What's New Law---and What Isn't

Several stories in the news lately about Gov. Culver signing bills before the Tuesday 12 midnight deadline,
here, here ,here ,
here
and here

Here is the whole list of bills signed or vetoed by Culver, via his website. I must say, It's nice to see that a page like this exists. It makes things much easier for people to find out what's going on with the bills Culver has been sent.

---------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Some Reading For Your Wednesday

Cal Thomas takes on the subject of "unending war," arguing that it's not the US who is pushing it, as some would have you believe. Rather it's Al-Qaida who is responsible.

Jonah Goldberg looks at some of the controversies John Edwards has found himself in lately. Here's a piece I rather enjoyed:

A few years ago, when it was reported that "virtuecrat" Bill Bennett, the former Education secretary, liked to gamble in Las Vegas, columnist Michael Kinsley spoke for much of establishment liberalism when he declared, "Bennett has been exposed as a humbug artist who ought to be pelted off the public stage." I thought this was unfair, as Bennett never inveighed against gambling, nor did his church consider it a sin. Edwards, who gets choked up and misty-eyed from his own relentlessly recounted stump speech about "two Americas," is more of a humbug artist than Bennett ever was. You would think that when Edwards looks in the mirror in one of his new, 28,000-square-foot house's six bathrooms, inspecting whether it's time for another $400 haircut, he might feel the slightest twinge of conscience about his us-versus-them shtick.

Thomas Sowell writes about how the use of words work in the political arena. It's an interesting piece that could complement Frank Luntz's book Words that Work.

Finally, Rich Lowry has a piece up about Americans and their love of cars. Lowry has several interesting statistics in his piece. We hear about how raising fuel standards will help, however for every 10% increase in fuel economy, people drive 2% more. Most interesting though are his comments about Europe. Cars make up 88% of travel in the US. Europe isn't that far behind, with cars making up 78% of travel, and driving per capita is increasing more that twice as fast as the US. Just as interesting was what Lowry said about the cost of mass transit. Gas would have to be $15 a gallon in order for driving to be more expensive than flying or taking the train or bus. In fact, while the working population has increased since 1960, the number of people using mass transportation has dropped.

------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Al-Qaeda Tortue Manual

You may have seen something about this before. The Smoking Gun got a hold of an Al-Qaeda torture training manual, and published photos from it online. Here is a Pajamas Media post on the subject as well, including some blog reaction.

BE WARNED: THESE ARE GRAPHIC IMAGES. They are not for the faint or weak hearted. So don't click on these links if you don't think you can handle it. I post them because it's important to remind everyone just exactly who it is we are fighting. Here are what the images portray:

--Drilling Hands
--Severing Limbs
--Dragging Victims Behind Cars
--Eye Removal
--Blow Torch To The Skin
--Suspended From Ceiling and Electrocuted
--Breaking Limbs and Restricting Breath
--Binding and Beating
--Suspending and Whipping
--Clothes Iron to Skin
--Victim's Head in a Vice

Our troops in Iraq are discovering torture rooms where this stuff takes place. It's happening. And the people we are fighting are the ones who are doing it.

--------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

The "Successful" New Congress

Ronald Cass has a piece at Real Clear Politics today about how "successful" the new Democrat Congress has been so far.

Cass nails the Democrats on several aspects:

--The failure to get only one of their "6 for '06" agenda into law. That was a staggered increase in the minimum wage. President Bush agreed to sign that legislation at his first meeting with the new Democrat leadership, but the Democrats still had to pack it in with the defense spending bill. Don't forget, the "first 100 hours" became the "first 100 legislative" hours.

--Democrats railed against the "culture of corruption" during the election. When it came time for leadership elections, Madam Pelosi supported John Murtha as House Majority Leader. Murtha has a shaky ethical past. Neither has anything been done about Rep. William Jefferson, the man made famous by the $90,000 in cold, hard, cash found in his freezer in an FBI raid of his home.

--Serious delays--109 days-- in getting funding to our troops in war zones because Democrats had to please their anti-war constituency but including withdrawal deadlines in the bill. Today on his radio show, Glenn Beck brought up a conversation he had with his nephew in Iraq about how he and a couple of guys in his unit were wearing older helmets "that looked like they were out of WW2" because they couldn't get replacements. The nephew also asked Glenn to send food, not snacks, but food, because the military have had to start rationing in the past few weeks. Maybe it's only an isolated incident, but it's still a frightening thought.

The Democrats didn't win on anything substantial except on the perceived negatives the public had about Republicans. But for a few thousand votes in either Montana or Virginia, the Senate would still be in Republican hands. Several house seats were decided by very narrow margins, and most of the Democrat winners were more conservative--at least that is how they portrayed themselves--than their party's mainstream.

When you hear Democrats talking about their success like this in the future, remember---for all of their "successes", Congress still has a lower approval rating than President Bush.

-------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Conservative Theories and Today

Two articles are up on the net today discussing more of the intellectual aspects of conservatism.

Peter Berkowitz at OpinionJournal.com has a piece up about, as he says in the subtitle: "The American Right is a cauldron of debate; the left isn't." Berkowitz digs in a little to the roots of conservatism, quoting some of it's past leaders and thinkers. But it mainly points out that what looks like splits in the movement are actually just debates about where to go from where we are at now.

The other piece, by S.T. Karnick at TCS Daily, looks at the "classical liberalism" arguments about what's happening in Iraq. While I don't think you can argue with the logic of classical liberalism, I do believe that the line between nation building and national security is much blurrier than what Karnick leads readers to believe. We don't want to make Iraq into something of a US colony, but at the same time we don't want to leave Iraq as a terrorist safe haven or as a sphere of influence for Iran. The blurry line comes with determining when pushing the Iraqi government to stand up so we can draw down becomes dictating Iraqi government policy.

---------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Memorial Day

Here are a couple of links for this Memorial Day.

Peter Collier has a piece up at OpinionJournal on some of the stories of Memorial Day. Collier includes a handful of the many stories of courage and heroism in American Military History.

Power Line blog has a short post up about an article at the New York Times about a group of Civil War buffs who are identifying and restoring the head stones of over 3,000 Civil War Veterans buried in Brooklyn's Green-Wood Cemetery.

Michael Yon has a post up on Memorial Day. For those of you who do not know who Michael Yon is, he is one of the few journalist who regularly go out on patrols with our troops in Iraq, and spends much more time with our troops than most journalist over there do. Many consider him a modern day Ernie Pyle. Bookmark his site, and visit often.

Even through Memorial Day weekend has become more and more just another 3-day weekend, it's important to remember those who have served our nation in the military. God Bless all of our veterans.

--------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Now They Are Comming For Your Internet

A ban that prohibits states from taxing internet use is close to lapsing. From CNET News

At issue is the scheduled expiration on November 1 of a law, initially enacted in 1998, that says local governments generally cannot tax Internet access, including DSL (digital subscriber line), cable modem and BlackBerry-type wireless transmission services. The law also prohibits governments from taxing items sold online in a different manner than those sold at brick-and-mortar stores, but it does not deal with sales taxes on online shopping.

The article goes on:

But previous attempts at renewing the ban for more than two to four years have failed, in part because of resistance from state and local government lobby groups. State government representatives caution against making the moratorium permanent, saying it would deprive states indefinitely of vital revenue sources and that its original purpose--boosting the nascent Internet to commercial viability--has essentially been accomplished.

The argument is that the state is entitled to your money---that simple.

A separate issue on one politician's mind was what to do about the collection of sales taxes on the Internet. State governments have long griped that they are losing revenue to booming e-commerce businesses that aren't required to collect taxes from customers in states where the businesses don't have a physical presence. Rep. Bill Delahunt, a Democrat from Massachusetts, said he was planning to try again at enacting a bill designed to address those concerns.

