scrunity and additional regulatory reporting requirements.
Now which of these items "unmasks" government beaurocracy? Neither do, obviously. They're both actually proposing increased regulation. It's an attempt to be consumer friendly, to be sure. The thing that struck me is how our perspective has changed. Because these ideas are consumer friendly we immediately equate it to being anti-big government when that couldn't be further from the truth.
Red Tape Chronicles stated goal is in part to "unmask government bureaucracy." So what exactly is bureaucracy? Dictionary.com lists several definitions including "government by many bureaus, administrators, and petty officials," "excessive multiplication of, and concentration of power in, administrative bureaus or administrators," and "administration characterized by excessive red tape and routine." Surely RTC doesn't need to unmask the fact that our government is comprised of may bureaus. The goal must be, simply put, to identify areas of the government that have excessive power and red tape. Makes sense to me.
Now with that definition in mind, lets see how Red Tape Chronicles does. The recommend a few things:
1. ATMs should provide a warning screen that in the event you're going to withdraw more than your available balance you are alerted to the impending fee.
2. ATM fees should be classified not as a fee but as a loan. Loans are subject to much more scrunity and additional regulatory reporting requirements.
Now which of these items "unmasks" government beaurocracy? Neither do, obviously. They're both actually proposing increased regulation. It's an attempt to be consumer friendly, to be sure. The thing that struck me is how our perspective has changed. Because these ideas are consumer friendly we immediately equate it to being anti-big government when that couldn't be further from the truth.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Republican Presidential Debate in South Carolina
I watched a lot of the debate last night and for the few parts I missed, I saw a lot of the clips on the news media that I'm sure made up for it. I decided an interesting exercise would be to go back and answer the questions posed in the debates for myself. These aren't going to be answers meant to provide a sound bite but to actually honestly answer the questions. Here goes...
CW: Senator McCain, you say that you are willing to be the last man standing for U.S. involvement in Iraq. But the Iraqi government has failed to meet one political benchmark after another for political reform. Why should Americans continue to fight and die while Iraqi politicians continue to do so little?
SET: We have to continue to fight and put ourselves at risk because it's in our interests to do so. If we were to quickly withdraw from Iraq it would have a horribly destabilizing effect on both the country and the region. The central area would be overrun with terrorist activity and the current government would be too overwhelmed to be able to handle the problem. The Southern region would immediately be more susceptible to influences from Iran. The Northern region would likely also be destabilized as border struggles with Southern Turkey ensued.
But that's not the whole story. We also have to do a better job of working with the current Iraqi government to help them understand that while it's in our interests to see Iraqi be a successful, stable democracy, it's also in their best interests. We need to effectively communicate that there are other ways of dealing with these problems of immediate withdrawal and we do not intend to allow our soldiers to continue to bleed and die for a people that is unwilling to help itself.
CW: Governor Thompson, in the last debate, you said that you would, quote, "Require the Maliki government to vote on whether or not they want us to continue to stay in Iraq." You said that you would, quote, "Require the 18 provinces to elect governments and that you would split oil revenues."
This is a freely elected government, sir. How can you require them to do anything?
SET: You require them to modify their behavior by attaching conditions on the involvement that we have in the region. They need to understand that in order to continue to have our unequivocal support that they need to step up and be more autonomous and willing to take own their own problems.
That said, I'm not sure that splitting oil revenues is "the" answer. It's certainly an option and something that needs to be evaluated but I'm not sure it's a silver bullet.
CW: Governor Romney, can you foresee any circumstances under which you would pull out of Iraq without leaving behind a stable political and security situation?
SET: There are no good options given the current situation. At the point where an unstable situation in Iraq is the lesser of the evils then that's the decision you make. I think we're currently a long way from there but that certainly doesn't mean we'll never get there. I think we'd likely completely overhaul our tactics before reaching that point.
CW: Senator Brownback, when President Bush announced the troop surge, you opposed it and said that instead you favored the Iraq Study Group, which has a goal of getting all U.S. combat forces out by March of next year. You said that you wanted to find a way for Republicans and Democrats to work together.
Question: Is that any way to fight and win a war, to look for a consensus among the politicians in Washington?
SET: Absolutely not. There's a reason our country was founded with a single Commander in Chief instead of a committee. Often times decisions of this level of gravity will never be unanimous and have to be acted on quickly. That's one of the reasons the Office of the President is of such vital importance.
Fighting a war with more than half the country now insisting that we shouldn't be fighting the war and some insisting that we're losing the war is no way to fight a war either, though. It's because of this that we need to take the time to honestly understand one another's genuine concerns and try to address them as much as possible. This doesn't take a seat to first supporting our troops, though.
CW: Mayor Giuliani, in our interview the other day you said that congressional Republicans who say they must see progress by September are, quote, "fundamentally irresponsible," and that in effect they are giving a timetable for retreat to our enemies.
Is your commitment to winning in Iraq open-ended?
SET: No, it's not. As I said earlier, we have to make sure that the current Iraqi government understands that they have to be as committed to success as we are. That involves clearly stating goals, objectives, rewards, and yes, consequences. Those are things that must be worked through in private between leaders, though. You don't broadcast a deadline such as this and give a potential tactical advantage to your enemy. That doesn't help anyone.
CW: Congressman Tancredo, you are one of those congressional Republicans who talks about disengaging -- the word you use -- from Iraq. You opposed the troop surge. You have talked about November as a timeframe for beginning to pull some of our troops back from the frontlines. Are you in effect giving our enemies a timetable for retreat?
SET: Not at all. As I just stated, we have to outline our plan but that plan exists between the leaders of our governments, not in the media.
CW: Congressman Paul, you're one of six House Republicans who back in 2002 voted against authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq. Now you say we should pull our troops out. A recent poll found that 77 percent of Republicans disapprove of the idea of setting a timetable for withdrawal. Are you running for the nomination of the wrong party?
SET: Supporting the efforts to create a stable democracy in Iraq isn't a party issue. It's a national issue. It's a human kind issue. Building a stable democracy in Iraq, given the current situation, is our best hope of creating a stable ally in the region and being able to safely and quickly bring our troops home.
CW: Congressman Hunter, you talk about standing up the Iraqi military and that at some point soon they may be able to replace some American troops. Now the Bush administration has been saying this, the same thing for basically four -- more than four years, and we now have as many troops in Iraq, U.S. troops in Iraq, as we did when we invaded the country.
Why should we believe that this replacement is going to start happening any time soon?
SET: I think we've allowed a lot of the problems within the Iraqi government itself to slow the training and deployment of their troops. If we communicate effectively with the Iraqi government and bring them to an understanding that our commitment to them is strong and unwavering but will not be so in the absence of an equal commitment on their part then I think we can cut through a lot of the red tape that's continually hindered this process.
CW: Governor Huckabee, you said in the last debate that President Bush made a mistake listening too much to civilians in suits and silk ties and not enough to the generals with mud and blood on their boots, especially when it came to how many troops were needed to stabilize the situation in Iraq.
If the generals were to come to you as president and say, we don't have enough troops there; we need, let's say, 300,000, would you be open to significantly increasing our presence in Iraq?
SET: I don't think anyone has any reason to believe this is what the military leadership is indicating but if that was the consensus of the boots on the ground that deploying 300,000 soldiers to Iraq would ensure stability while we trained an Iraqi army so that we could bring all of our soldiers home permanently then I wouldn't hesitate to do that at all.
CW: Governor Gilmore, we have an internet question for you from Harry from Boston, who says, we should look ahead to the threat from Iran. He asked, quote, "What would you do to resolve this nuclear issue? And will you launch a pre-emptive strike if they were close to achieving a weapon?"
SET: Foreign involvement should almost always be our last option but sometimes it is necessary. While I think we should look at what we can do to limit the ability of Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, including a pre-emptive strike if necessary, I think we should also look at how we respond to the inevitable situation where a rogue state or terrorist group has acquired a nuclear weapon. If not Iran in the near future then Iran in the longer term. If not Iran in the longer term then another country. How will we respond once someone has them? We need to be evaluating missile defense options, new technologies for detecting a nuclear weapon being smuggled into the US, and other things of this nature.
WG: Gentlemen, we have a series of questions on the economy, the budget, taxes and entitlements. And I have one for each of you, starting with you, Governor Romney.
Your critics have called you "flip-flop Mitt" for, among other things, your decision to take the "no new taxes" pledge this year after refusing to do so in 2002. Tell me why your decision to take the pledge shouldn't be seen as a blatant appeal to the party base, sir?
SET: I would have taken the "no new taxes" pledge in 2002. Furthermore, it's not enough just to pledge no new taxes. We need to be pledging no more of the current tax structure. That's my pledge today. The current tax structure and corresponding spending structure in Washington is broken. I think the IRS needs to be done away with and replaced with a small bureau that handles the administration of something similar to a FairTax program. I also think that any new spending proposal from Congress needs to include the section of the Constitution whereby we as the government derive the power to take people's money for such a cause.
WG: Senator McCain, you opposed President Bush's 2001 tax cuts. Now you say you were wrong. How can you convince Republican voters you will push a Democratic Congress hard enough to make those tax cuts permanent, sir?
SET: I just gave two examples of things that need to happen. Taxes under the current structure happen almost solely for two reasons: to influence behavior and to buy votes. A new tax system would help to change this mindset. It would get politicians back to thinking about what's in the nation's best interest rather than what's in their reelection campaign's best interest.
WG: Governor Huckabee, the alternative minimum tax caught 4 million people this year; it'll get 23 million next year unless Congress acts. How would you eliminate the tax without raising the budget deficit, sir?
SET: I don't mean to be redundant, but FairTax. FairTax would remove the AMT as well as all other forms of personal income tax as well as corporate income taxes. It shifts the tax burden away from earning and onto consumption. That's something that can also hopefully help families get the problem with debt that we have in our society under control. That in turn will encourage a greater degree of personal responsibility. There really is no downside to the FairTax system unless you're a politician, accountant, tax attorney, or lobbyist.
WG: Mayor Giuliani, you get the credit for killing the line-item veto. You fought and won when it pinched New York. And yet in your administration, spending for the city rose even before 9/11, after which it soared. Show me where you exercise fiscal discipline, sir.
SET: Fiscal discipline isn't easy to come by given the current system. That's why we don't need another patch: we need an overhaul. Implementing FairTax where people are actually able to see and understand the taxes that they're paying will force a degree of responsibility in Washington because people will finally see how much we cost them. Having any bill before Congress include the section of the Constitution whereby the authority is authorized will also help rein in spending. We are currently involved in a lot of activates that are not the role of the government.
WG: Senator Brownback, gasoline prices headed north again. Should Americans resign themselves to living with $3.50, $4, $5 a gallon gasoline? [And if not] how would you prevent that, sir?
SET: I believe in a free market economy. In a free market, supply and demand determine the prices of goods and services, not a politician or government. I'll let the market decide what the price of gasoline should be but speaking for my pocketbook, I hope it's a whole lot cheaper than that.