Newsmax.com also has a story up about this:

Proposals in the U.S. Congress could lead to taxes on Internet shopping, broadband connections and even e-mail by this fall. State and local governments are lobbying Congress to gain the ability to impose the new taxes.

Sen. Michael Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, has introduced a bill that would usher in mandatory sales tax collection for Internet purchases, the CNET News.com Web site reported.

And the House has held a hearing to decide whether to let a temporary ban on Net access taxes lapse when it expires in November.

"With Democrats now in control of both chambers of Congress, the political dynamic appears to have shifted in favor of the pro-tax advocates and their allies on Capitol Hill,” according to CNET.

But Sen. Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican, said he prefers "an impregnable ban on taxes on the Internet.”

If the ban on Net access taxes is allowed to lapse, states and municipalities could impose an array of access taxes, just as they now do on telephone bills.

Internet users could then see a tax on e-mails, said Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., who added:

"They might say, ‘We have no interest in having tax on e-mail,’ but if we allow the prohibition on Internet taxes to expire, then you open the door on cities and towns and states to tax e-mail or other aspects of Internet access.”

Can you believe this? This just goes to show that the government wants its hands on everything. It's one thing to discuss the issue of sales taxes on online purchases, but taxing internet use itself, and even email use? I remember these as rumors way back in the late 90's, but it sounds like its all too real now.

It should be obvious to everyone that if this ban lapses, taxes will increase. And I would be surprised if Iowa Democrats didn't go after it. They are already want to tax Internet downloads, seriously looking at it this past session. With how much they are increasing spending during this legislature's sessions, the Democrats are going to be looking for as many tax dollars as they can get. All I can say is hold onto your wallets.

-----------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

You're Not Paying Enough For Gas

This article from MSN Money says that you're not paying enough for gas. A responsible government, it turns out, would increase taxes so that a gallon of gas never drops below $4 a gallon. It's not the government's fault though---it's our fault because we can't do anything about our addiction to "gas-hogging SUVs." Even though this is just an opinion piece by who appears to be some kook, I bet we hear more and more about this in the near future.

When talking about energy, Europe should always be our example:

Europe has an average fuel economy for its new-car fleet of more than 40 miles per gallon. The European Union years ago amassed support among members for high taxes on gasoline, which drove a swift migration from big cars to smaller cars and to diesel fuel. The result: less dependency on OPEC and cleaner air in the cities.

The French get 80% of their power from nuclear sources. Does this mean we can build more nuclear reactors? Oh wait, the environmentalists won't like that. Never mind.

Europe also has a larger rail system set up that covers the continent for people who still can't afford or don't want to pay that much for gas. While that might work here in the US for more urban areas, but what about in places like Webster County? Who is going to invest in putting in a rail system linking towns such as Dayton, Harcourt, and Badger to Fort Dodge, and then run the trains?

But consumers won't trade the Ford Expeditions, Toyota Sequoias and Chevy Tahoes that they don't need until gasoline is permanently more than $4 per gallon. The people who really need those vehicles for ranching and boat towing will buy them no matter what.

So, stick the farmer, the person who grows the food that you eat, and now grows the stuff that you mix with your gas, with higher gas taxes? Just because they will buy the big vehicle anyways? These Buisness Week guys need to come spend some time on a farm to see how the whole operation works before saying something like this.

Notice also how they assume what kinds of vehicles we do and do not need. Shouldn't that be a personal choice? Beside, how do they know we don't need Expeditions or Tahoes? What if you have a large family, either numerically or physically, and need the room? This, like the rest of the article, just yells arrogance.

The new tax money could go to tax offsets for lower- and lower-middle-income consumers and to invest in new energy infrastructure in the U.S. That makes sense. This is not an original idea, but the gas tax could be called a "patriot tax" to exempt it from political wrangling.

Oh, so now its a progressive gas tax. Just like income taxes, the filthy rich can afford to pay for gas for the not-so-rich. Actually, it won't only be the filthy rich, it will be the middle income consumers.

I don't like the price of gas, just like everyone else. I'm all for finding alternative fuels, but do people like this really want to solve our fuel problem, or just dictate to everyone how we will get around? Americans were the first in flight. America put man on the moon. Are you telling me that America can't find some alternative source of fuel that doesn't involve us driving small ugly cars? That the only thing America can do is play like Europe and tax the hell out of gas?

One of the major reasons for the increase in gas prices is because we don't have enough fuel refineries. In fact, I've heard that 13% of refined gasoline in the US is imported. Refineries are running at almost 100% capacity full time, and when one goes off line for what ever reason, the effects are felt across the country. Why not just build more refineries, or increase our refinery capacities? The environmentalist won't allow it, and they've been able to get laws and regulations enacted that slows down the process. It takes years of planning, paper work, and dealing with government bureaucracy even before building could begin.

What about all of the different variants of gas that states require? Why not try stream lining this into one or two variants?

Keep your eyes out on this kind of stuff. There are probably very very few politicians, if any, who would openly support increasing gas taxes like this, because it would be politically stupid to do so. This is all about power though, and there are those who will push for it at the first opportunity.
----------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Four of Our Many Heroes

Jeff Emanuel has an article posted at NRO that features the stories of four of our many heroes in the War on Terror. I urge you to read it and keep them and our other men and women in uniform in your thoughts this Memorial Day weekend.

----------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Braley and Loebsack Vote No on Funding Our Troops

Iowa Congressmen Bruce Braley (IA-1) and Dave Loebsack (IA-2) voted against the recent bill that funds our efforts in Iraq through the year. The rest of the Iowa delegation, including Rep. Boswell and Sen. Tom Harkin.

According to Radio Iowa's story, Braley released the comment on his vote:

"The American people and the people of Iowa have demanded a new direction in Iraq. That's why I cannot support legislation that excludes a reasonable timetable for redeployment, effectively writing the President a blank check to continue his failed policy in Iraq.

Congressman, we started a new direction in January with the surge. Second, redeployment = withdraw and surrender.

This is what Loebsack had to say:

"Like all Iowans, I support the men and women in our military. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I work everyday to ensure our troops receive the support they deserve in service and at home. Unfortunately, this bill would allow the President to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan without full training, proper equipment, and the necessary rest period required between deployments. Over the course of the past five years, President Bush has mismanaged this war and stubbornly refused to listen to advice or accept the reality on the ground in Iraq. Congress can no longer continue to give President Bush unchecked authority. We need real timelines and real accountability.

Hasn't Bush always listened to his generals, who repeateadly said they had all they needed? Didn't President Bush implement a surge after listening to officers such as Gen. Petraus, historians, military experts, and members of Congress?

While Braley and Loebsack don't directly represent Webster County, they do represent Iowa.
------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Is it a "War on Terror"?

You have probably heard about John Edward's recent remark about how the term "War on Terror" is just a bumper sticker slogan and nothing more. This a man running for the nomination of a party whose foreign policy is based off of the phrase "Bush Lied--People Died."

James S. Robbins has an article up at NRO about the names that have been proposed for the War on Terror, and the debate on whether it truly is a war or not. It's a good article, and he sums up that we are truly in a war.

This points to the most important reason to call this struggle a war — because the enemy does. Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States and its allies twice, in 1996 and 1998. He and others attacked US and allied interests numerous times in the tears leading up to 9/11. We placed ourselves at a clear disadvantage by not accepting that when violent, highly motivated group such as al Qaeda declare war, they really do mean it. If we behave as though they don’t, we do so at our peril.

It would be an act of great hubris to stop referring to the conflict with the terrorists as a war. It would implicitly say that they are not threat enough to warrant that designation. Enough for a struggle, maybe a tussle, but no more. Maybe in some ways they aren’t; we have done a great job in disrupting their networks, capturing or killing their leaders, interdicting their finances, and breaking up their planned attacks. The terrorists are not the threat to our homeland that they were six years ago. But if we give up “war,” what then? Will the public stay focused? Will the bureaucracy stay motivated, to the extent it still is? Will we be able to take the kind of resolute action we need to take as opportunities to take our terrorists abroad present themselves? Or will the calcification return — the old patterns of thinking — less focus on mission effectiveness, more on procedural detail — less innovation, more careerism. Giving up on the notion that we are at war with people who are pledged to our destruction is to invite complacency. Eventually the imagination would again fail. And the consequences next time could be far more deadly.

It’s a war all right. Ask any terrorist.

-----------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

The Future of Fort Dodge

The Messenger has an article today (available online here) about planning for the future of Fort Dodge. There was another article yesterday on the topic. Take a read, there are a lot of good ideas they are looking at. The report to the city council contains 194 policy statements and 163 strategies. The article focuses more on the entertainment aspects they are looking at, but are also looking at areas such as schools and business climate.

As long as the city can foster a climate that encourages start-up and growing businesses and is capable of maintaining a 21st Century workforce, Fort Dodge has a lot of potential for future growth and development. It isn't only Fort Dodge that could see benefits. There is the potential of the whole county benefiting--whether it be more jobs, people moving into the area for work but wishing to live in a smaller town, increased attendance at the various town celebrations throughout the year, and so on.

Of course, this will be a group effort. Let the council know your thoughts and feelings. I'm sure they would appreciate it.

UPDATE: Another article was published in todays paper, focusing on what Fort Dodge will look like in 2030. They are envisioning green spaces spread around the city, better roads, a water system the must be planned for future growth, moving the Fort Museum out by a 4 lane Highway-20, and a city wind farm to help power the city
---------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

The Greatness of America

Victor Davis Hanson has a piece up at Real Clear Politics about America and the future. Its a good piece on how even when people say that America is done and can't compete with foreign events or countries, American proves otherwise. In the many doom and gloom news, articles, etc, it's a good pick-me-up article. Print it out, and save it for those days when the news has you down. Here's an excerpt:

In the last 60 years, we have been warned in succession that new paradigms in racially pure Germany, the Soviet workers' paradise, Japan Inc. and now 24/7 China all were about to displace the United States. None did. All have had relative moments of amazing success -- but in the end none proved as resilient, flexible and adaptable as America.

That brings us to the United States' greatest strength: radical self-critique. We Americans are worrywarts, always believing we're on the verge of extinction. And so, to "renew," "reinvent" or "save" America, we whip ourselves up about "wars" on poverty, drugs and cancer; space "races;" missile "gaps;" literacy "crusades;" and "campaigns" against litter, waste and smoking.

In other words, we nail-biters have always been paranoid that we must change and improve in order to survive. And thus we usually do -- just in time.

-----------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

The Importance of Youth

There is an editorial in The Seattle Times discussing the politics of the 18-25 year olds in this country. The majority of the opinion piece is recitation of the regular talking points of how younger people are leaning Democrat. The columnist, Joni Balter, cites Pew research data that 48% of 18-25 year olds identify more with Democrats, while only 35% identify with Republicans. It is pretty much a the-youth-vote-will-save-the-Democrat-Party piece.

She does say though that "the trend isn't foolproof." College Republicans have huge membership lists, especially in place you don't think so. The CRs are one of the largest student groups at the University of Iowa, and even at UC Berkley, where last I heard it was number two. College Republicans provide an excellent opportunity for college students to get involved in politics. The Teenage Republicans are another group that aims at high school students.

The importance of reaching out to youth cannot be overstated. It may sound kind of hokey, but they are the future of the party. I've seen the energy that young people can bring campaigns and local Republican groups. We need to make sure we are encouraging them to do so.

---------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Boehner Goes After Pelosi On Earmark Reform

You remember all of the talk about ear-mark reform and how the Democrats were going to clean up Congress, right? John Boehner released a second letter he sent to Speaker Pelosi asking why there has not been much action on it yet. Here is the whole press release, as found on his website:

Washington, May 21 - House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) charging Democrats with moving backwards on promises to clean up the congressional earmark process, noting that the process “has become less transparent and less accountable than it was during the 109th Congress, directly violating pledges made last year by Democratic leaders.” Boehner’s letter comes as the House prepares to consider a privileged resolution offered by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) concerning an earmark-related House rules violation by Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), who was the Speaker’s preferred choice for House Majority Leader.

Boehner’s letter lists a series of rules abuses by the Democratic majority he argues have made a mockery of House rules that are supposed to ensure no taxpayer-funded earmark is passed without appropriate scrutiny and debate. In addition to the Murtha incidents, Boehner notes Democrats have refused to allow Members to challenge questionable earmarks on the House floor, certified a huge spending bill as “earmark free” though it contained hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks, and preserved special privileges for state and local government lobbyists seeking earmarks from Congress, including lobbyists for public universities.

“At the outset of this Congress, Republicans and Democrats jointly pledged to make the earmark process more transparent and more accountable to the American people. A rules package was adopted that was supposed to enforce this pledge as one of its central objectives by ensuring no earmark would be passed by the House without appropriate scrutiny and opportunity for debate. Recent actions by the majority have begun to make a mockery of this vow and of the rules themselves,” Boehner says in the letter.

“These actions by the majority have become increasingly flagrant and bold with each passing month of the 110th Congress, fueling public cynicism about our institution and disheartening many who believe fundamental change is needed in the way in which Washington spends the taxpayers’ money,” Boehner says in the letter. “[W]e have now reached the point at which the congressional earmark process has become less transparent and less accountable than it was during the 109th Congress, directly violating pledges made last year by Democratic leaders.”

In the letter, Boehner repeats his request that the Speaker establish a bipartisan panel to review problems with the House rules that were drafted unilaterally by Democratic leaders in January. Boehner wrote to the Speaker in March to document mounting problems and confusion with the new rules and to request that such a panel be established. To date, the Speaker has not responded to Boehner’s letter.

#####

The text of the letter is as follows:

May 21, 2007

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

Speaker of the House

H-232, U.S. Capitol

Washington, D.C. 20515

Madame Speaker:

Fifty days have passed with no reply from you to my letter expressing concern about the chaos being inflicted on the House and its Members by the complex, confusing and contradictory ethics rules for the 110th Congress drafted unilaterally by Democratic leaders in January.

During your seven weeks of silence on this vital matter, it has become painfully clear that the House ethics rules are even more hopelessly broken than we recognized when I wrote to you back in March. It has also become increasingly clear that uncertainty over the rules is beginning to negatively impact public policy and undermine public confidence in our institution at the very time we should be working together to restore it.

At the outset of this Congress, Republicans and Democrats jointly pledged to make the earmark process more transparent and more accountable to the American people. A rules package was adopted that was supposed to enforce this pledge as one of its central objectives by ensuring no earmark would be passed by the House without appropriate scrutiny and opportunity for debate.

Recent actions by the majority have begun to make a mockery of this vow and of the rules themselves. These actions by the majority have become increasingly flagrant and bold with each passing month of the 110th Congress, fueling public cynicism about our institution and disheartening many who believe fundamental change is needed in the way in which Washington spends the taxpayers’ money. In fact, I would submit that as a result of the flawed rules, we have now reached the point at which the congressional earmark process has become less transparent and less accountable than it was during the 109th Congress, directly violating pledges made last year by Democratic leaders.

The following examples illustrate the scale of the problem:

• Rep. John Murtha was recently able to secure tens of millions of dollars for a questionable project in his district by highly suspect methods that either flaunted the new rules without penalty or at best nominally complied with them – proving in either case how utterly ineffective the new rules really are.

• In February, the majority was able to certify a massive spending bill as “earmark-free,” despite the fact that it contained hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks.