I think it can be cheaper than that. I think we have to continue to look at ways to increase supply. Increasing supply is increasing the capacity of our refineries and looking at additional sources both at home and abroad.
I think we also need to look at how to decrease demand because our current level of demand makes us very vulnerable to some countries that I'd rather we had no dependency on. We can decrease our demand by continuing to research and making strategic investments in alternative approaches. I think these would include hybrids, bio fuels, and alternative engines including hydrogen, etc.
I think there are enough people concerned about this problem whether it's from an environmental standpoint, an economic standpoint, a security standpoint, or a combination thereof that we can fix this problem. With all that we've accomplished from putting a man on the moon to putting a pda / phone / mp3 player in my pocket, I'm confident that we can fix this problem as well with the proper focus and attention.
WG: Governor Thompson, Brian from Fort Wayne asks this question via the internet, a question about controlling government spending. Some of your critics say you lack fiscal discipline. Tell me three federal programs you consider wasteful and would eliminate.
SET: I've already named one, the IRS. I would also look at seriously overhauling or eliminating the TSA, FCC, FAA, and Department of Education, just to name a few.
WG: Governor Gilmore, in the next president's term, baby boomers will retire, the costs of Social Security and Medicare will soar, sir. Tell me whether you'd be willing to reduce benefits even for wealthy Americans in order to avoid raising payroll taxes?
SET: I wouldn't look at reducing benefits on wealthy Americans, I'd look are eliminating benefits for everyone. I know that sounds drastic, and it is but the current system is broken. We need to re-educate everyone the role of the government. The role of government is not to fund your retirement. The role of government is to make our nation safe, to enforce our laws, and create an environment where you're able to happily plan and prepare for your own retirement.
WG: Congressman Hunter, virtually all U.S. exporters want access to China's huge market. You have said that you would deal with the enormous trade deficit this country has with that country. Tell me how you'd do it and how fast.
SET: I believe in free trade. That doesn't mean I don't support American jobs, though. Just like I believe in free market within the US, I believe in a free world market. Other markets should welcome our goods and if they do so then we should do the same for theirs. If another factory within the US or a factory outside of the US can produce the same quality product as I can at the same price then I need to get in another line of work. Either my product should be superior from a quality standpoint or I need to be looking to improve and expand my skills. Removing the tax burden that our companies have when competing with companies overseas is a huge way to get a leg up on them and ensure the dominance of the American workforce. We have the brightest, best, and most productive workforce that the world has ever seen. Now let’s remove the tax barriers that are holding them back and force other countries to open their doors to our products.
WG: Congressman Tancredo, there's a lot of talk about the budget deficit and reducing that. But interest on the national debt is $400 billion. That's almost as much as the Defense budget. Do you consider that a problem? Would you reduce it, and how fast?
SET: It's a huge problem. It's just another thing that creates a dependency that we have on other nations that I'd rather us not have. If we can rein in spending by looking at the inefficiencies that we have within our government and also overhaul the income tax system then we can quickly generate the revenues necessary to start making a dent in our national debt.
CW: Governor Gilmore, on the campaign trail you like to say that "Rudy McRomney" is not a conservative and he knows he's not a conservative. With them standing here on the stage with you, you would tell us specifically why Mayor Giuliani, Senator McCain and Governor Romney are not conservatives?
SET: Each of them has aspects of their policy beliefs that don't line up with mine. Whether or not they're conservative or not I'll leave for you to decide. I'll let them tell you about their vision and I'll stick to telling you about mine. In the end, you can decide which vision you'd rather see for this great nation.
CW: Mayor Giuliani, let's start with you. You're pro-choice, you're pro-gay rights, you're pro-gun control; you supported Mario Cuomo for governor over a Republican. Are those the stands of a conservative?
SET: I'm not pro-choice. I believe very strongly in the sanctity of life. I think we should do everything we can to preserve life no matter how fragile or unwanted the life may be by others. The life is important to God and it's therefore important to me. Abortion should only be allowed in the case of jeopardy to the mother's life.
I believe in marriage between one man and one woman. I also believe that as long as my choices don't harm others the government should stay out of it. The same is true of choices regarding sexual orientation. If me living and calling myself "married" to two women, another man, a plant, or anything else doesn't harm anyone else then the government should stay out of it.
I'm not pro-gun control. I'm pro the Second Amendment. I'm pro the Constitution as a whole and I didn't support Mario Cuomo.
CW: Senator McCain, although Governor Gilmore did not single you out, except by name, I'd like to ask you, because you have a record that people challenge about your conservatism. You've cosponsored campaign finance reform with Senator Feingold. You've cosponsored comprehensive immigration reform with Ted Kennedy. You opposed, as Wendell mentioned, not only the Bush tax cut of 2001 but also the Bush tax cut of 2003. You voted against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage but for expanded funding -- for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
But you say that your record is clear, consistent and conservative. How do you square that with the positions and the votes that I just mentioned, sir?
SET: I'm against the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. I understand that they'd like to do something about all the money that it takes to run a campaign but limiting free speech is not the appropriate way to handle it.
Likewise I'm against the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill. While we need to be pragmatic as opposed to idealistic in dealing with the immigration problem that we have on our hands, there are better ways to deal with it. We have to be tougher on the people who have broken our laws to get into our country.
I support tax cuts but more importantly, as I've outlined, I support tax reform.
I don't believe it's the role of the government to recognize marriage at all other than to recognize legal implications of inheritance and such and that should be able to be done regardless of whether someone is married or not.
I'm against federally funded stem cell research for a couple of different reasons. It's not the role of government to fund research for one. This is a good opportunity to rein in spending. Secondly, I think a lot of people have problems with destroying what some people believe is a human life for the purposes of research. I personally believe that life begins at conception and believe we should not experiment with human life. I think the research opportunities are great though and we should look at other opportunities, specifically research on cord blood which has shown to have even more potential than stem cells.
CW: Governor Huckabee, you got slammed for raising taxes. How do you respond, sir?
SET: I haven't raised taxes and wouldn't. FairTax should not be a tax increase but should initially be tax neutral. As we rein in spending we can use the additional revenues to pay down our national debt and then scale back the FairTax rate.
CW: Governor Romney, in 1994 you said you were a stronger advocate of gay rights than Ted Kennedy. As recently as five years ago you still supported a woman's right to choose. And as governor you signed into law one of the toughest restrictions on assault weapons in the country. Are you a clear and consistent conservative?
SET: I think I've made my positions on those issues very clear and historically my positions have been extremely consistent.
CW: Senator Brownback, you weren't mentioned by Governor Gilmore, but I'm going to ask you a question anyway.
You say that you're a full-scale Ronald Reagan Republican, and yet, as you mentioned, you opposed the troop surge and you support comprehensive immigration reform. Are those the stands that Ronald Reagan would take?
SET: I'm not concerned with whether my beliefs are things that Ronald Reagan would support or not. My goal isn't to be the next Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a great leader but I'm only aspiring to be the best leader that I can be. I've tried to articulate my beliefs and more importantly the reason for those beliefs. I think that's one of the things that made Reagan so great, not because his positions were always right or he never made mistakes, but because he was always willing to explain to people exactly why he made the decisions that he did. I've tried to do the same thing.
WG: Gentlemen, the right-to-life has been a part of the Republican party platform for more than 20 years, so I want to ask several of you questions about abortion and stem cell research, starting with you, Governor Thompson.
Some researchers say the lines of embryonic stem cells that President Bush has approved federal funding for are inadequate. Tell me why they're wrong. And more importantly, tell me how you would convince them that they have -- these researchers have all the tools they need.
SET: As I said earlier, I oppose the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research for a couple of different reasons. The research that I'm familiar with says that cord blood holds far more potential than embryonic stem cells and avoid the questions of morality that surround the issue.
WG: Mayor Giuliani, I think you expect your stance on a woman's right to choose to attract a lot of attention in this setting, sir. You have said that you personally hate abortion but support a woman's right to choose. Governor Huckabee says that's like saying, "I hate slavery, but people can go ahead and practice it." Tell me why he's wrong.
SET: Like slavery, I think abortion is an issue of rights. When people finally realized that slaves were also people and had rights as people then people quickly opposed slavery. Abortion is the same way. As we learn more and more about the human body and the development of a fetus we realize that they develop far more quickly than we ever thought they did. As we come to the realization that life begins at conception, or if not at conception, then certainly at some point within the first trimester then we realize that the baby has the same rights that we do. As we grow to understand and appreciate the rights of that baby, then people will also quickly grow to oppose abortion.
WG: Senator Brownback, no one thinks abortion should be available casually, but there are often very, very difficult decisions to be made in this case. Tell me, since you've opposed abortion in every instance except to save the life of the mother, how you would explain to a rape victim, who does not believe that life begins at conception, why her trauma should be compounded by carrying the child to term.
SET: Some people do believe that abortion should be available casually. If you believe that the fetus is not a life, why shouldn't it be? How is it any different than killing an unwanted ant colony invading your back yard? If it's not a life then it has no more rights than those ants do.
But my point from earlier was that it is a life and it does have rights whether the mother in this terrible situation believes that the baby has rights or not. Earlier you compared abortion and slavery. When slavery was outlawed there were some that did not believe slaves were people and had rights as such. It was the responsibility of the government and responsible citizens to convince those who did not believe. We who believe that life begins at conception have that same responsibility now.
I can't begin to understand the trauma that this poor woman must face in this situation but as a baby with rights, creating two victims by killing the baby doesn't make the situation any better. There are plenty of crimes where a father is killed or a mother is killed and a child is left without a parent. The child needlessly suffers in these situations. The crime is compounded by the suffering of others. We should refuse to let the same thing needlessly happen in a case of rape when a woman becomes pregnant. We shouldn't let an innocent baby suffer and be killed because a monster did a terrible thing to a woman.
WG: Governor Romney, I want to give you another difficult abortion situation. You've explained that you once were pro-choice because a relative died after she underwent an illegal abortion. Tell me what you would say to someone else who lost a wife or a daughter to an illegal abortion, if you named the Supreme Court justice who tipped the balance and over turned Roe v. Wade.
SET: That would be a very difficult conversation but the Office of President is full of difficult decisions and difficult conversations. I'd tell the person that I'm sorry for their loss, that my heart goes out to them. Regardless of how someone loses a child it's never an easy thing to deal with. Outside of that, I've made my beliefs as clear as I believe I possibly can on why I'm opposed to abortion. If they disagree with that then that's their right. The prospect of having to deal with a difficult situation isn't going to make me change my beliefs from what I think is right, though.
CW: Gentlemen, I have a series of questions on immigration, and let me begin with you, Congressman Tancredo.
You have made the fight against illegal immigration the centerpiece of your campaign. I hope you will be as specific as Governor Gilmore was earlier. Do you think that Senator McCain and Mayor Giuliani and Governor Romney are soft on immigration, and if so, why?