• Under the rules, lobbyists working for state and local governmental institutions – including public universities lobbying Congress for earmarks and other causes – continue to be exempt from the congressional gift ban that apply to other all lobbyists. This gaping loophole in the gift rules has inexplicably been left open by the majority, both in its rules and the lobbying reform legislation introduced last week.

• Under the rules, there is no way a Member can challenge an earmark that is included in a bill brought to the House floor as long as the bill contains a list of earmarks – even if the list is inaccurate, and fails to include the earmark the Member seeks to challenge.

• Perhaps most appalling, the majority has twisted House rules and procedure to prevent questionable earmarks – once identified – from being challenged in any way on the House floor by Members seeking nothing more than up-or-down votes on these suspect provisions. In fact, on at least two occasions, Republican Members objecting to illegitimate earmarks have been directly threatened with retaliation by a senior Democratic Member, in open defiance of the new rules.

Sadly, Madame Speaker, the sorry state of the earmark process represents only a portion of the chaos that continues to mount both inside and outside Congress concerning the new rules. Rather than repeat the many examples cited in my earlier letter, let me renew my longstanding request that you join me in appointing a bipartisan working group tasked with analyzing House ethics rules and recommending fair, sensible and understandable revisions designed to improve both compliance and enforcement.

As I do so, I am reminded of your plea to the previous Republican leadership on April 14, 2005: “If you have discomfort with these [ethics] rules, let’s get together in a bipartisan way to review them.” We do, and we should.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

John A. Boehner

Republican Leader

---------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

The Internet Age Gap

The Des Moines Register has a new Iowa poll about where Iowans get their election news and information. It's an interesting poll, and it goes back to the subject of the growing role of the internet. While some people may question any results from the Iowa Poll, after pretty much calling the results of the 2006 midterms, I’m not quite as willing to throw out the results.

Towards the end of the article, here is what the poll found about internet use:

When it comes to using the Internet, the Iowa Poll shows that four-fifths of likely caucus participants in the 18-to-34 age bracket have searched the Internet for candidates' stands on issues or that is something they are likely to do.

The level of use drops off to about two-fifths of likely caucus goers who are 55 or older.

The age gap is about the same for visiting candidate Web sites.

Significant age differences also show up in the Iowa Poll in reading online forums or blogs written by experts, with use in the 34-or-younger group running 20 percentage points higher than in the 55-or-older age group.

This adds to the argument that we as a party need to keep up on the use of the Internet as a method of voter contact. Twice as many people in the 18-34 group use the internet for candidate research than the over 55 group. (I’m including “visiting candidate websites” into the candidate research column as that is the most likely reason why people visit them in the first place.) The 18-34 and the 35-54 group have much closer results. It is only a 10% difference in using the internet for candidate research, and only a 1% difference on reading blogs and forums by experts. When they asked about newspaper use, the poll didn’t differentiate between print and online articles, but I’m sure we’d see similar results.

The article also found that for both parties, half of those planning on attending the caucuses are over 55, and only 10% will be 18-34 year olds. Combining the survey into 2 groups, under 55 and over 55, half of caucus attendees will make much use of the internet in deciding who to support. This will only increase for future caucuses and elections. The Internet will be to our and future generations to what the TV ad and direct mailing was to those in the late 20^th century, and the political rallies, marches, and speeches of several hours in length to those is the 19^th century.

------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Another Reason We Love Reagan

Paul Kengor at NRO has an article up remembering Ronald Reagan's debate with Robert Kennedy 40 years ago.

It's an interesting article and I find myself looking for a video of the event.

Reading through some examples of the questions they were faced, I can't help but think about the Democrat candidates refusing to a debate hosted by FOX News. Reagan probably knew that there was going to be a student panel filled with college students the likes of which he confronted as Governor. He also probably expected the kinds of questions he was going to get, but went on and rebutted them all. The Democrats, on the other hand, can't stand the idea of participating in a debate hosted by a news channel they don't like.

Some examples of the questions and statements made by the student panel:

“I believe the war in Vietnam is illegal, immoral, politically unjustifiable, and economically motivated.”

In another exchange still difficult to watch, a contemptuous Brit named Jeff Jordan, whom Kennedy permitted to roll all over him, complained that the Diem regime, with the alleged help of U.S. advisers, had incarcerated six million Vietnamese in “forced prison camps.”

“Excuse me, sir…. You think something is good; he thinks something else is good. You want him to give up some of his hostile views. You are not prepared to move back one inch from yours.”

------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Iowa Loosing Its Influence?

The Wall Street Journal has an article up today about how the front loading of the primary schedule will dilute Iowa's influence. Even though much has been written on this subject, this article takes a different approach, focusing more on early voters and how campaigns will need to target them long before the state's caucus/primary.

Christopher Cooper, the author, makes several good points. Campaigns will be able to lock up votes before the caucus and primaries begin that can lessen any poor showing in earlier states. He also writes that candidates will also spend more time in these states to influence these early voters. Finally, there is the money thing. Sending out mailers to everyone who requests an absentee ballot will require a lot of money. This won't bother the larger campaigns, but can hurt smaller ones.

My only problem with this is what are the early voter rates in these states? Cooper writes that 47% of voters in the 2006 primary were absentee votes. That's a large percentage, however California also has a program that automatically sends out absentee ballots to those who request that service. He doesn't cite rates in other states. Aside from California, will the number of early votes provide a real potential to offset primary day voters?

Of course there is another question that needs to be addressed----should there even be early voting for primaries and caucuses? Unlike a general election, primaries feature several candidates, many of whom are operating on very limited budgets and may not be doing well in polls. What were to happen if a candidate drops out of the race after ballots are sent out? Anyone who voted for that candidate would effectively loose their vote. Granted, the likely hood of this so close to voting day is low, but it's still a question that should be addressed.

I don't think that Iowa's or New Hampshire's influence will be diluted with the front loaded schedule. If anything, it will make these states more important. A win or good finish in these two states will provide much momentum for that campaign into the future races. That candidate will also be on every news show for the next week---millions of dollars in earned media. The creation of Super Tuesday was supposed to dilute early state influence, but as we have seen, it only influenced them.

----------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Another Democrat Who Gets It

Former Sen. Bob Kerrey has an article posted by Opinion Journal discussing how Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror. As an excerpt to entice you to read it:

Some who have been critical of this effort from the beginning have consistently based their opposition on their preference for a dictator we can control or contain at a much lower cost. From the start they said the price tag for creating an environment where democracy could take root in Iraq would be high. Those critics can go to sleep at night knowing they were right.

The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.

Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn't you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.

Elsewhere in the article, Kerrey writes about that even if Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before the invasion, the fact that they are there now means that we can't just get up and leave. This is probably the most important point he makes. No matter when or how they got there, the fact that Al-Qaeda is in Iraq means that the focus is in Iraq.

--------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Tax Rates Will Be A'Risin'

Peter Ferrara has an article up at NRO about how the national debt is shrinking, and what Democrats might do to disrupt or even reverse it.

The Treasury Department’s tax-collection data for April puts the federal deficit over the 12-month period ending April 30 at $144.7 billion. This leaves the deficit at about one percent of GDP, and declining, which is not a significant economic problem.

The decline is due to surging tax revenues from a booming economy. The deficit is down about $120 billion, or 45 percent, since last April. It has declined by $309 billion, or 68 percent, over the last three years from the peak of $455 billion in April, 2004. This experience shows that combining pro-growth tax cuts with just moderate spending restraint can sharply reduce, and, indeed, eliminate the deficit.

The deficit has declined now for 26 consecutive months and will continue to do so over the next 5 months until the end of the fiscal year. The deficit will consequently soon be well below one percent of GDP. Even with some modest slow down in economic growth, this deficit could be eliminated over the next two years with reasonable restraint in the growth of federal spending.

But any such reasonable restraint in spending is not going to happen with the new Democrat Congress. Their emerging budget plan calls for even more rapid increases in federal spending, sopping up all projected increases in revenues, which will leave no scope for continued deficit reduction in the next fiscal year. They tout a plan to eliminate the remaining rapidly shrinking deficit over a ridiculous five years, and that only with tax increases.

Starting this fall, therefore, Democrats will be harping on a deficit which was rapidly falling toward extinction, but which they chose instead to sustain and perpetuate with excessive spending increases.

Tax revenues this fiscal year are running at about 19 percent of GDP, which is in line with historical averages over the last 50-plus years, showing there is no justification for a tax increase. But the Democrats’ plan for history-shattering tax increases starting in the next fiscal year, to support record-setting increases in spending. Their long-term budget plan is for truly massive increases in taxes and spending, like nothing ever seen before.

The budget has shunk faster than predicted, yet this isn't enough for Democrats. The budget they are presenting before Congress is like the budget passed in the Iowa legislature this year--way more than is should be. How are they going to pay for it--they're not going to "raise taxes," but rather let tax cuts lapse. There is no difference--its a tax raise.

-----------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

The Internet Wars

The methods of electioneering changes as technology does. The Selling of the President: 1968 paints a very good, and interesting, picture of how TV came to be the dominate mode to reach voters. The use of direct mail has played a huge part in elections as well. Going back to the 19th century and the founding of our country, you see how the role of the printing press--in the form of newspapers, pamphlets, books, tracts, etc---affected campaigns.

Jose Antonio Vargas has an article at The Washington Post website about the Republican and Democrat parties and their use of the internet. He argues that Republicans are loosing the internet race, citing that Democrat websites have far more hits, and that Democrat presidential candidate profiles on MySpace and Facebook have more friends that their Republican counterparts. He offers a couple of reasons why.

Here is one portion that struck me:

One reason for the disparity between the parties, political insiders say, is that the top Republican candidates are not exciting voters the way the Democratic front-runners are. Another is that it takes a certain level of technical skill and understanding to be an online strategist, and Republicans admit that "the pool of talent in the Democrats' side is much bigger than ours."

But an underlying cause may be the nature of the Republican Party and its traditional discipline -- the antithesis of the often chaotic, bottom-up, user-generated atmosphere of the Internet.

"We've always been a party of staying on message," All said. "It's the Rush Limbaugh model. What Tony Snow says in the White House filters down to talk radio, which makes its way to the blogs."

Peter Leyden, director of the New Politics Institute, a San Francisco-based think tank that in recent months has been advising Democratic members of Congress and their staffs on how to take full advantage of the Web, argues that the culture of Democrats is a much better fit in the Internet world.

"What was once seen as a liability for Democrats and progressives in the past -- they couldn't get 20 people to agree to the same thing, they could never finish anything, they couldn't stay on message -- is now an asset," Leyden said. "All this talking and discussing and fighting energizes everyone, involves everyone, and gets people totally into it."

I don't really buy the part about Republicans being more of a top-down party than the Democrats. In Congress, Democrats appear to have much stronger party discipline than Republicans do. Conservative bloggers, columnists, and radio hosts have criticized President Bush and members of Congress about spending, No Child Left Behind, etc, while their liberal equivalents have criticized Democrats for not being anti-war enough, etc.

Towards the end of the article, Vargas hints again at why Republicans lag behind:

"But look at the short history of online politics," Glover said. "For Republicans, the Internet is where bad things happen. Take [former U.S. senator] George Allen and his 'macaca' moment. . . . You can kind of understand why Republicans have this almost instinctive fear of the Internet, where the mob rules."

Turk, who led the RNC's e-campaign shop after serving as Bush's online chief, is revamping the lackluster ABC PAC. Turk, who was deputy director of the New Mexico GOP in the 1990s, helped build the fundraising site last spring, months after leaving the RNC, which he found "too bureaucratic" and "not at all conducive to a lot of cutting-edge, creative, outside-the-box thinking."

He's equally critical of the Internet strategy of his party's presidential candidates. "Yes," he said, "they've all got Web sites. Yes, they're doing videos. Yes, some are blogging. But that's not enough to really connect with voters," said Turk, who now works as vice president of industry grass roots at the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

One thing not covered here that I think is important is that the Republican and Democrat parties operate differently and have different organizations. They operate towards different constituencies, so it would be stupid to expect both parties to operate, and use the internet, in the exact same way. The author also errs in making the article about the parties and candidates, and then start discussing things such as The Daily Kos. Blogs, even though they work to influence voters and elected officials, fall under the category of ideas/positions, and not party.

Even so, there are some good points in the article. Anytime you find something that works, you are hesitant to make any changes. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" as they saying goes. Talk radio, magazines such as National Review, Fox News, and so on, has done a lot for Conservatives and the Republican party. And you can't let that stop you from taking the internet seriously. More and more people are getting their news, shopping, trading stocks, etc, online and that will continue to expand.

But when you think along the lines of "Conservative vs. Liberal," I don't think that conservatives are really that far behind. National Review and The Weekly Standard post new articles on their websites daily, and offer a digital version of their magazine available on their website. Whereas not long ago the only place you could find opinion pieces only in your newspaper or magazines you subscribed too, now a whole host of websites, such as Townhall.com, Opinionjournal.com, and American Thinker offer opinion pieces on a whole host of subjects. Blogs, such as Captain's Quarters, Powerline, Little Green Footballs, State 29, Caucus Cooler, the former Krusty Konservative, and so on, do the same thing. Radio shows such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, etc offer online streaming of their shows as well as downloadable podcasts. The Heritage Foundation, The Cato Institute, AEI, and other conservative think tanks publish their research and articles on their website with easy to use search and browse feature. We may not have something on the lines of The Daily Kos in terms of giant Republican/Conservative message boards, we are getting our message out.

--------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Dodd Open to Attacking Iran

Chris Dodd was in Iowa campaigning for the Democrat nomination. Here is the Des Moines Register article on it:

Democratic presidential candidate Christopher Dodd said today that using military force ought to be an option in containing Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

"I would never take the military option off the table," the Connecticut senator told about 50 Democratic activists during a forum at Drake University. "That arrow is in my quiver."

But Dodd criticized the Bush administration for being too quick to threaten and use military force.

Dodd's hour-long event in Drake's Olmsted Center was broadcast live on the Internet, with satellite events held simultaneously in Burlington, Charles City, Decatur City, Iowa City and Sioux City.

Dodd also discussed his support for a measure that would have all U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by the end of March 2008.

He also took questions on a range of topics, including whether he supported direct negotiations with Iran and Syria, which have given support to terrorist organizations attacking U.S. forces in Iraq.

"Responsible leaders understand that negotiations are something you do with people you have a problem with," Dodd said.

Dodd capped a two-day swing to Iowa, the leadoff caucus state, in Des Moines, after addressing Dubuque-area Democrats Thursday.

Interesting how Dodd wants the US to pull out of Iraq, he even has a commercial up announcing his support for such a move. However he still believes that military force should still be an option against Iran. Doesn't make much sense to me, I wonder how he reconciles that.

-------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Article Round-up for May 18th

Stuart Rothenberg has an article discussing the Ames Straw Poll in August. Good reading, Rothenberg gives a good account of what the poll is and the effects it can have on the 2008 campaign.

E.J. Dione, a big liberal journalist and I think historian, has an article up trying to convince people that Conservative Orthodoxy in the GOP is over, kaput, finished. I don't buy into it, so take it for what you want. Its always important to know what the other side thinks, and I've seen this kind of thinking quite a bit since last November.

Here's an article from The Des Moines Register about Iowan reaction to the Immigration Reform bill that was worked out yesterday.