SET: Again, I'll let them lay out their visions and I'll lay out mine. I think the first step to immigration reform is to secure our borders. I think the second step of any comprehensive plan is to identify the people that are here illegally. This should be done as part of a window of opportunity from a few months to a year. Those that come forward and are identified should be routed through some sort of a process whereby they can be made legal. This should include a very stiff penalty for breaking our laws. Those that do not come forward and are later found should be immediately deported and if we do a good job of securing our borders should not be able to reenter the country later. Furthermore, they should be barred from ever legally immigrating to our country.
CW: Governor Romney, you have also called Senator McCain's immigration plan amnesty. Are you prepared to say that sharing the stage with him tonight? And how do you explain your statement to the Lowell Sun last year in which you said, quote, "Those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process toward application for citizenship as they would from their home country." Why isn't that amnesty as well, sir?
SET: Amnesty means that there is no penalty for the offense. I think people who have broken the laws of the US have to pay for their offenses. You have to balance that with the fact that we have many people already in our country and signing a bill into law doesn't suddenly remove them all. They don't disappear once an immigration reform bill is passed and signed. People currently here in our country illegally need to have a way to obtain citizenship just like someone from their home country would. They don't need to have special treatment but they need to be penalized. Part of that penalty should include a heavy fine.
CW: Mayor Giuliani, when you were running New York, you said the following about illegal immigrants: "If you come here, and you work hard, and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city." If that was good enough for New York, why isn't it good enough for the country, sir?
SET: We can always use more hardworking people in this country. But you have to come to the country through the legal process.
CW: Congressman Hunter, we have an internet question for you, sir, from Scott in Colorado Springs. He asked, what would you do to prevent foreign nationals who have entered our country illegally from using social services such as medical, low-income housing and education?
SET: It's not just people who come to our country illegally, it's anyone. We need to be promoting a culture of independence and self reliance. Social services should exist primarily, not as a function of the government but as a function of the people and churches of our nation.
WG: Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as -- almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?
SET: As I've said, I don't support immediate withdrawal but I think the issue of Iraq is a tough one to deal with a seldom do two people see exactly eye to eye on the issue. That's true among people in my party and between people of different parties.
As for why I'm seeking the nomination, it's because I'm not satisfied with the vision that any of the other candidates have for our nation. I think I represent a clear and consistent, tested and tried attitude of smaller government, lower and more streamlined taxes, and personal responsibility.
WG: I think I want to turn to Senator McCain and change the subject, if I will. I don't think we're going to solve this tonight, gentlemen.
An Internet question for you, Senator. Royce from Philadelphia asks if South Carolina should be free to fly the Confederate flag from state buildings.
SET: As a Republic, the US is a collection of sovereign states. The states are free to decide what they want to fly over the capitol building. I understand that the symbol is offense to some people and I understand why. I think that the reasons people oppose the flag, the message of hatred that it represents to them, that message of hatred is repugnant. I don't want to be around people that talk like that and view other people in that light. It's repugnant speech just like this that the First Amendment is designed to protect, though.
WG: Governor Huckabee, when you became governor of Arkansas, you wrote convicted rapist Wayne Dumond, told him, my desire is that you be released from prison. The parole board released him in 1999. The next year, he killed a woman in Missouri. Do you bear any responsibility for his release, sir?
SET: If this had been me then yes, I would feel that I have some responsibility in this situation. Hindsight is 20/20 and foresight is generally far poorer. As I said earlier, the Office of the President is not for one with a weak stomach or an inability to make difficult decision. This was a very difficult decision that I made and in the end, I'm sorry for that decision. It was the wrong decision and I wish I would have done things differently.
WG: Congressman Tancredo, the ambassador from the European Union says the United States and Europe bear a special responsibility for global warming because the greenhouse gases causing the problem have been put there since the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s. We put most of the stuff up there. Do you agree? And what should we do to deal with the problem, sir?
SET: The first thing we need to do to deal with the problem is understand the problem. The media makes it sound as if global warming, and when I say global warming I'm talking about manmade global warming, is a foregone conclusion. In reality, there's a lot of disagreement among scientists. Regardless of who put the emissions in the air, we all need to try to get them out of the sky and repair any damage that may have been done. Open lines of communication and trying to understand different opinions is the first step to being able to do that.
BH: First question to you, Senator McCain. How aggressively would you interrogate those being held at Guantanamo Bay for information about where the next attack might be?
SET: I think for those people that we believe may likely hold such information we need to be aggressive in our questioning. The thing I think you're trying to get at is would I support the torture of those individuals, and I would not.
BH: Mayor Giuliani, the former director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, the current head of the CIA have both said that the most valuable intelligence tool they have had has been the information gained from what are called enhanced interrogation techniques to include, presumably, water-boarding.
What is your view whether such techniques should be applied in a scenario like the one I described?
SET: I think, specifically water-boarding, is a controversial enough technique that it shouldn't be broadly applied. If however we have information that a specific person is withholding valuable information then it may be an appropriate response depending on how critical we believe the information they hold is to us. The technique itself is something that should be further examined and question to ensure that it's not considered torture. Experts currently disagree on this.
BH: Governor Thompson, let me enrich the scenario just a little bit. Let's assume for the sake of discussion here that we now also have additional intelligence that indicates with high certainty that the attackers were trained in a West African country hostile to the United States, in camps openly run by the terrorist organization that sent them. What kind of response would you agree to for that?
SET: I don't think my response would differ. We need to be sensitive not to offend but first and foremost we need to protect our interests.
BH: Senator Brownback, if the decision were up to you, would you do that? And if so, would you decide to go to the United Nations, for example, first to seek some kind of international authorization to do it or would you just move in the way that Governor Thompson described?
SET: I think, as I described earlier, that there needs to be some sort of international consensus on what methods are considered acceptable. If we were in need of information from an individual in order to defend our nation and her people I wouldn't wait for an authorization from the UN or anyone else, though.
BH: I'm going to come to the others in a moment, but I want to circle back to you, Senator McCain. You've heard reference here from me and others of the -- what the administration calls the enhanced interrogation techniques. I may have misunderstood you, but it sounded to me as if you regard those techniques, or from what you know about them, as torture. Do you?
SET: As I've said earlier, I think we need to clarify how we regard these techniques. If I regard them as torture then I do not have them to use as weapons to gather information but other countries don't share that belief then they have an advantage over us. Conversely if we don't consider them torture and use them but other countries do consider them torture then we really risk offending these other nations and upsetting the relationships that we have with them. There needs to be some clarification and consensus.
BH: This kind of attack would pose immediate and obvious problems for the U.S. economy -- they've hit shopping centers. What kind of measures would you take, Governor Gilmore, to assure that the U.S. economy continued to grow in the face of an attack of this kind?
SET: The best way to build a robust economy in the face of potential terrorist attacks, inflation, trade deficits, and everything else we face is to remove as much of the tax burden and liability as you can.
BH: Governor Huckabee, there might be a need for economic policies to change. What policies would you propose?
SET: Policies wouldn't need to change so much in the event of some sort of an attack if our policies were right before the attack. Getting our policies right now will help us better deal with all of the what ifs down the road.
BH: Congressman Paul, one last question for you on this. The president believed after 9/11 that the tax cuts that he had put in place were helpful in softening the economic downturn that occurred, and allowing the United States economy to rise out of it. Would you propose -- what economic policies would you propose under this scenario to avert or soften a recession?
SET: Again, I think if the policies were right in the first place then there'd be much less need for change under any circumstances, terrorist attack or otherwise. I do think things need to change and I feel like I've laid out a very clear vision for that change.
CW: Governor Gilmore, let me start with you. It's been suggested that the 10 of you could all be members of the same country club. What does it say about the Republican Party? And you used to be the chairman of this party and tried to build the tent, to build the base; what does it say that there is no woman, no Hispanic, no African- American, no minority in this field of presidential candidates?
SET: It says they're smart enough to avoid the pressure and scrutiny of a Presidential campaign! I think too often we focus - and this is people in general, not just Republicans - too often we focus on the things that divide us rather than the things that unite us. Even here in these questions, these questions are focused on the differences not the common vision that we can collectively lay out for our nation. We tend to be more pessimistic rather than optimistic. It leads to ugly, negative campaigns and takes the emphasis off the message. There are a number of prominent minorities that share the vision of the Republican party and could easily be here on this stage today from Colin Powell to JC Watts to Alan Keyes to George P. Bush to Condi Rice and many, many others. We do need to do a better job of making sure everyone knows that as long as they share the common vision for the Republican party, smaller government and more personal responsibility then they're welcome under our tent, not just to run as a candidate but also in the polling place.
CW: Governor Romney, during this campaign, you have been criticized -- and again tonight you've been criticized -- for changing your position on some issues. You say that it's a part of learning from experience. Can you point to an area in which your learning from experience led you to change to a position that is less popular with the Republican base?
SET: My positions haven't changed. As to where my positions differ from the Republican base, there are several, probably most notably on the war on drugs. Going back to what I said earlier about smaller government and allowing the decisions that don't affect other people to be my own personal decisions, I believe drug use should be legalized. It doesn't mean people should be able to do it while driving or anything like that so that there a risk to other people. And to make sure I'm not misunderstood, I'm not pro drugs. I've never used drugs. Never. I never will. I've seen within my own family how destructive drug use can be. But I've also seen how ineffective the current war on drugs is at combating the availability of drugs if that's the decision we want to make. We'd be far better off as a society trying to focus on educating people about the ills of drug use and take drugs off the street because people no longer want to use them rather than looking for drugs.
You'd also undercut the entire drug market with legalization. If I am a user and I need a fix, if I can buy pot at the pharmacy with a photo id the way I could alcohol or tobacco then I'm much, much less likely to take a handgun and harm someone else or steal from someone else in order to get the money I need to buy a product that's marked up sometimes thousands of times its value because people are putting themselves in danger to put it on the street. Legalize it and you remove the criminal aspect and part of the rebellious appeal for it. That's the only effective way to combat it.
WG: Congressman Hunter, many people feel that billions of dollars in American debt that China holds is a problem. If the Chinese decide to convert those dollars to Euros, the value of the dollar drops. Do you see that as a security threat, and what would you do about it?
SET: If we right our tax system and free the American people from that burden then we'll be better able to pay off our national debt whether it's the debt held by China or anyone else. As you pointed out earlier, we pay nearly $400 billion a year in interest alone. Once the national debt is paid off then that's yet another huge savings that allows us to reduce taxes even more and return more of the people's money to their pockets.
CW: Chris Wallace
WG: Wendell Goler
BH: Brit Hume
SET: Me!
CW: Senator McCain, you say that you are willing to be the last man standing for U.S. involvement in Iraq. But the Iraqi government has failed to meet one political benchmark after another for political reform. Why should Americans continue to fight and die while Iraqi politicians continue to do so little?
SET: We have to continue to fight and put ourselves at risk because it's in our interests to do so. If we were to quickly withdraw from Iraq it would have a horribly destabilizing effect on both the country and the region. The central area would be overrun with terrorist activity and the current government would be too overwhelmed to be able to handle the problem. The Southern region would immediately be more susceptible to influences from Iran. The Northern region would likely also be destabilized as border struggles with Southern Turkey ensued.