Tom Harkin is the richest member of the Iowa delegation, with between $5 and $10 Million in assets. So much for the idea that the Republican Party is the party of the rich. The article also covers the other members of our delegation.

Jonah Goldberg has an article at NRO about the "civil war" in Iraq. Just one of several good points he makes:

Every liberal foreign policy do-gooder in Christendom wants America to interject itself in the Sudanese civil war unfolding so horrifically in Darfur. The high-water mark in post-Vietnam liberal foreign policy was Bill Clinton’s intervention in the Yugoslavian civil war. If we can violate the prime directive of no civil wars for Darfur and Kosovo, why not for Kirkuk and Basra?

Sen. Mitch McConnell has a piece at NRO about the budget going through congress today, and it doesn't look good. Here's a key part:

Despite what happened to Democrats as a result of that tax hike, the budget they submitted their first year back in control of both houses of Congress — and pushed through Thursday on a party-line vote — provides a framework for tax hikes a full three times larger than the one that put them in the minority back then. This budget reverses more than a decade of Republican tax relief. It means a tax hike on every single American — working, retired, rich or poor — and, even as it aims to raise nearly $1 trillion with new taxes, does absolutely nothing to rein in spending or shore up an entitlement system badly in need of reform.

Everyone takes a hit. Forty-five million working families with two children will see their taxes increase by nearly $3,000 annually. They’d see the current child tax credit cut in half — from $1,000 to $500. The standard deduction for married couples is also cut in half, from the current $3,400 to $1,700. The overall effect on married couples with children is obvious: Far from shifting the burden onto the wealthy, the Democratic budget drives up taxes on the average American family by more than 130 percent.

Seniors get hit hard too. Democrats like to crow that only the richest one percent of Americans benefit from the stimulative tax cuts Republicans passed in 2001 and 2003. What they rarely mention is how much seniors benefited from those cuts in the form of increased income as a result of lower taxes on dividends and capital gains. More than half of all seniors today claim income from these two sources, and the Democratic budget would lower the income of every one of them by reversing every one of those cuts.

---------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Lathams Takes the Democrats to Task

The Des Moines Register has an article today about Congressman Latham's efforts at getting pension benefits opened to the parents of Jaime Jaenke so they may take care of her daugher. Jaime was killed in Iraq in June 2006.

Washington, D.C. — In an emotional speech Wednesday on the floor of the U.S. House, Rep. Tom Latham charged that Democrats denied an Iowa family a chance to collect a $100,000 death benefit to help raise the child of a reservist killed in Iraq.

"I would think you would be ashamed," said Latham, an Alexander Republican who has been trying to assist the Jaenke family of Iowa Falls. He said an amendment he proposed to a defense bill was killed "for partisan reasons" by Democrats on the House Rules Committee.

A Democratic committee spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

The difficult situation came about after Jaime Jaenke, a Navy reservist, was killed in June 2006. She left behind a daughter, Kayla, 10, who is cared for by Jaenke's parents.

Jaime Jaenke had designated her mother, Susan Jaenke, as the beneficiary of a $100,000 death benefit intended as a "bridge" paid within 24 hours to help survivors. Jaime Jaenke also wrote a letter specifying her intentions.

However, under law, grandparents are not allowed access to the death benefit, and it will be kept in trust for Kayla until she turns 18.

Susan Jaenke told a House Veterans Affairs subcommittee in April that the family had depended on Jaime's income and plunged into deep financial trouble after her death. Members apologized and pledged to help her.

Latham, who says there are at least 143 identical cases, introduced a bill that would allow the benefit payment to be made to grandparents, aunts or uncles who had custody of the surviving child.

In addition, it would assist the Jaenkes by applying to earlier cases in which "a clear expression of intent" had been made by the member of the military.

The bill has drawn 27 co-sponsors, 15 of them Democrats and 12 Republicans, including every member of the Iowa delegation in the House. Two of the seven members of the Veterans Affairs subcommittee that held the hearing have signed on.

Latham asked the House Rules Committee Tuesday night to allow a vote on the bill as an amendment during House debate on the defense authorization bill.

The committee turned him down on a 9-4, party-line vote.

Latham said the Rules Committee wouldn't allow an amendment that would have given Kayla "access to the death gratuity that her mother wanted her to have when she was killed in Iraq. This is outrageous."

He said there was broad bipartisan support for the "simple change" in the law he proposed. "It would not cost a dime, and it's the right thing to do," he said.

In an interview, Susan Jaenke said she was disappointed to hear the House did not act on the bill, but she also said she did not expect much out of Washington, despite the sympathy expressed by lawmakers at the hearing.

"Does this surprise me? No," she said. "Mr. Latham can't do it by himself. He got all these pledges of help - where did they go?"

Republicans complained throughout the day that they were being denied the chance to offer amendments to the defense bill, and attempted, without success, to adjourn the House.

Reporter Jane Norman can be reached at (202) 906-8137 or at jnorman@dmreg.com

I've always been proud to have Tom Latham as my Congressman, and this just ads to the list of reasons. The bill has more Democrat co-sponsors than Republican, and the entire Iowa delegation signed on. However it went down to defeat on a party line vote. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, but apparently it is. Unfortunate, to say the least.

UPDATE: Here is some more from The Des Moines Register.:

Congress fails family of fallen Iowa soldier

Politics trumps doing right by surviving child.

REGISTER EDITORIAL BOARD
Susan Jaenke traveled to Washington last month to ask lawmakers for help after her daughter was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq. Before her death, Navy reservist Jaime Jaenke wrote a letter to her mother, telling her she wanted the military's $100,000 "death gratuity" to be given to her parents to help raise her daughter, Kayla.

But the law requires money to go first to a spouse or child. Kayla - not her grandparents - collected the $100,000, which goes into a trust until she's 18.

Jaime Jaenke's military paychecks had been helping the family make ends meet. When she died, the money stopped coming. Now the grandparents can't use the death benefit to cover expenses for Kayla, who is 10.

It's an obvious case of the law not working for families - families whose loved ones died in the line of duty. It an obvious problem Congress needs to fix.

But it's also painfully obvious there is something wrong in Washington. Partisan politics have prevented this Iowa family and others like it from getting help.

Lawmakers should put aside politics and help the people they were elected to serve.

In February, Iowa Republican Rep. Tom Latham introduced a bill to allow service members to designate a parent, brother or sister who has custody of a service member's minor child as the recipient of the death benefit.

Passing it is a no-brainer. Like the Jaenkes, more than 140 families around the country have had trouble collecting benefits to help care for the children of fallen soldiers, Latham says. Lawmakers even apologized to Susan Jaenke after she testified.

But apparently being sorry doesn't trump partisan bickering in Congress.

On Tuesday, the House Rules Committee voted straight down party lines to block consideration of Latham's bill. Nine Democrats voted against it; four Republicans for it. Every Republican-proposed amendment was killed, according to James Carstensen, director of communications for Latham.

The vote "speaks volumes about how blind partisanship continues to block consideration of this legislation - legislation which is not controversial other than the author has an R behind his name in a body controlled by those with a D behind their names," he said.

This Iowa family has suffered enough. They've lost a loved one. They've navigated the bureaucratic nightmare of the U.S. government. They've hired a lawyer, traveled to Washington and pleaded with lawmakers.

And now they're victims of partisan bickering.

What a disgrace.

Latham has said he will continue to fight to help the Jaenkes. But that's going to require some help from the Democrats in power.

The DSM also printed an editorial cartoon here.

Pay attention to the quote from James Carstensen in the bold, because it speaks volumes and it what I was pointing to when I first posted this. What is wrong with Washington when a bill like this can't even be passed because of the letter behind the author's name? Disgraceful, and those who voted against this should be ashamed of themselves and owe the country, and our men and women in uniform, an apology.

-----------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Iowa is Looking a Tad Different

New census data shows that Iowa is growing older and a bit more diverse. Via The Des Moines Register.

.....New census estimates to be released today show there were 114,700 Iowans who said they were of Hispanic or Latino origin as of July 1, 2006.

That's a 39 percent increase just since 2000, and a demonstration of how the Hispanic population is fanning out across the nation far beyond the U.S.-Mexico border........

.....According to the new census estimates, Iowa is 91 percent white, compared with 92.8 percent in 2000, said Beth Henning, Iowa state data center coordinator and a census expert.....

.....Even as Iowa becomes more diverse, it's also aging.

That's not a new trend, but there is one interesting development this decade: The number of Iowa children under 5 has actually increased since 2000, from 188,143 to 192,055 in 2006.

Nonetheless, the median Iowan age in the new census estimates was 37.8 years, compared with 36.6 years in 2000.

There's a big gap between the sexes, with Iowa men at a median 36.4 years of age and women at a median 39.4 years.

Henning said 14.6 percent of Iowans are over 65. That ranks fourth in the nation, tied with Maine and North Dakota. Florida has the highest percentage of residents over 65, at 16.8 percent.

Iowa ranked No. 3 in the nation for those over 85 years of age, at 2.5 percent. Only Florida and North Dakota ranked higher, at 2.6 percent.

The number of Iowa children under 18 has declined since 2000, from 733,638 to 710,194.

Henning, looking back over birth records, said there was a dip in births during the 1990s.

This is why it's important to find ways to keep youth in Iowa. Iowa ranks 4th in the nations in people over 65 (by 2.2%), and 3rd for people over 85 (by only 0.1%). Meanwhile, the number of people under 18 has declined since 2000 by 23,444, whereas the number of children under 5 has increased only by 3,912. Iowa is already slated to loose a US Congressional seat when the lines are redrawn, and at this rate, we will loose more.


-------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Harkin: Shrek Wants Kids To Be Fat

Shrek, the lovable animated ogre who has a new movie out this summer, wants kids to be fat. At least that is what our very own Sen. Tom Harkin thinks. From the Des Moines Register:

Washington, D.C. — Put down the Pop Tarts, Shrek. Sen. Tom Harkin wants you to try some healthier treats.

The Iowa Democrat said today that it is "totally irresponsible" for the producers of the new kids' movie "Shrek the Third" to allow the lovable green ogre to promote sugary, high-fat food such as Pop Tarts, Froot Loops, Cheez Its, Snickers and more.

"It's damaging to our kids' health, damaging to our entire country," Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters.

"I think people have to start understanding Shrek maybe really is an ogre," he said. "Maybe he isn't good for kids' health."

Harkin wrote a letter this week to Jeffrey Katzenberg, CEO of Dreamworks, which produces the Shrek movie series, asking that he reconsider unhealthy food promoted by Shrek. He told Katzenberg that the food tie-ins call into question the company's commitment to ending the nation's "food crisis."

"For years now I have spoken out against the aggressive marketing of junk food to America's children," Harkin said. "It's fueling an epidemic of child obesity. It's undermining parents' authority."

Harkin said food advertisers are using cell phones and text messages to reach kids and teens. He also said he wants to give the government more authority to regulate ads to kids.

But it's Shrek that really has Harkin feeling — well, like an ogre.

"If these industries continue on their present course, government has a responsibility to act," said Harkin. "We are not going to stand idly by in the face of a worsening epidemic of childhood obesity and diabetes."

Parents have a responsibility to watch what their children eat, but corporations have responsibilities as well, "and right now they're acting totally irresponsibly," Harkin said.

"Kids love Shrek so if Shrek says, 'Eat Cheetos,' then kids want to eat Cheetos," he said. "Why isn't Shrek advertising fresh fruits, vegetables, healthy choices?"

Katzenberg is a major Democratic contributor, giving since 1998 about $442,000 in soft money to party committees and about $235,000 to various candidate committees, according to Federal Election Commission records.

That includes Harkin, to whom Katzenberg gave $1,000 in 2001. Asked if he would return the money, Harkin said, "Heck no, I'm not going to give it back to him. Serves him right."

Harkin has received campaign contributions from others in the Hollywood film and TV industry but he said that it doesn't influence his feelings about the junk-food issue.

"Even if they are contributors, this is something I feel very strongly about and I take that message out to them," he said. "I'll continue to do that."

Officials with Dreamworks had no immediate comment.

So, if Shrek doesn't clean up his act, and put his face on the next sack of carrots or bag of peas you buy, then the Government has the responsibility to act. Thats OK though, because it's all for the children. We all know that the only reason kids don't like eating their peas and carrots is because Shrek's face isn't on the bag. And Shrek's face is the only reason why kids want the sweets. When I was a kid, I wanted the sweet, sugary things, no matter what was on the package, because I liked the junk food better than the peas and carrots. It was a part of being a kid.

Harkin received a contribution from the guy he's going after, Jeffrey Katzenberg. Asked if he would return the contribution, Harkin said "Heck no, I'm not going to give it back to him. Serves him right." Why such arrogance? I hope future contributers to Harkin see this and think twice about supporting him.

Childhood obesity is a growing problem in the US, and the presence of so much junk food is probably a reason for it. But is going after Shrek really the way to do something about it, and then threaten the use of the federal government if nothing is done? I don't care what is on the package. Unless they are old enough and have some kind of income, kids can't buy this stuff on their own. It still comes down to the parent or other adult who says yes or no. Besides, we are in the middle of a war, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid is going bankrupt, we have open boarders which need to be addressed, and Harkin is using our tax dollars to go after Shrek. Maybe its time for Harkin to announce his exit strategy from the US Senate.

--------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Confused about the 2008 Primary Schedule?

Hotline On Call has a post up about the relations between the RNC and the different state parties concerning the 2008 primary schedule. It's a good piece that I recommend you read to get at least some understanding of what is going on and why.

May 16, 2007

The RNC's Dilemma

COLUMBIA – The Republican National Committee is an unincorporated association of its 50 state parties. They’re kept on a loose leash; only 30 national rules govern their conduct. In the vacuum years – that is, the year before a presidential election when candidates begin to assert themselves – the national party is especially weak, and the state parties, correspondingly grow stronger. This year, at least five state parties are preparing to flout a national rule and schedule their presidential primaries in January. Technically, they can’t – the “window” through the RNC accepts convention delegates opens on Feb. 5, 2008. States selecting delegates before that date will lose half of their allotted delegates, half of their convention hotel rooms, half of their meal tickets. RNC chairman Mike Duncan says the rule will be enforced, and until the convention itself, is irreversible.

No matter: to these wayward states – Florida, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and possibly Wyoming and Michigan – clout matters more than delegates, and the prospect of giving activists in their state a greater role in determining the identity of the party’s nominee is worth the risk. And why not? Parties are about elections, and, really, about one major election every four years. State party chairs are beholden to their state committees, to their state party’s wealthy donors, the aggregate preferences of Republicans in the state, and to the states
themselves.

Duncan has one arrow in his quiver. By September 1, parties must submit their delegate selection plans for 2008. At some point between September 1 and December 31, Duncan will put out the formal “call for convention.” States that haven’t submitted delegate plans by then could get nine tenths of their delegates taken away from them.
Several states might fall into the trap. New Hampshire’s Secretary of State Bill Gardner could theoretically announce in late November that he’s decided to hold the New Hampshire Primary in mid-December. Under that scenario, Iowa would rush to hold its caucuses a week earlier. South Carolina has tentatively scheduled its primary for Feb. 5; they would almost certainly move up by two weeks. Michigan would move; other states could abandon February for January as well. Several may decide to hold what one party chairman called a “non-b inding, binding straw poll” before the window opens and then “formally” choose their delegates later.