But that's not the whole story. We also have to do a better job of working with the current Iraqi government to help them understand that while it's in our interests to see Iraqi be a successful, stable democracy, it's also in their best interests. We need to effectively communicate that there are other ways of dealing with these problems of immediate withdrawal and we do not intend to allow our soldiers to continue to bleed and die for a people that is unwilling to help itself.
CW: Governor Thompson, in the last debate, you said that you would, quote, "Require the Maliki government to vote on whether or not they want us to continue to stay in Iraq." You said that you would, quote, "Require the 18 provinces to elect governments and that you would split oil revenues."
This is a freely elected government, sir. How can you require them to do anything?
SET: You require them to modify their behavior by attaching conditions on the involvement that we have in the region. They need to understand that in order to continue to have our unequivocal support that they need to step up and be more autonomous and willing to take own their own problems.
That said, I'm not sure that splitting oil revenues is "the" answer. It's certainly an option and something that needs to be evaluated but I'm not sure it's a silver bullet.
CW: Governor Romney, can you foresee any circumstances under which you would pull out of Iraq without leaving behind a stable political and security situation?
SET: There are no good options given the current situation. At the point where an unstable situation in Iraq is the lesser of the evils then that's the decision you make. I think we're currently a long way from there but that certainly doesn't mean we'll never get there. I think we'd likely completely overhaul our tactics before reaching that point.
CW: Senator Brownback, when President Bush announced the troop surge, you opposed it and said that instead you favored the Iraq Study Group, which has a goal of getting all U.S. combat forces out by March of next year. You said that you wanted to find a way for Republicans and Democrats to work together.
Question: Is that any way to fight and win a war, to look for a consensus among the politicians in Washington?
SET: Absolutely not. There's a reason our country was founded with a single Commander in Chief instead of a committee. Often times decisions of this level of gravity will never be unanimous and have to be acted on quickly. That's one of the reasons the Office of the President is of such vital importance.
Fighting a war with more than half the country now insisting that we shouldn't be fighting the war and some insisting that we're losing the war is no way to fight a war either, though. It's because of this that we need to take the time to honestly understand one another's genuine concerns and try to address them as much as possible. This doesn't take a seat to first supporting our troops, though.
CW: Mayor Giuliani, in our interview the other day you said that congressional Republicans who say they must see progress by September are, quote, "fundamentally irresponsible," and that in effect they are giving a timetable for retreat to our enemies.
Is your commitment to winning in Iraq open-ended?
SET: No, it's not. As I said earlier, we have to make sure that the current Iraqi government understands that they have to be as committed to success as we are. That involves clearly stating goals, objectives, rewards, and yes, consequences. Those are things that must be worked through in private between leaders, though. You don't broadcast a deadline such as this and give a potential tactical advantage to your enemy. That doesn't help anyone.
CW: Congressman Tancredo, you are one of those congressional Republicans who talks about disengaging -- the word you use -- from Iraq. You opposed the troop surge. You have talked about November as a timeframe for beginning to pull some of our troops back from the frontlines. Are you in effect giving our enemies a timetable for retreat?
SET: Not at all. As I just stated, we have to outline our plan but that plan exists between the leaders of our governments, not in the media.
CW: Congressman Paul, you're one of six House Republicans who back in 2002 voted against authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq. Now you say we should pull our troops out. A recent poll found that 77 percent of Republicans disapprove of the idea of setting a timetable for withdrawal. Are you running for the nomination of the wrong party?
SET: Supporting the efforts to create a stable democracy in Iraq isn't a party issue. It's a national issue. It's a human kind issue. Building a stable democracy in Iraq, given the current situation, is our best hope of creating a stable ally in the region and being able to safely and quickly bring our troops home.
CW: Congressman Hunter, you talk about standing up the Iraqi military and that at some point soon they may be able to replace some American troops. Now the Bush administration has been saying this, the same thing for basically four -- more than four years, and we now have as many troops in Iraq, U.S. troops in Iraq, as we did when we invaded the country.
Why should we believe that this replacement is going to start happening any time soon?
SET: I think we've allowed a lot of the problems within the Iraqi government itself to slow the training and deployment of their troops. If we communicate effectively with the Iraqi government and bring them to an understanding that our commitment to them is strong and unwavering but will not be so in the absence of an equal commitment on their part then I think we can cut through a lot of the red tape that's continually hindered this process.
CW: Governor Huckabee, you said in the last debate that President Bush made a mistake listening too much to civilians in suits and silk ties and not enough to the generals with mud and blood on their boots, especially when it came to how many troops were needed to stabilize the situation in Iraq.
If the generals were to come to you as president and say, we don't have enough troops there; we need, let's say, 300,000, would you be open to significantly increasing our presence in Iraq?
SET: I don't think anyone has any reason to believe this is what the military leadership is indicating but if that was the consensus of the boots on the ground that deploying 300,000 soldiers to Iraq would ensure stability while we trained an Iraqi army so that we could bring all of our soldiers home permanently then I wouldn't hesitate to do that at all.
CW: Governor Gilmore, we have an internet question for you from Harry from Boston, who says, we should look ahead to the threat from Iran. He asked, quote, "What would you do to resolve this nuclear issue? And will you launch a pre-emptive strike if they were close to achieving a weapon?"
SET: Foreign involvement should almost always be our last option but sometimes it is necessary. While I think we should look at what we can do to limit the ability of Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, including a pre-emptive strike if necessary, I think we should also look at how we respond to the inevitable situation where a rogue state or terrorist group has acquired a nuclear weapon. If not Iran in the near future then Iran in the longer term. If not Iran in the longer term then another country. How will we respond once someone has them? We need to be evaluating missile defense options, new technologies for detecting a nuclear weapon being smuggled into the US, and other things of this nature.
WG: Gentlemen, we have a series of questions on the economy, the budget, taxes and entitlements. And I have one for each of you, starting with you, Governor Romney.
Your critics have called you "flip-flop Mitt" for, among other things, your decision to take the "no new taxes" pledge this year after refusing to do so in 2002. Tell me why your decision to take the pledge shouldn't be seen as a blatant appeal to the party base, sir?
SET: I would have taken the "no new taxes" pledge in 2002. Furthermore, it's not enough just to pledge no new taxes. We need to be pledging no more of the current tax structure. That's my pledge today. The current tax structure and corresponding spending structure in Washington is broken. I think the IRS needs to be done away with and replaced with a small bureau that handles the administration of something similar to a FairTax program. I also think that any new spending proposal from Congress needs to include the section of the Constitution whereby we as the government derive the power to take people's money for such a cause.
WG: Senator McCain, you opposed President Bush's 2001 tax cuts. Now you say you were wrong. How can you convince Republican voters you will push a Democratic Congress hard enough to make those tax cuts permanent, sir?
SET: I just gave two examples of things that need to happen. Taxes under the current structure happen almost solely for two reasons: to influence behavior and to buy votes. A new tax system would help to change this mindset. It would get politicians back to thinking about what's in the nation's best interest rather than what's in their reelection campaign's best interest.
WG: Governor Huckabee, the alternative minimum tax caught 4 million people this year; it'll get 23 million next year unless Congress acts. How would you eliminate the tax without raising the budget deficit, sir?
SET: I don't mean to be redundant, but FairTax. FairTax would remove the AMT as well as all other forms of personal income tax as well as corporate income taxes. It shifts the tax burden away from earning and onto consumption. That's something that can also hopefully help families get the problem with debt that we have in our society under control. That in turn will encourage a greater degree of personal responsibility. There really is no downside to the FairTax system unless you're a politician, accountant, tax attorney, or lobbyist.
WG: Mayor Giuliani, you get the credit for killing the line-item veto. You fought and won when it pinched New York. And yet in your administration, spending for the city rose even before 9/11, after which it soared. Show me where you exercise fiscal discipline, sir.
SET: Fiscal discipline isn't easy to come by given the current system. That's why we don't need another patch: we need an overhaul. Implementing FairTax where people are actually able to see and understand the taxes that they're paying will force a degree of responsibility in Washington because people will finally see how much we cost them. Having any bill before Congress include the section of the Constitution whereby the authority is authorized will also help rein in spending. We are currently involved in a lot of activates that are not the role of the government.
WG: Senator Brownback, gasoline prices headed north again. Should Americans resign themselves to living with $3.50, $4, $5 a gallon gasoline? [And if not] how would you prevent that, sir?
SET: I believe in a free market economy. In a free market, supply and demand determine the prices of goods and services, not a politician or government. I'll let the market decide what the price of gasoline should be but speaking for my pocketbook, I hope it's a whole lot cheaper than that.
I think it can be cheaper than that. I think we have to continue to look at ways to increase supply. Increasing supply is increasing the capacity of our refineries and looking at additional sources both at home and abroad.
I think we also need to look at how to decrease demand because our current level of demand makes us very vulnerable to some countries that I'd rather we had no dependency on. We can decrease our demand by continuing to research and making strategic investments in alternative approaches. I think these would include hybrids, bio fuels, and alternative engines including hydrogen, etc.
I think there are enough people concerned about this problem whether it's from an environmental standpoint, an economic standpoint, a security standpoint, or a combination thereof that we can fix this problem. With all that we've accomplished from putting a man on the moon to putting a pda / phone / mp3 player in my pocket, I'm confident that we can fix this problem as well with the proper focus and attention.
WG: Governor Thompson, Brian from Fort Wayne asks this question via the internet, a question about controlling government spending. Some of your critics say you lack fiscal discipline. Tell me three federal programs you consider wasteful and would eliminate.
SET: I've already named one, the IRS. I would also look at seriously overhauling or eliminating the TSA, FCC, FAA, and Department of Education, just to name a few.
WG: Governor Gilmore, in the next president's term, baby boomers will retire, the costs of Social Security and Medicare will soar, sir. Tell me whether you'd be willing to reduce benefits even for wealthy Americans in order to avoid raising payroll taxes?
SET: I wouldn't look at reducing benefits on wealthy Americans, I'd look are eliminating benefits for everyone. I know that sounds drastic, and it is but the current system is broken. We need to re-educate everyone the role of the government. The role of government is not to fund your retirement. The role of government is to make our nation safe, to enforce our laws, and create an environment where you're able to happily plan and prepare for your own retirement.
WG: Congressman Hunter, virtually all U.S. exporters want access to China's huge market. You have said that you would deal with the enormous trade deficit this country has with that country. Tell me how you'd do it and how fast.
SET: I believe in free trade. That doesn't mean I don't support American jobs, though. Just like I believe in free market within the US, I believe in a free world market. Other markets should welcome our goods and if they do so then we should do the same for theirs. If another factory within the US or a factory outside of the US can produce the same quality product as I can at the same price then I need to get in another line of work. Either my product should be superior from a quality standpoint or I need to be looking to improve and expand my skills. Removing the tax burden that our companies have when competing with companies overseas is a huge way to get a leg up on them and ensure the dominance of the American workforce. We have the brightest, best, and most productive workforce that the world has ever seen. Now let’s remove the tax barriers that are holding them back and force other countries to open their doors to our products.
WG: Congressman Tancredo, there's a lot of talk about the budget deficit and reducing that. But interest on the national debt is $400 billion. That's almost as much as the Defense budget. Do you consider that a problem? Would you reduce it, and how fast?
SET: It's a huge problem. It's just another thing that creates a dependency that we have on other nations that I'd rather us not have. If we can rein in spending by looking at the inefficiencies that we have within our government and also overhaul the income tax system then we can quickly generate the revenues necessary to start making a dent in our national debt.
CW: Governor Gilmore, on the campaign trail you like to say that "Rudy McRomney" is not a conservative and he knows he's not a conservative. With them standing here on the stage with you, you would tell us specifically why Mayor Giuliani, Senator McCain and Governor Romney are not conservatives?
SET: Each of them has aspects of their policy beliefs that don't line up with mine. Whether or not they're conservative or not I'll leave for you to decide. I'll let them tell you about their vision and I'll stick to telling you about mine. In the end, you can decide which vision you'd rather see for this great nation.
CW: Mayor Giuliani, let's start with you. You're pro-choice, you're pro-gay rights, you're pro-gun control; you supported Mario Cuomo for governor over a Republican. Are those the stands of a conservative?
SET: I'm not pro-choice. I believe very strongly in the sanctity of life. I think we should do everything we can to preserve life no matter how fragile or unwanted the life may be by others. The life is important to God and it's therefore important to me. Abortion should only be allowed in the case of jeopardy to the mother's life.
I believe in marriage between one man and one woman. I also believe that as long as my choices don't harm others the government should stay out of it. The same is true of choices regarding sexual orientation. If me living and calling myself "married" to two women, another man, a plant, or anything else doesn't harm anyone else then the government should stay out of it.
I'm not pro-gun control. I'm pro the Second Amendment. I'm pro the Constitution as a whole and I didn't support Mario Cuomo.
CW: Senator McCain, although Governor Gilmore did not single you out, except by name, I'd like to ask you, because you have a record that people challenge about your conservatism. You've cosponsored campaign finance reform with Senator Feingold. You've cosponsored comprehensive immigration reform with Ted Kennedy. You opposed, as Wendell mentioned, not only the Bush tax cut of 2001 but also the Bush tax cut of 2003. You voted against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage but for expanded funding -- for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
But you say that your record is clear, consistent and conservative. How do you square that with the positions and the votes that I just mentioned, sir?
SET: I'm against the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. I understand that they'd like to do something about all the money that it takes to run a campaign but limiting free speech is not the appropriate way to handle it.
Likewise I'm against the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill. While we need to be pragmatic as opposed to idealistic in dealing with the immigration problem that we have on our hands, there are better ways to deal with it. We have to be tougher on the people who have broken our laws to get into our country.
I support tax cuts but more importantly, as I've outlined, I support tax reform.
I don't believe it's the role of the government to recognize marriage at all other than to recognize legal implications of inheritance and such and that should be able to be done regardless of whether someone is married or not.
I'm against federally funded stem cell research for a couple of different reasons. It's not the role of government to fund research for one. This is a good opportunity to rein in spending. Secondly, I think a lot of people have problems with destroying what some people believe is a human life for the purposes of research. I personally believe that life begins at conception and believe we should not experiment with human life. I think the research opportunities are great though and we should look at other opportunities, specifically research on cord blood which has shown to have even more potential than stem cells.
CW: Governor Huckabee, you got slammed for raising taxes. How do you respond, sir?
SET: I haven't raised taxes and wouldn't. FairTax should not be a tax increase but should initially be tax neutral. As we rein in spending we can use the additional revenues to pay down our national debt and then scale back the FairTax rate.
CW: Governor Romney, in 1994 you said you were a stronger advocate of gay rights than Ted Kennedy. As recently as five years ago you still supported a woman's right to choose. And as governor you signed into law one of the toughest restrictions on assault weapons in the country. Are you a clear and consistent conservative?
SET: I think I've made my positions on those issues very clear and historically my positions have been extremely consistent.
CW: Senator Brownback, you weren't mentioned by Governor Gilmore, but I'm going to ask you a question anyway.
You say that you're a full-scale Ronald Reagan Republican, and yet, as you mentioned, you opposed the troop surge and you support comprehensive immigration reform. Are those the stands that Ronald Reagan would take?
SET: I'm not concerned with whether my beliefs are things that Ronald Reagan would support or not. My goal isn't to be the next Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a great leader but I'm only aspiring to be the best leader that I can be. I've tried to articulate my beliefs and more importantly the reason for those beliefs. I think that's one of the things that made Reagan so great, not because his positions were always right or he never made mistakes, but because he was always willing to explain to people exactly why he made the decisions that he did. I've tried to do the same thing.
WG: Gentlemen, the right-to-life has been a part of the Republican party platform for more than 20 years, so I want to ask several of you questions about abortion and stem cell research, starting with you, Governor Thompson.
Some researchers say the lines of embryonic stem cells that President Bush has approved federal funding for are inadequate. Tell me why they're wrong. And more importantly, tell me how you would convince them that they have -- these researchers have all the tools they need.
SET: As I said earlier, I oppose the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research for a couple of different reasons. The research that I'm familiar with says that cord blood holds far more potential than embryonic stem cells and avoid the questions of morality that surround the issue.
WG: Mayor Giuliani, I think you expect your stance on a woman's right to choose to attract a lot of attention in this setting, sir. You have said that you personally hate abortion but support a woman's right to choose. Governor Huckabee says that's like saying, "I hate slavery, but people can go ahead and practice it." Tell me why he's wrong.
SET: Like slavery, I think abortion is an issue of rights. When people finally realized that slaves were also people and had rights as people then people quickly opposed slavery. Abortion is the same way. As we learn more and more about the human body and the development of a fetus we realize that they develop far more quickly than we ever thought they did. As we come to the realization that life begins at conception, or if not at conception, then certainly at some point within the first trimester then we realize that the baby has the same rights that we do. As we grow to understand and appreciate the rights of that baby, then people will also quickly grow to oppose abortion.
WG: Senator Brownback, no one thinks abortion should be available casually, but there are often very, very difficult decisions to be made in this case. Tell me, since you've opposed abortion in every instance except to save the life of the mother, how you would explain to a rape victim, who does not believe that life begins at conception, why her trauma should be compounded by carrying the child to term.
SET: Some people do believe that abortion should be available casually. If you believe that the fetus is not a life, why shouldn't it be? How is it any different than killing an unwanted ant colony invading your back yard? If it's not a life then it has no more rights than those ants do.
But my point from earlier was that it is a life and it does have rights whether the mother in this terrible situation believes that the baby has rights or not. Earlier you compared abortion and slavery. When slavery was outlawed there were some that did not believe slaves were people and had rights as such. It was the responsibility of the government and responsible citizens to convince those who did not believe. We who believe that life begins at conception have that same responsibility now.
I can't begin to understand the trauma that this poor woman must face in this situation but as a baby with rights, creating two victims by killing the baby doesn't make the situation any better. There are plenty of crimes where a father is killed or a mother is killed and a child is left without a parent. The child needlessly suffers in these situations. The crime is compounded by the suffering of others. We should refuse to let the same thing needlessly happen in a case of rape when a woman becomes pregnant. We shouldn't let an innocent baby suffer and be killed because a monster did a terrible thing to a woman.
WG: Governor Romney, I want to give you another difficult abortion situation. You've explained that you once were pro-choice because a relative died after she underwent an illegal abortion. Tell me what you would say to someone else who lost a wife or a daughter to an illegal abortion, if you named the Supreme Court justice who tipped the balance and over turned Roe v. Wade.
SET: That would be a very difficult conversation but the Office of President is full of difficult decisions and difficult conversations. I'd tell the person that I'm sorry for their loss, that my heart goes out to them. Regardless of how someone loses a child it's never an easy thing to deal with. Outside of that, I've made my beliefs as clear as I believe I possibly can on why I'm opposed to abortion. If they disagree with that then that's their right. The prospect of having to deal with a difficult situation isn't going to make me change my beliefs from what I think is right, though.
CW: Gentlemen, I have a series of questions on immigration, and let me begin with you, Congressman Tancredo.
You have made the fight against illegal immigration the centerpiece of your campaign. I hope you will be as specific as Governor Gilmore was earlier. Do you think that Senator McCain and Mayor Giuliani and Governor Romney are soft on immigration, and if so, why?
SET: Again, I'll let them lay out their visions and I'll lay out mine. I think the first step to immigration reform is to secure our borders. I think the second step of any comprehensive plan is to identify the people that are here illegally. This should be done as part of a window of opportunity from a few months to a year. Those that come forward and are identified should be routed through some sort of a process whereby they can be made legal. This should include a very stiff penalty for breaking our laws. Those that do not come forward and are later found should be immediately deported and if we do a good job of securing our borders should not be able to reenter the country later. Furthermore, they should be barred from ever legally immigrating to our country.
CW: Governor Romney, you have also called Senator McCain's immigration plan amnesty. Are you prepared to say that sharing the stage with him tonight? And how do you explain your statement to the Lowell Sun last year in which you said, quote, "Those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process toward application for citizenship as they would from their home country." Why isn't that amnesty as well, sir?
SET: Amnesty means that there is no penalty for the offense. I think people who have broken the laws of the US have to pay for their offenses. You have to balance that with the fact that we have many people already in our country and signing a bill into law doesn't suddenly remove them all. They don't disappear once an immigration reform bill is passed and signed. People currently here in our country illegally need to have a way to obtain citizenship just like someone from their home country would. They don't need to have special treatment but they need to be penalized. Part of that penalty should include a heavy fine.
CW: Mayor Giuliani, when you were running New York, you said the following about illegal immigrants: "If you come here, and you work hard, and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city." If that was good enough for New York, why isn't it good enough for the country, sir?
SET: We can always use more hardworking people in this country. But you have to come to the country through the legal process.
CW: Congressman Hunter, we have an internet question for you, sir, from Scott in Colorado Springs. He asked, what would you do to prevent foreign nationals who have entered our country illegally from using social services such as medical, low-income housing and education?
SET: It's not just people who come to our country illegally, it's anyone. We need to be promoting a culture of independence and self reliance. Social services should exist primarily, not as a function of the government but as a function of the people and churches of our nation.
WG: Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as -- almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?
SET: As I've said, I don't support immediate withdrawal but I think the issue of Iraq is a tough one to deal with a seldom do two people see exactly eye to eye on the issue. That's true among people in my party and between people of different parties.
As for why I'm seeking the nomination, it's because I'm not satisfied with the vision that any of the other candidates have for our nation. I think I represent a clear and consistent, tested and tried attitude of smaller government, lower and more streamlined taxes, and personal responsibility.
WG: I think I want to turn to Senator McCain and change the subject, if I will. I don't think we're going to solve this tonight, gentlemen.
An Internet question for you, Senator. Royce from Philadelphia asks if South Carolina should be free to fly the Confederate flag from state buildings.
SET: As a Republic, the US is a collection of sovereign states. The states are free to decide what they want to fly over the capitol building. I understand that the symbol is offense to some people and I understand why. I think that the reasons people oppose the flag, the message of hatred that it represents to them, that message of hatred is repugnant. I don't want to be around people that talk like that and view other people in that light. It's repugnant speech just like this that the First Amendment is designed to protect, though.
WG: Governor Huckabee, when you became governor of Arkansas, you wrote convicted rapist Wayne Dumond, told him, my desire is that you be released from prison. The parole board released him in 1999. The next year, he killed a woman in Missouri. Do you bear any responsibility for his release, sir?
SET: If this had been me then yes, I would feel that I have some responsibility in this situation. Hindsight is 20/20 and foresight is generally far poorer. As I said earlier, the Office of the President is not for one with a weak stomach or an inability to make difficult decision. This was a very difficult decision that I made and in the end, I'm sorry for that decision. It was the wrong decision and I wish I would have done things differently.
WG: Congressman Tancredo, the ambassador from the European Union says the United States and Europe bear a special responsibility for global warming because the greenhouse gases causing the problem have been put there since the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s. We put most of the stuff up there. Do you agree? And what should we do to deal with the problem, sir?
SET: The first thing we need to do to deal with the problem is understand the problem. The media makes it sound as if global warming, and when I say global warming I'm talking about manmade global warming, is a foregone conclusion. In reality, there's a lot of disagreement among scientists. Regardless of who put the emissions in the air, we all need to try to get them out of the sky and repair any damage that may have been done. Open lines of communication and trying to understand different opinions is the first step to being able to do that.
BH: First question to you, Senator McCain. How aggressively would you interrogate those being held at Guantanamo Bay for information about where the next attack might be?
SET: I think for those people that we believe may likely hold such information we need to be aggressive in our questioning. The thing I think you're trying to get at is would I support the torture of those individuals, and I would not.
BH: Mayor Giuliani, the former director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, the current head of the CIA have both said that the most valuable intelligence tool they have had has been the information gained from what are called enhanced interrogation techniques to include, presumably, water-boarding.
What is your view whether such techniques should be applied in a scenario like the one I described?
SET: I think, specifically water-boarding, is a controversial enough technique that it shouldn't be broadly applied. If however we have information that a specific person is withholding valuable information then it may be an appropriate response depending on how critical we believe the information they hold is to us. The technique itself is something that should be further examined and question to ensure that it's not considered torture. Experts currently disagree on this.
BH: Governor Thompson, let me enrich the scenario just a little bit. Let's assume for the sake of discussion here that we now also have additional intelligence that indicates with high certainty that the attackers were trained in a West African country hostile to the United States, in camps openly run by the terrorist organization that sent them. What kind of response would you agree to for that?
SET: I don't think my response would differ. We need to be sensitive not to offend but first and foremost we need to protect our interests.
BH: Senator Brownback, if the decision were up to you, would you do that? And if so, would you decide to go to the United Nations, for example, first to seek some kind of international authorization to do it or would you just move in the way that Governor Thompson described?
SET: I think, as I described earlier, that there needs to be some sort of international consensus on what methods are considered acceptable. If we were in need of information from an individual in order to defend our nation and her people I wouldn't wait for an authorization from the UN or anyone else, though.
BH: I'm going to come to the others in a moment, but I want to circle back to you, Senator McCain. You've heard reference here from me and others of the -- what the administration calls the enhanced interrogation techniques. I may have misunderstood you, but it sounded to me as if you regard those techniques, or from what you know about them, as torture. Do you?
SET: As I've said earlier, I think we need to clarify how we regard these techniques. If I regard them as torture then I do not have them to use as weapons to gather information but other countries don't share that belief then they have an advantage over us. Conversely if we don't consider them torture and use them but other countries do consider them torture then we really risk offending these other nations and upsetting the relationships that we have with them. There needs to be some clarification and consensus.
BH: This kind of attack would pose immediate and obvious problems for the U.S. economy -- they've hit shopping centers. What kind of measures would you take, Governor Gilmore, to assure that the U.S. economy continued to grow in the face of an attack of this kind?
SET: The best way to build a robust economy in the face of potential terrorist attacks, inflation, trade deficits, and everything else we face is to remove as much of the tax burden and liability as you can.
BH: Governor Huckabee, there might be a need for economic policies to change. What policies would you propose?
SET: Policies wouldn't need to change so much in the event of some sort of an attack if our policies were right before the attack. Getting our policies right now will help us better deal with all of the what ifs down the road.
BH: Congressman Paul, one last question for you on this. The president believed after 9/11 that the tax cuts that he had put in place were helpful in softening the economic downturn that occurred, and allowing the United States economy to rise out of it. Would you propose -- what economic policies would you propose under this scenario to avert or soften a recession?
SET: Again, I think if the policies were right in the first place then there'd be much less need for change under any circumstances, terrorist attack or otherwise. I do think things need to change and I feel like I've laid out a very clear vision for that change.
CW: Governor Gilmore, let me start with you. It's been suggested that the 10 of you could all be members of the same country club. What does it say about the Republican Party? And you used to be the chairman of this party and tried to build the tent, to build the base; what does it say that there is no woman, no Hispanic, no African- American, no minority in this field of presidential candidates?
SET: It says they're smart enough to avoid the pressure and scrutiny of a Presidential campaign! I think too often we focus - and this is people in general, not just Republicans - too often we focus on the things that divide us rather than the things that unite us. Even here in these questions, these questions are focused on the differences not the common vision that we can collectively lay out for our nation. We tend to be more pessimistic rather than optimistic. It leads to ugly, negative campaigns and takes the emphasis off the message. There are a number of prominent minorities that share the vision of the Republican party and could easily be here on this stage today from Colin Powell to JC Watts to Alan Keyes to George P. Bush to Condi Rice and many, many others. We do need to do a better job of making sure everyone knows that as long as they share the common vision for the Republican party, smaller government and more personal responsibility then they're welcome under our tent, not just to run as a candidate but also in the polling place.
CW: Governor Romney, during this campaign, you have been criticized -- and again tonight you've been criticized -- for changing your position on some issues. You say that it's a part of learning from experience. Can you point to an area in which your learning from experience led you to change to a position that is less popular with the Republican base?
SET: My positions haven't changed. As to where my positions differ from the Republican base, there are several, probably most notably on the war on drugs. Going back to what I said earlier about smaller government and allowing the decisions that don't affect other people to be my own personal decisions, I believe drug use should be legalized. It doesn't mean people should be able to do it while driving or anything like that so that there a risk to other people. And to make sure I'm not misunderstood, I'm not pro drugs. I've never used drugs. Never. I never will. I've seen within my own family how destructive drug use can be. But I've also seen how ineffective the current war on drugs is at combating the availability of drugs if that's the decision we want to make. We'd be far better off as a society trying to focus on educating people about the ills of drug use and take drugs off the street because people no longer want to use them rather than looking for drugs.
You'd also undercut the entire drug market with legalization. If I am a user and I need a fix, if I can buy pot at the pharmacy with a photo id the way I could alcohol or tobacco then I'm much, much less likely to take a handgun and harm someone else or steal from someone else in order to get the money I need to buy a product that's marked up sometimes thousands of times its value because people are putting themselves in danger to put it on the street. Legalize it and you remove the criminal aspect and part of the rebellious appeal for it. That's the only effective way to combat it.
WG: Congressman Hunter, many people feel that billions of dollars in American debt that China holds is a problem. If the Chinese decide to convert those dollars to Euros, the value of the dollar drops. Do you see that as a security threat, and what would you do about it?
SET: If we right our tax system and free the American people from that burden then we'll be better able to pay off our national debt whether it's the debt held by China or anyone else. As you pointed out earlier, we pay nearly $400 billion a year in interest alone. Once the national debt is paid off then that's yet another huge savings that allows us to reduce taxes even more and return more of the people's money to their pockets.
CW: Chris Wallace
WG: Wendell Goler
BH: Brit Hume
SET: Me!
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Becoming Illegal
Becoming Illegal (Actual letter from an Iowa resident and sent to his
senator)
The Honorable Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Phone (202) 224 3254
Washington DC, 20510
Dear Senator Harkin,
As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you. My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.
Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.
Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year. Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as "in-state" tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.
Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.
If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your assistance.
Your Loyal Constituent,
Donald Ruppert
Burlington, IA
Please pass this onto your friends so they can save on this great offer!!!!
senator)
The Honorable Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Phone (202) 224 3254
Washington DC, 20510
Dear Senator Harkin,
As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you. My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.
Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.
Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year. Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as "in-state" tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.
Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.
If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your assistance.
Your Loyal Constituent,
Donald Ruppert
Burlington, IA
Please pass this onto your friends so they can save on this great offer!!!!
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Microsoft Windows Live Messenger i'm Program
It's an innovative way to get involved and to let others know what you're concerned with and what you care for. Take a moment to check it out.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Mandatory Vaccine?
The Georgia state legislature is currently discussing a propsal that would mimick what has been put in place in Texas recently. The proposed law would require that every girl entering the 6th grade be vaccinated with a new drug from Merck named Gardasil. It's being touted as a vaccine against cervical cancer. In truth, it's a vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV) which is a sexually transmitted disease (STD) that often times causes cervical cancer. Of course you have to read the fine print to learn that. The headline reads "FDA approves first vaccine for cervical cancer." The text of the article clarifies:
"It works by preventing infection by four strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, the most prevalent sexually transmitted disease... responsible for about 70 percent of cervical cancer cases."
I'm very much against this proposed law for a number of reasons. The primary reason is that it's not the government's role to decide what's best for my child. Individuals may not want to have their children vaccinated for a number of reasons. I've heard it mentioned that some disagree for religious reasons. I've also heard a number of people question the safety and effectiveness of the drug.
I'm not sure I entirely understand the rationale behind the religious opposition. I guess it goes something along the lines of you shouldn't be having sex so why do you need a vaccine for an STD. I've also heard mentioned that by removing the consequences for a particular action it has the effect of encouraging the action. I guess the last part may be true enough but again, I think it's up to each individual to decide. That's why something like this shouldn't be mandatory.
The safety and effectiveness debate leaves some people bewildered. How on earth could you question something like this that's been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)? I guess it just goes to show how dependant some people have become on the government. For starters, this is an extremely new drug that was only approved by the FDA last June. Lots of drugs had to be around for years before the full impact of their side effects were recognized. Birth control pills from the 1970s leading to such extreme rates of breast cancer and the like leading to such a reduction in the dosage today and the increased rates of autism thought to be due in part to vaccines today immediately come to mind.
It's also somewhat concerning that Merck lobbied so heavily for this. I know lots of businesses lobby for lots of thigs and I'm not trying to single them out but at the same time, people want to feel safe in the choices that they make regarding their health. People don't want to be concerned that the drug they're taking may be a result of a campaign contribution that a drug company executive made to a particular campaign in order to speed the process of required vaccination. I'm not suggesting that this has happened but it's certainly a possibility. People want to feel like matters of their health is beyond that.
The bottom line of the issue is that people have all sorts of varied reasons to oppose such a policy. This only underscores the importance of individual choice. As long as the decisions I make in exercising my freedoms don't impact your freedoms then there's no cause for government intervention. This proposed law in Georgia don't pass that basic test.
"It works by preventing infection by four strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, the most prevalent sexually transmitted disease... responsible for about 70 percent of cervical cancer cases."
I'm very much against this proposed law for a number of reasons. The primary reason is that it's not the government's role to decide what's best for my child. Individuals may not want to have their children vaccinated for a number of reasons. I've heard it mentioned that some disagree for religious reasons. I've also heard a number of people question the safety and effectiveness of the drug.
I'm not sure I entirely understand the rationale behind the religious opposition. I guess it goes something along the lines of you shouldn't be having sex so why do you need a vaccine for an STD. I've also heard mentioned that by removing the consequences for a particular action it has the effect of encouraging the action. I guess the last part may be true enough but again, I think it's up to each individual to decide. That's why something like this shouldn't be mandatory.
The safety and effectiveness debate leaves some people bewildered. How on earth could you question something like this that's been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)? I guess it just goes to show how dependant some people have become on the government. For starters, this is an extremely new drug that was only approved by the FDA last June. Lots of drugs had to be around for years before the full impact of their side effects were recognized. Birth control pills from the 1970s leading to such extreme rates of breast cancer and the like leading to such a reduction in the dosage today and the increased rates of autism thought to be due in part to vaccines today immediately come to mind.
It's also somewhat concerning that Merck lobbied so heavily for this. I know lots of businesses lobby for lots of thigs and I'm not trying to single them out but at the same time, people want to feel safe in the choices that they make regarding their health. People don't want to be concerned that the drug they're taking may be a result of a campaign contribution that a drug company executive made to a particular campaign in order to speed the process of required vaccination. I'm not suggesting that this has happened but it's certainly a possibility. People want to feel like matters of their health is beyond that.
The bottom line of the issue is that people have all sorts of varied reasons to oppose such a policy. This only underscores the importance of individual choice. As long as the decisions I make in exercising my freedoms don't impact your freedoms then there's no cause for government intervention. This proposed law in Georgia don't pass that basic test.
Monday, February 12, 2007
A Talented Man
In reading an article today, I came across this quote which I thought was absolutely priceless. Do you know who it's referring to?
"What's there left to say about him that hasn't been said... He reads 12 books per week, speaks seven languages, teaches microeconomics at Stanford, advises the State Department on sub-Saharan diplomacy and holds multiple patents for water-filtration devices. He once fashioned a crude transistor radio out of a seashell and two plastic sporks."
The answer? Billy Beane, General Manager of the Oakland A's
"What's there left to say about him that hasn't been said... He reads 12 books per week, speaks seven languages, teaches microeconomics at Stanford, advises the State Department on sub-Saharan diplomacy and holds multiple patents for water-filtration devices. He once fashioned a crude transistor radio out of a seashell and two plastic sporks."
The answer? Billy Beane, General Manager of the Oakland A's
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Defending Democrats
There are a couple of different active stories at the moment where Democrats need defending. The first is this whole Nancy Pelosi Air Force jet story. Pelosi has been encouraged to fly to and from her San Francisco area home to DC using a military aircraft. The problem with this is that they're not willing to supply here with an aircraft capable of making the trip non-stop. I think she should either:
a) be allowed to fly coach if that's what she'd prefer
b) if folks are going to insist that she use a military aircraft then they should provide her with one that will be able to get her to and fro in a similar time frame as the coach flight would
If that means a larger aircraft than what Hastert used then so what? Big deal. Get over it, people. Given the way Republicans have spent tax payer money lately I don't think it's nearly as much an issue of fiscal constraint as it is being a bunch of sore losers. Show some class.
The second Democrat that needs defending these days is John Edwards. Apparently he and his family have just finished building a massive estate in North Carolina. It's 28,000 square feet situated on 102 secluded acres, according to reports. Personally, I think it sounds lovely. I think if he's made the kind of money to provide for his family like that in an honest fashion then good for him. I wish I was able to provide for my family like that.
Now where Edwards will run into a little trouble, and perhaps rightly so, is on his vision of two Americas. As Jay Leno was quick to point out, "we know which America he [Edwards] is living in." It's hard to be thought of as sincere when you claim to be fighting for the rights of the poor when you live in such splendor. How well can you know the poorer America when you keep yourself so far removed from it?
Now I don't know a whole lot about the personal life of Edwards. For all I know he and his family are at the local soup kitchen working every week and he may do oodles of other things for charitable reasons. If that's the case then good for him. Maybe it's not at all hypocrisy. I don't know. I can understand why it would at first glace need explaining, though.
a) be allowed to fly coach if that's what she'd prefer
b) if folks are going to insist that she use a military aircraft then they should provide her with one that will be able to get her to and fro in a similar time frame as the coach flight would
If that means a larger aircraft than what Hastert used then so what? Big deal. Get over it, people. Given the way Republicans have spent tax payer money lately I don't think it's nearly as much an issue of fiscal constraint as it is being a bunch of sore losers. Show some class.
The second Democrat that needs defending these days is John Edwards. Apparently he and his family have just finished building a massive estate in North Carolina. It's 28,000 square feet situated on 102 secluded acres, according to reports. Personally, I think it sounds lovely. I think if he's made the kind of money to provide for his family like that in an honest fashion then good for him. I wish I was able to provide for my family like that.
Now where Edwards will run into a little trouble, and perhaps rightly so, is on his vision of two Americas. As Jay Leno was quick to point out, "we know which America he [Edwards] is living in." It's hard to be thought of as sincere when you claim to be fighting for the rights of the poor when you live in such splendor. How well can you know the poorer America when you keep yourself so far removed from it?
Now I don't know a whole lot about the personal life of Edwards. For all I know he and his family are at the local soup kitchen working every week and he may do oodles of other things for charitable reasons. If that's the case then good for him. Maybe it's not at all hypocrisy. I don't know. I can understand why it would at first glace need explaining, though.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Abortion Rights
This is a sensitive subject. I don't intend to blast anyone or make anyone feel guilty or anything of the sort. I read the article on Mitt Romney and the evolution of his position on abortion. I thought it some small way it mirrors the evolution of my own position. It made me want to honestly share my own feelings and struggles with the issue.
The first time I can ever really remember discussing or contemplating abortion was 1993 or 1994. I didn't have a whole lot of understanding of the medical and scientific background or anything. Growing up in a very conservative, church going South Mississippi, I understood that all of my friends and family believed it was wrong. At the time, I thought it was wrong as well. I didn't really understand why, though. It was mostly just the influence of my friends and family, though. Where I differed with most of my friends and family was that I didn't think my personal beliefs on abortion should be forced on others. While I believed it was wrong, I thought others should be free to choose for themselves.
That all changed in 1996. One of my good friends in college, Doug Johnson, was rabidly pro-life. He and I discussed the issue a thousand times. When I say discussed, I mean just that. He and I were good friends and I believe we held a healthy respect for one another. This allowed a forum where open and honest communication could take place. Those types of relationships that foster open and honest communication don't exist much within our society anymore. I think that's one reason so many issues are so polarizing. Without open lines of communication one side doesn't understand where the other side is coming from.
As I said, Doug was rabidly pro-life. He thought abortion should be illegal without exception. Through the many talks we had, I came to understand why. It wasn't so much that he convinced me or talked me out of my position or anything like that. It was that being given the opportunity to hear what someone who disagrees with me believes and why they believe what they do, I was better able to understand my own beliefs.
For me, the whole issue boils down to an issue of rights. I'm generally a very permissive guy when it comes to allowing people to do what they want to do. The very premise of rights is that one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. This was the basis for my previous belief that even though I personally believed abortion was wrong, I didn't think it was the government's place to tell others that it was wrong, though.
Doug had me think about other laws where the government has the right to restrict someone's behavior because it infringed upon the rights of others, though. The government has the right to enforce laws against stealing. It's not that me picking up a wallet full of money is wrong. It's that me picking up someone else's wallet full of money is wrong because they have the right to carry a wallet full of money without me interfering with them.
This is where the rubber meets the road in the abortion debate for me. I don't have the right to terminate the life of an adult because that adult has the right to life. At what point does a baby, a fetus, a zygote, whatever you want to call it at whatever stage of development and life it is, at what point does it have rights? My philosophy being based on rights, at the point the baby has the same right to life that I do then I don't believe abortion should be allowed. When does that occur, though?
I'll be honest, I'm not sure exactly at what point those rights begin. I think there has to be a definite point where you say this is a baby, this baby has rights that we can't allow others to infringe upon, though. If you're a mother or father and you've sat anxiously in the doctor's office to see the ultrasound at 18-20 weeks of your baby that you just can't wait to get here, do you honestly believe that little baby doesn't have rights? You can see it move. You see fingers and toes, you see it sucking its thumb. Doesn't this baby have the same rights that you and I do? I believe that it does.
In searching for a definite point at which the baby has rights, I haven't really found a point at which I'm comfortable saying that it doesn't. This is based on several things. For one, my strong held belief in the Bible. In numerous places the Bible talks about God knowing us from conception. Also, it seems to me, the more technology advances and the more we have insight into what happens within the womb, the more we understand how a baby advances earlier and earlier than we think it does. This is a great site for fetal development. I don't feel comfortable saying that a baby - that at 8 weeks has a brain, hands, knees, even an eyelid - doesn't have rights that we have every responsibly to protect.
This discussion isn't an easy one. There are a lot of people with understandably strong feelings on both sides of the debate. I think the more we respect one another and share our opinions the more comfortable we'll all be both with our own beliefs and the beliefs of others. Having been on both sides of this debate and different points in my life and having seen others willingness to respect my beliefs and discuss such a sensitive and personal issue, I feel like I know this first hand.
The first time I can ever really remember discussing or contemplating abortion was 1993 or 1994. I didn't have a whole lot of understanding of the medical and scientific background or anything. Growing up in a very conservative, church going South Mississippi, I understood that all of my friends and family believed it was wrong. At the time, I thought it was wrong as well. I didn't really understand why, though. It was mostly just the influence of my friends and family, though. Where I differed with most of my friends and family was that I didn't think my personal beliefs on abortion should be forced on others. While I believed it was wrong, I thought others should be free to choose for themselves.
That all changed in 1996. One of my good friends in college, Doug Johnson, was rabidly pro-life. He and I discussed the issue a thousand times. When I say discussed, I mean just that. He and I were good friends and I believe we held a healthy respect for one another. This allowed a forum where open and honest communication could take place. Those types of relationships that foster open and honest communication don't exist much within our society anymore. I think that's one reason so many issues are so polarizing. Without open lines of communication one side doesn't understand where the other side is coming from.
As I said, Doug was rabidly pro-life. He thought abortion should be illegal without exception. Through the many talks we had, I came to understand why. It wasn't so much that he convinced me or talked me out of my position or anything like that. It was that being given the opportunity to hear what someone who disagrees with me believes and why they believe what they do, I was better able to understand my own beliefs.
For me, the whole issue boils down to an issue of rights. I'm generally a very permissive guy when it comes to allowing people to do what they want to do. The very premise of rights is that one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. This was the basis for my previous belief that even though I personally believed abortion was wrong, I didn't think it was the government's place to tell others that it was wrong, though.
Doug had me think about other laws where the government has the right to restrict someone's behavior because it infringed upon the rights of others, though. The government has the right to enforce laws against stealing. It's not that me picking up a wallet full of money is wrong. It's that me picking up someone else's wallet full of money is wrong because they have the right to carry a wallet full of money without me interfering with them.
This is where the rubber meets the road in the abortion debate for me. I don't have the right to terminate the life of an adult because that adult has the right to life. At what point does a baby, a fetus, a zygote, whatever you want to call it at whatever stage of development and life it is, at what point does it have rights? My philosophy being based on rights, at the point the baby has the same right to life that I do then I don't believe abortion should be allowed. When does that occur, though?
I'll be honest, I'm not sure exactly at what point those rights begin. I think there has to be a definite point where you say this is a baby, this baby has rights that we can't allow others to infringe upon, though. If you're a mother or father and you've sat anxiously in the doctor's office to see the ultrasound at 18-20 weeks of your baby that you just can't wait to get here, do you honestly believe that little baby doesn't have rights? You can see it move. You see fingers and toes, you see it sucking its thumb. Doesn't this baby have the same rights that you and I do? I believe that it does.
In searching for a definite point at which the baby has rights, I haven't really found a point at which I'm comfortable saying that it doesn't. This is based on several things. For one, my strong held belief in the Bible. In numerous places the Bible talks about God knowing us from conception. Also, it seems to me, the more technology advances and the more we have insight into what happens within the womb, the more we understand how a baby advances earlier and earlier than we think it does. This is a great site for fetal development. I don't feel comfortable saying that a baby - that at 8 weeks has a brain, hands, knees, even an eyelid - doesn't have rights that we have every responsibly to protect.
This discussion isn't an easy one. There are a lot of people with understandably strong feelings on both sides of the debate. I think the more we respect one another and share our opinions the more comfortable we'll all be both with our own beliefs and the beliefs of others. Having been on both sides of this debate and different points in my life and having seen others willingness to respect my beliefs and discuss such a sensitive and personal issue, I feel like I know this first hand.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Why Aren't Politicians More Like Athletes?
So this may sound kinda crazy, but think about it. All you ever hear from politicians is what they don't stand for. You seldom hear about what they do stand for. It's all about how the other guy hasn't done this or how he did that and shouldn't have and so on and so forth. Shut up about the other guy already. Why is voting for you going to lead to better things for me? That's all I care to hear.
Contrast that with most athletes and especially coaches. Athletes seldom declare victory before a game. They rarely blame the refs or the timekeepers or anything of the sort. I mean, I know it happens, but out of all the games that go on year after year after year you only hear that kinda thing a handful of times. And even when you do, the rules are there to discourage that kind of behavior. These people pay hefty fines. Compare that with the last couple of national elections where there has been so much partisan bickering and accusing going on.
In case you missed it, Joe Biden recently announced his candidacy for President in 2008. He then proceeded to rip into the other major candidates, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama. Now if Biden was an athlete, his response instead would have gone something like these. And if you're a politician reading this, feel free to use it. I think it'll get you a lot further with the voters that the venom you normally spew.
Joe Biden, the professional athlete: Today, I'm announcing my candidacy for President in 2008.
Bill, the reporter: Senator Biden, what about Hillary Clinton? Do you think you have more of a shot than she would head to head against some of the more notable Republican candidates?
Biden: Well, there are some excellent candidates out there, Bill. I'm going to have a tough time even convincing my family and personal friends to vote for me, I think.
Reporter: Senator Biden, do you really feel Hillary Clinton is an excellent candidate? I mean, even some fellow Democrats are sounding as if they're concerned whether or not she's too polarizing a figure to have a shot with the more centrist voters.
Biden: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I've known Senator Clinton for a long time, though. I think she's got the strongest team on paper and she really plays the game the right way. If she's in the zone come election day, anything can happen. But I think I've really got a message the voters would like to hear. If we practice hard, take it one voter at a time, I think we can be in this thing at the end with a shot to win it. That's why you count the votes.
Contrast that with most athletes and especially coaches. Athletes seldom declare victory before a game. They rarely blame the refs or the timekeepers or anything of the sort. I mean, I know it happens, but out of all the games that go on year after year after year you only hear that kinda thing a handful of times. And even when you do, the rules are there to discourage that kind of behavior. These people pay hefty fines. Compare that with the last couple of national elections where there has been so much partisan bickering and accusing going on.
In case you missed it, Joe Biden recently announced his candidacy for President in 2008. He then proceeded to rip into the other major candidates, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama. Now if Biden was an athlete, his response instead would have gone something like these. And if you're a politician reading this, feel free to use it. I think it'll get you a lot further with the voters that the venom you normally spew.
Joe Biden, the professional athlete: Today, I'm announcing my candidacy for President in 2008.
Bill, the reporter: Senator Biden, what about Hillary Clinton? Do you think you have more of a shot than she would head to head against some of the more notable Republican candidates?
Biden: Well, there are some excellent candidates out there, Bill. I'm going to have a tough time even convincing my family and personal friends to vote for me, I think.
Reporter: Senator Biden, do you really feel Hillary Clinton is an excellent candidate? I mean, even some fellow Democrats are sounding as if they're concerned whether or not she's too polarizing a figure to have a shot with the more centrist voters.
Biden: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I've known Senator Clinton for a long time, though. I think she's got the strongest team on paper and she really plays the game the right way. If she's in the zone come election day, anything can happen. But I think I've really got a message the voters would like to hear. If we practice hard, take it one voter at a time, I think we can be in this thing at the end with a shot to win it. That's why you count the votes.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
The "Minimum" in Minimum Wage
I can't stand minimum wage laws. They're terrible policy. Anyone with even a basic level of understanding of economics knows and can explain why. Since I don't have one :), I had to read Stossel's. One of the most obvious reasons minimum wage laws are bad policy is that the cut the bottom rungs off the wage ladder. As Stossel explains:
"The law of supply and demand, which operates whether we like it or not, says that when the price of something goes up, people buy less of it. That's why environmentalists like higher gasoline taxes, and anti-smoking activists back higher cigarette taxes."
Given that explanation, when the cost of labor goes up then people (employers) buy less of it. In other words, they don't employee as many people.
As much as I like Stossel (and anyone that's read Stupid in America can attest that I do) even he misses one important point here. I believe that increasing the minimum wage will only increase the number of illegal immigrants that are hired. I know this isn't terribly intuitive so let me try to explain it with an analogy that most people are more familiar with.
Years ago the NBA considered raising the height of the basket. The thought was that there were so many really tall people playing that the 10' height had become outdated. People who were 7'+ tall had an unfair advantage over 6' people because they were so close to the 10' basket height. They did some test to see how effective raising the height of the basket would be in leveling the playing field between people that were 6' and 7' tall. In tests that were done (can anyone find one of those old tests for me to link to?) raising the height of the basket didn't level the playing field as they hoped it would. Instead, it further exaggerated the disparity. It put the 10' goal even further away from the 6' tall person and increased the advantage that the 7' person had.
So how does this basketball analogy have to do with minimum wage laws? Right now mimimum wage is $5.15. That's our 10' basketball goal. The 6' tall people are American citizens that are currently being employeed at minimum wage. The 7' tall people are illegal immigrants. Their advantage is that they can work for a cheaper rate. Surely most companies are law abiding in their hiring policies but some try to break the law and get an advantage by hiring some 7' tall people on their team. They're cheaper to employ. When the height of the basket is raised (when minimum wage is increased) then the 7' tall people (illegal immigrants) have even more of an advantage. They have more of an advantage because whereas currently it costs $5.15 to employ a US citizen versus potentially $4 for an illegal immigrant raising the minimum wage to $7.25, as the house as just voted to do, pushes that disparity from $1.15 to $3.25.
I'm not condoning companies for hiring illegal aliens. Certainly regardless of the money that can be saved it's not a justification for breaking the law. It will encourage a lot of unscrupulous companies to do just that, though. It increases their incentive the break the law. It may not be worth them risking the fines and bad publicity and everything else that goes with getting caught to save $1.15 but it's going to become worth it to more companies for $3.25. The easier it is for illegal immigrants to get a job the more that are going to be streaming across our border. That's the real low point of increasing the minimum wage.
"The law of supply and demand, which operates whether we like it or not, says that when the price of something goes up, people buy less of it. That's why environmentalists like higher gasoline taxes, and anti-smoking activists back higher cigarette taxes."
Given that explanation, when the cost of labor goes up then people (employers) buy less of it. In other words, they don't employee as many people.
As much as I like Stossel (and anyone that's read Stupid in America can attest that I do) even he misses one important point here. I believe that increasing the minimum wage will only increase the number of illegal immigrants that are hired. I know this isn't terribly intuitive so let me try to explain it with an analogy that most people are more familiar with.
Years ago the NBA considered raising the height of the basket. The thought was that there were so many really tall people playing that the 10' height had become outdated. People who were 7'+ tall had an unfair advantage over 6' people because they were so close to the 10' basket height. They did some test to see how effective raising the height of the basket would be in leveling the playing field between people that were 6' and 7' tall. In tests that were done (can anyone find one of those old tests for me to link to?) raising the height of the basket didn't level the playing field as they hoped it would. Instead, it further exaggerated the disparity. It put the 10' goal even further away from the 6' tall person and increased the advantage that the 7' person had.
So how does this basketball analogy have to do with minimum wage laws? Right now mimimum wage is $5.15. That's our 10' basketball goal. The 6' tall people are American citizens that are currently being employeed at minimum wage. The 7' tall people are illegal immigrants. Their advantage is that they can work for a cheaper rate. Surely most companies are law abiding in their hiring policies but some try to break the law and get an advantage by hiring some 7' tall people on their team. They're cheaper to employ. When the height of the basket is raised (when minimum wage is increased) then the 7' tall people (illegal immigrants) have even more of an advantage. They have more of an advantage because whereas currently it costs $5.15 to employ a US citizen versus potentially $4 for an illegal immigrant raising the minimum wage to $7.25, as the house as just voted to do, pushes that disparity from $1.15 to $3.25.
I'm not condoning companies for hiring illegal aliens. Certainly regardless of the money that can be saved it's not a justification for breaking the law. It will encourage a lot of unscrupulous companies to do just that, though. It increases their incentive the break the law. It may not be worth them risking the fines and bad publicity and everything else that goes with getting caught to save $1.15 but it's going to become worth it to more companies for $3.25. The easier it is for illegal immigrants to get a job the more that are going to be streaming across our border. That's the real low point of increasing the minimum wage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