Can Duncan enforce his rules? Will it matter? Strategists for the major presidential candidates say that they’d welcome back all the delegates that Duncan took away from the party – an action Duncan says is “binding.” Rhetorically, Duncan asks: what formal power do the presidential candidates have?

I put that question to a senior strategist for one of the Republican frontrunners last night. His response: “What power does Mike Duncan think he’ll have when there’s a nominee?”

A confrontation looms. Duncan said he’s being pressured by some states to formally call for a convention as soon as possible, with the goal of pressuring out-of-line states to conform. Duncan wouldn’t show his cards, but did say, repeatedly, that “I intend to enforce the rules.”

Does it disturb him that some state parties don’t seem to care? “Does it disturb me? No. It’s part of a process that will, over time, self-correct.”

In the mid-90s, Duncan, then on the RNC rules committee, worked with chairman Haley Barbour to offer miscreant states a carrot – they’d get bonus delegates for staying within the window. This year’s delegate penalties are the stick.

Privately, some Republicans said that a convention floor fight about the primary calendar is the only way to resolve the impasse.

The pressure to give more states a greater voice is evident, as is the concern that that pressure is unwisely trumping a thoughtful, deliberate primary process that would produce the best nominee the party can find. Each state wants more influence; that compresses the schedule. Collectively, the less compressed the schedule is, the better. Compression can prevent a solid frontrunner from recovering from a stumble. It can also prevent a dark horse from gaining momentum. It could result in the party choosing a nominee who is manifestly un-electable.
Conservative activists in Iowa and South Carolina worry that the early Florida primary will dilute their influence. South Carolina worries, rationally, that it will no longer be the firewall state for non-Southern candidates. Party apparatchiks worry about the six or seven months between the nominee determination in early February and the convention in August.

Duncan said that RNC staffers are meeting regularly with their DNC counterparts, and that he’s invited DNC rules committee members to attend RNC rules committee meetings. The parties are weary of working together openly; they don’t want to collude and they don’t want Congress to intervene. (Congress doesn’t want to intervene, incidentally). But as institutions, the DNC and RNC face the same problem: how legitimate are they if they can’t enforce their own rules? [MARC AMBINDER]

--------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Article Round-up for May 17th

Ralph Peters has an article at the New York Post critical of the new War Czar position to oversee operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. ________ at NRO yesterday had an article that liked the idea.

Victor Davis Hanson has an article up at Real Clear Politics about the history of penance and how it compares today to the global warming craze.

George Will has a column today about gas prices and what Democrats are doing about it. Will discusses the issue of national security when it comes to gasoline:

Are Democrats worried about security of oil supplies? In some ways, Hayward says, America's energy supply is more secure than it was in the 1970s, partly because "since 1975, energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product has fallen 48 percent." Furthermore, "oil represents a shrinking share of total U.S. energy consumption -- from 44 percent in 1970 to 40 percent in 2005." The oil America consumes -- only one-eighth of which comes from the Middle East -- is used almost entirely in transportation, and accounts for about 40 percent of energy uses. Half of America's electricity is generated by coal, of which America has a huge abundance.

Will also covers where your money goes when you buy a gallon of gas:

Actually, Pelosi's constituents are being gouged by people like Pelosi -- by government. While oil companies make about 13 cents on a gallon of gasoline, the federal government makes 18.4 cents (the federal tax) and California's various governments make 40.2 cents (the nation's third-highest gasoline tax). Pelosi's San Francisco collects a local sales tax of 8.5 percent -- higher than the state's average for local sales taxes.

Johnathan Foreman has an article at NRO about Afghanistan and how the media is affecting our efforts there. Foreman makes some good points on the second page about how journalist misunderstanding of basic military facts can distort their stories.

Fred Thompson has a transcript of his podcast up at NRO about how colleges are teaching less and less about military history, and why this is a bad thing.

Carrie Lukas discusses how Democrats do not understand how the free market and competitive pricing works.

------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote

Culture of Corruption Strikes Again

Drudge has a post up now that because of her embarrassment at procedural moves Republicans are making on the House Floor, Speaker Pelosi is going to change floor rules to completely shut out the minority.

The Democratic Leadership is threatening to change the current House Rules regarding the Republican right to the Motion to Recommit or the test of germaneness on the motion to recommit. This would be the first change to the germaneness rule since 1822.

In protest, the House Republicans are going to call procedural motions every half hour.

Good for the Republican leadership. If last November truly was a mandate from the American people, then why is Pelosi considering this move? If holding the majority in Congress means that you get everything you want and the minority is to sit and be quiet, why didn't we pass Social Security reform in 2005, among other things? Shameless Democrat hypocrisy shows its ugly face yet again.

I'm sure we'll hear more about this story in the next day or so.

UPDATE: John Boehner sent out this press release today:

DEMOCRATS TO CHANGE 185 YEAR-OLD HOUSE RULE TO ALLOW TAX HIKES WITHOUT HAVING TO VOTE

May 16, 2007

In a stunning move, House Democrats today revealed they will attempt to rewrite House rules that have gone unchanged since 1822 in order to make it possible to increase taxes and government spending without having to vote and be held accountable. House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today vowed Republicans will use every available means to fight this unprecedented change.

“This is an astonishing attempt by the majority leadership to duck accountability for tax-and-spend policies the American people do not want,” Boehner said. “The majority leadership is gutting House rules that have been in place for 185 years so they can raise taxes and increase government spending without a vote. House Republicans will use every tool available to fight this abuse of power.”

Last November, House Democratic leaders promised the most open, ethical Congress in history:

“[W]e promised the American people that we would have the most honest and most open government and we will.” (Nancy Pelosi press stakeout, December 6, 2006)

“We intend to have a Rules Committee ... that gives opposition voices and alternative proposals the ability to be heard and considered on the floor of the House.” (Steny Hoyer in CongressDaily PM, December 5, 2006)

The rules House Democrats are seeking to change have not been changed since 1822.

Republicans have already achieved significant legislative successes on the House floor with 11 consecutive “motion-to-recommit” victories that exposed flaws and substantively improved weaknesses in underlying Democrat bills. But rather than living by the same rules which have guided the House of Representatives for 185 years, Democrats are proposing to change the rules in order to game the system and raise taxes and increase spending without a House vote. What are House Democrats afraid of?

Update #2:

Eric Cantor, the Chief Deputy Republican Whip, just announced on his website that the Democrats have blinked:

House Democrats wanted to change the rules to make it easier to raise taxes. They wanted to hide their Members from a direct vote on the tough issues. They wanted to change rules on minority floor rights that have been in place since 1822. They failed.

Today, House Republicans stood united and successfully fought against the House Democrats’ ill-advised rule changes, by reducing all business on the House Floor to a crawl. We used a creative set of motions and other parliamentary techniques to bring the fight.

In the end, House Democrats lost and the American People won.

Good Job Republicans! United We Stand, Divided We Fall!

UPDATE #3: From the Republican Study Committee Blog:

Stare Down is Over, GOP Wins in Early Rounds

In response to an earlier post, the Democrat Leadership responded to the protest votes (after about 4 hours) and pulled the rule change from the bill. Read Chairman Hensarling's statement

Earlier today, House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), today sought to rewrite the rules of the House to prevent PAYGO offsets from expanding the scope of germaneness to further what Republicans may offer in their motions to recommit the bills to Committee. Such a change would allow House Democrats to more easily raise taxes and increase government spending without being held to account. The move would have marked the first change in the germaneness rule since 1822 and is a direct infringement on the rights of the Minority in the House and the Americans that they represent. The Republican Study Committee Floor Action Team, under the leadership of Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), began requesting a series of procedural protest votes every 30 minutes in response to this power grab by the Majority, and was joined Rep. Tom Price, another member of the RSC floor Action Team. Today was a big win for all Republicans in the House.

--------------------------

Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote