So the Fourth of July is upon us again- and once more our thoughts turn to celebrations. Although to many of us it is an excuse to party, in the back of our minds we still remember what the day is all about.
Most of us know the story if we paid attention in History class: a band of brave men who didn’t like how the King of England was treating them decided they wanted to have their own country and so they signed a document called the Declaration of Independence and our nation was born. Or something like that.
But kidding aside, it is a day we all take pride in. We celebrate in our own ways the liberties we have in this country. And sometimes we love this country and it’s liberties like we do a relative: we love them yet take them for granted.
It is a day that is not about politics or our government, but about freedom and America and the flag. It is a day that even the most jaded of us are unashamedly American. It is a day when we wave and wear our team’s colors of Red, White, and Blue. It is a day in which differences aside, we celebrate one thing together: that we are Americans.
I know that since I was kid I have always associated the Fourth of July with certain activities and foods. You know, perhaps a picnic would be in order or a barbecue. Certainly watermelon or fried chicken would be involved and definitely potato salad. And sometimes we would be invited out to a friend’s house on the lake, and we would spend the entire afternoon swimming. Fireworks would then be planned as the grand finale to a fabulous day.
And often a thought would float through my mind as I eat the special food and swim and have fun- I think of the many sacrifices we make to keep our liberties vibrant. Each of us serve our country and make our mark on liberty in our own ways, some of us choose to pay the ultimate sacrifice. Even in the little things we can serve our country: working our farms that feed the world, manufacturing the goods that the world wants, or it could be when we inform ourselves as citizens or defend our rights in our courts of law. Some of our fellow countrymen chose to serve in places such as the Argonne Forest, Iwo Jima, Vietnam, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Every day we choose to live our lives and serve we tell the story of freedom.
We have had well over 200 Fourth of Julys since our independence was declared. Yet the day never seems to grow old for us, for we know deep down we are celebrating something special. Yes, we may look forward to being with friends and family and plan a large fireworks display, but we also know that we are commemorating the deeds of 55 brave men, whose deeds that day changed not just America, but the world.
Well, today the price of crude oil crept back above $70 a barrel for the first time this year, and gas prices are slowly following it. While it was very nice to have had low fuel prices these last nine months, one downside to it was that it seemed to have cooled the debate and sense of urgency over finding alternative sources of fuel.
The problem we have is that no one source of fuel is as plentiful or cheap as petroleum is. We hear much of converting cars to ethanol, but for the amounts we are talking about it would take tons more more corn than we are growing right now. And while I like the idea of electric cars, there is not an infrastructure available nationwide to accommodate the mass of drivers. As it stands, it is not practical to convert our oil based economy to an alternative, and expect the level of our standard of living to remain the same. I do think we should expand our reliance on alternative sources of fuel, but I do not think we can expect it to replace petroleum entirely.
Some economists and analysts believe that most of the world's main oil fields have played out, and the world is running out of oil. This is used as the impetus to find alternatives. But their are those-like me- who are pushing for expanding our offshore drilling off our coasts. And oil fields such as the one in North Dakota and Montana look promising for the future.
But will it all be enough for our needs?
I do not think so, and that is why I have become an advocate of the Pickens Plan, named after it's creator, oil magnate T. Boone Pickens. He states that the US possesses the largest natural gas reserves in the world, most of which has not been tapped. We're talking an estimated trillions of cubic feet. His plan is to develop more pipelines (similar to what Gov. Palin is doing in Alaska), and to convert our diesel trucks, trains, and cars to run on natural gas. He states that nearly a third of our surface vehicles rely on diesel engines, and converting them could take up to three years. But it would drastically reduce our dependence on foreign oil by a third, and would employ thousands of Americans as they help tap this clean burning fuel.
I first heard Mr. Pickens explain this concept on talk radio just before the elections last year, and it made the most sense of all the plans I've heard so far. He also stated practically that with all the twenty year plans and so on, no one has stated in a practical way what we are to do in the meantime. People want tangible results, and his plan could give us real results in the foreseeable future.
This morning another piece of disturbing news surfaced. North Korea reported it's second nuclear test in as many months, this time under ground. Indeed, the US Geological Survey confirmed a magnitude 4.7 seismic activity in the area reported. This is a grave development in our ongoing and uneasy peace efforts for the Korean Peninsula.
Since the Korean ended with the cease fire in 1953, an uneasy and highly armed peace has been enforced rigorously. Indeed, the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) is one of the most militarized sectors in the world, and has one of the largest concentrations of American forces anywhere. We are committed to helping maintain the independence and freedom of South Korea, even as it's northern communist neighbor claims the two should be one. North Korea also is reported to have one of the largest armies in the world, supposedly in the millions. And it's testing of nuclear weapons makes the ongoing Six Party talks more perilous, and the peace situation more grave.
There is somewhat of a status when a foreign power acquires a nuclear weapon. It increases (supposedly) their negotiating standing, and they like to think that it would make the world take them more seriously. I think that this was a partial reason why India tested a bomb in 1974, and why Pakistan acquired it. Possessing the world's deadliest weapons is a psychological shot in the arm for authoritarian regimes, and it solidifies the hold on power of authoritarians. It has made negotiating with India and Pakistan over Kashmir more perilous as both had threatened to use their nuclear force in their last conflict.
Now, with North Korea entering the arena as a nuclear power and Iran set to test their first missile, we face a new set of challenges. We can not attack North Korea, and it would make it dangerous to the tenuous peace if we attempted air strikes on their nuclear installations. They could retaliate by invading across the DMZ, and/or shelling Seoul. And in a conflict we do not want to get bogged down in another fight like what happened in 1951.
But we also can not allow North Korea to develop a bomb that could reach Seoul or Alaska or even Japan. So I am afraid our only option here is continued sanctions and diplomacy. But sanctions haven't seemed to work, as their government still is maintaining a tight grip on power even as their people starve. Trouble is, North Korea is such a closed society that it is hard I think even for us to gather enough intel to help us in negotiations. We are truly between Iraq and a hard place (no pun intended).
So, what do you all think we should do to get North Korea back to the negotiating table? Is there a way we can get them to cease testing their missiles, or is that a pipe dream? You tell me.
Well, there has been much talk since the election last year of changing the Republican Party's image. In fact, they have even gone so far as to have sent out their self proclaimed 'leaders' out on the speaking circuit to help in this "image makeover." For their sakes, I hope it works; but I'm not as sanguine as they seem to be. I think that the GOP needs more than just an image makeover, I think they need a makeover, period.
Let me explain.
Until the mid 1970s, the GOP was relatively moderate in their politics, and generally fielded moderate candidates. These people, tagged with the names of Eisenhower or Teddy Roosevelt Republicans, contributed to modern America and the quality of life we take for granted today. They especially left a legacy of conservation and environmentalism that was made possible by a prominent Republican president: Theodore Roosevelt. He helped dedicate millions of acres of our most precious resources as public parks and monuments, to be safe from reckless exploitation and for the enjoyment of future Americans. He used the powers of the presidency to not only advance the cause of conservation, but also to use the influence and power of government to help make right social injustices. He was not afraid to set himself against powerful elements of his own party arrayed to stop him. His vision for America's system of parks and forests is still around today, and treasured by many.
Unfortunately, as the GOP has strayed to a radical course, it has abandoned it's legacy of conservation and environmentalism in favor of so called "unfettered free markets." This perception, that the GOP was in the pockets of Big Business, was cemented when some GOP legislators stated that global warming is a hoax, and is based on junk science. Despite the environmental accomplishments of the Bush Administration, the GOP was still perceived to be anti environment. That, among other things coming to a head in 2008, helped cement the perception that the GOP is out of touch with reality.
Now, there are some of us proud Republicans who do think that the party needs more than an image makeover. All the leaders are doing in this public relations stunt is putting lipstick on a pig. But what I and many others believe is that we need to reclaim our roots, not as the party of Reagan- he was a part of it. We need to reclaim our place as the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, men of vision and grit who led with determination. Their vision was large, inclusive, and daring. Both were men who hated extremes, and didn't try to govern as puppets of interest groups. They are admired and loved today because their vision was larger than themselves, and would outlast their presidencies and their lifetimes.
The only way the Republican Party can regain credibility among American voters and become competitive once again is to find, somehow, a vision greater than itself. It should be inclusive, bold, and worthy of the American people. It should excite their imagination. We need to remember why one of our greatest vote getters in the 20th century, President Reagan, was so beloved. Because he appealed to the better angels of our nature, not try to incite culture warfare. And when we try to make right the wrongs of our society, we need to remember the patience that President Lincoln had when he helped to abolish slavery. He took it a step at a time, and sometimes stepped backward and compromised, instead of insisting on winning the whole issue of emancipation.
We have many things that need to be corrected if the GOP is to be competitive next year, or try to take on the president in 2012. And since the leadership still doesn't seem to be getting the message, it is time that we the grassroots make our voices heard. We want real change in the party, while not changing our core beliefs. And I'd like to contribute by calling to your attention an organization of moderate Republicans who are concerned about our nation's environment: Republicans For Environmental Protection. They are following in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, and attempting to revive the legacy of conservation. You can find them at: http://www.repamerica.org. Joining and supporting groups such as this can help send a message to our party leaders that we don't want change we can live with, not change that we settle for, but change that transforms.
Again, that's http://www.repamerica.org, or go to my blog roll and look for Republicans for Environmental Protection.
I am sorry to all those who read my blog regularly. I haven't written here in nearly six weeks, which seems an eternity when we discuss such a thing as politics. But I just read something that makes me so concerned for this country that I had to go here and share my thoughts.
I have just read that GM CEO Rick Wagoner is reportedly being asked to step down by the Obama Administration if he wants more federal money to flow toward GM. I was in shock for a almost a minute as I realized that this was this sets a bad precedent for unparalleled intervention in the economy by the government. As I recall, even in the dark days of the Depression and massive government oversight of business in World War 2, the Federal Government still didn't take their control over business to this extent.
This is something new, and I do not like the implications. Instead of a "block grant" type subsidy being given to the automakers- where no strings are attached- this is like a categorical grant in which the Feds tell the receiving entity how and where to spend the money, and by the way, we don't like your top management, so if you will throw them out, then it is all right with us.
I guess to defend the government, we could say that if GM and Chrysler don't like the proposals that Obama is set to unveil tomorrow, then they don't have to take it. Unfortunately, they are living off the bailout money that the Big Bank called the US Treasury is giving them. They don't have many options in this economy. So it sounds to me a bit like the Obama Administration is taking advantage of this crisis to expand their agenda, and it is looking more and more like socialism to me. And this is barely a hundred days into his presidency.
May God help us from our own stupidity! I know that the US is resilient and can survive this, but if too much of our free enterprise heritage and our heritage of liberty is chipped away because the liberals "can't let a good crisis go to waste," then I fear we won't recognize this country when we come out on the other side.
A writer (I don't know who) once wrote that "every generation must decide for itself the fate of liberty." Benjamin Franklin also was quoted as saying "They that would give up essential liberty to achieve a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." And in this generation we seem to be grasping for security, as fleeting as it is, and are willing to see our precious liberty being stripped away in exchange for a tyrant called Bigger Government.
At the very least we face a declining standard of living, unheard of deficits in the foreseeable future, and inflation like we had in the 1970s. Because our so called "leaders" are running scared of this depression, they are overcorrecting, and the results of their actions are likely to backfire on them with us being pinched even more. In seeking their answer to fix this depression, they have gone beyond Keynesianism, and have embraced socialism as the way out. And this country will be hurting because of it for a long while, unless we do something about it.
See, I think that with all these proposals coming out of Congress and the "third house" of Congress, called the White House, they are overextending themselves with big proposals. Energy, massive health care "reform," righting the economy, and restructuring the auto industry and the Iraq War will come back and bite them. I am seeing parallels here between Obama and the first two years of the Clinton Administration. Clinton tried to do too much, and after passing the controversial Brady Bill and similar legislation, he also pushed for a massive restructuring of the health care system, and the outcry was so intense that Congress voted it down, yet it didn't stop the Democrats from losing Congress that year. So I do think that the GOP can have another opening here, especially if the current bailout doesn't work and the people grow weary of the constant bailout practice. What we need, though, is another charismatic person like Newt Gingrich that can provide the leadership to retake Congress next year.
But here's an interesting side note: I was listening to a local talk radio host in Seattle who was speaking with an eminent economist on the economy, and they were discussing the welcome good news about the February housing starts, a key indicator of the health of the economy. This economist contends that this did not happen because of Obama's bailout, for most of the money won't be spent until next year, when we're on the way to recovery or more economic ruin. He contended that the economy is righting itself, and although some regulation was needed to put the financial industry in line, we did not need a massive bailout. I think it was a very revealing interview all around, and most of the people that I have talked to feel the same way the economist does: that we don't need this bailout to the big banks. It is just more of the same as we got last year when Paulson ran Treasury.
Needless to say, it's going to be a bumpy ride and we better hang on to what liberty is left, for we might find ourselves without a country that we have been proud to call home: this land of the free called America.
I was pondering the whole debate and events that led up to the almost certain passage of the stimulus bill before the Senate, and I started hearing myself give my objections. I have written them down as if I were a senator in the throes of debate with my colleagues. Let me know how you like it.
Mr. President, my colleagues,
A few months ago our president, while still a candidate for the office he now holds, spoke at the beginning of this financial crisis and called for action for the “fierce urgency of now.” Well, I stand before you with a fierce urgency today, as we debate a question that will have tremendous implications for years to come. I come before you not as a Republican, not as a conservative, but as a concerned American who has grave doubts about this package we have before us.
We must consider carefully the proposals set forth in this package, and we must not heed the calls, even from our president, for all possible speed. To approve nearly $800 billion, to add that amount to our already ballooning deficit, while not being sure that it will have the effect that’s intended, should give us pause.
But the first thing we need to consider is the name of the package, what the media is dubbing ‘TARP 2.’ It wasn’t five months ago that the bottom fell out of the markets, and one bank after another started falling, and our whole financial system seemed in peril. What was proposed by the Bush Administration was the original TARP program, also with the same price tag, and with the same goals. With more trepidation this Congress considered it, and our colleagues in the House voted it down once. At least half of the money allocated was to buy the toxic loans and assets of failing companies, which was scrapped once the program was approved. And they hardly spent half of it when this program was proposed.
The original program has not had the effects we had hoped for. We hoped that by loaning to the banks, and backing them up with the government’s credit, they would start lending again. Instead, the banks continue to hoard. Wall Street is still hemorrhaging, and thousands upon thousands are unemployed or soon to be.
And many ask “Why, why doesn’t it work?” I will answer by supplying this well known adage, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make him drink.” The media and mortgage brokers report that they’d love to lend to people who qualify, but people just aren’t taking out loans right now. They are gun shy, and rightfully so. There is not the security they had even six months ago, knowing that they will have their jobs and be able to meet their obligations every month. Without even a modicum of security, there is not the incentive to seek out credit. They are instead saving and cutting back and living within their means, not seeking to expand their means.
And with this bill, it seems, as Yogi Berra so famously quipped, “It’s deja vous all over again.” This bill is almost exactly like it’s predecessor, almost the same price tag, and with many of the same provisions. It is hoped to have the same effect of jumpstarting credit in a worse economic situation than we were in five months ago.
But if the first one didn’t work, then what makes us think this one will? I hardly think it has anything to do with a change in the White House, and we certainly can’t point to recovery brought on by the original program. So what, I ask you, are we doing here?
There is an appropriate quote for this program and this debate: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.”
This package was originally sold to the American public as one that would create jobs by spending money on infrastructure. Well, after reviewing it, I have realized that infrastructure improvements make up only 5% of the spending. The rest is a smorgasbord of pet projects, not unlike the appropriations bills we routinely vote on in Congress. This is merely a thinly veiled attempt to buy votes come election time.
Now, my eminent colleague from Missouri (Sen. McCaskill) claims that this bill is necessary because “every economist says it is necessary.” I respectfully disagree, and wonder which economists the lady is listening to. But for wont of time, I could name numerous economists- some of whom are Nobel laureates and Presidential advisers- who think that this bill is the most ‘un-stimulating of stimulus bills.’ While many economists do agree with the Administration’s position on this bill, hardly does that make everyone. It makes one wonder if there is a hidden provision in this massive bill whereby these economists would be paid for supporting the Admininstration’s assertions.
But in the last generation we have fallen into this trap of buying everything we want now, and charging it to pay another day. I am speaking of not just our Federal government, but also of our society in general. For years we have heard stories of how average Americans fell into the credit trap, only to find themselves crushed under the weight of debt. Slogans of “buy now, pay later” enticed many, and the “pay later” has now come back to bite us. It is said that the average American held an average of $8000 in credit card debt, and more and more of his income was going to pay for the debts they owe. It is the same with the debt the Federal Government incurs: more and more of our national treasure is going to service the debt, and this package will expand the deficit about $1 trillion this year, with more money having to service that debt also.
Many were also extended mortgage credit who shouldn’t and wouldn’t have had credit several years ago. Much of this debt was unpayable, and the banks knew it, and yet they sold it on the markets. Now, many people have lost their homes and banks are having to declare bankruptcy because of these toxic mortgages.
I remember my grandfather telling me of a time in America where getting credit was more difficult and more regulated- not just anyone could get it. You had to show proof of income, you often needed a good size down payment on a house, and they would rarely lend you money for anything much beyond a house or a car. The financial industry was highly regulated, and it created a stable money market in one of the most prosperous times in our history.
We also can not deceive ourselves by thinking that we can pay our way out with debt, and not have to levy higher taxes to meet our obligations later on. That is wishful thinking of the worst kind. Up until a generation ago, when this nation took on massive amounts of debt, such as during World War 2, we levied higher taxes to pay for them. And there was once a time when my party was the party of fiscal responsibility. We would insist on paying for programs with money we had, instead of saddling later generations with a debt they do not want. The more the obligations, the more taxes needed to pay for them. It served us well for many years.
Unfortunately, my party has fallen into the trap of thinking that we can cut taxes, maintain current levels of spending, and add to the debt, and the economy will be as strong as it has ever been. Everyone outside this fishbowl called Washington, DC, can tell you that that is a recipe for disaster. It’s that attitude that keeps us spending at the rate of $2 million dollars a minute or more.
My fellow senators, and especially those who are conservatives, think on this. Remember that if we follow our fears and let ourselves be drawn away by fear of the unknown future, we will inevitably make terrible mistakes. There are sensible alternatives to this boondoggle of a bureaucratic nightmare, ones that comparatively low cost, and are in keeping with the American tradition. Allow me to suggest some of these.
1.Repeal the Community ReInvestment Act, which forced financial institutions to lend money to people who didn’t have credit. Also, reinstate the banking and lending regulations of our forebears, and keep the lid down on interest rates banks and credit companies can charge.
2.Add more mortgage tax credits, and also re instate the new car tax credit to help stimulate Detroit.
3.Remember that the more the government borrows, the less capital there is to help create jobs and grow businesses. So we should also adopt budgeting guidelines and stick to them, and allow the president to have the authority of some kind of veto over spending. The more money we leave to the private sector, the more there will be for them to lend to the private sector.
4.But to truly stimulate the economy, let’s scrap the current tax code and go with the Fair Tax. Many economists have stated that this act alone will work wonders on the American economy, and will eliminate all the taxes on productivity and production in this country. It will eliminate “special” tax breaks for the few, and will not penalize you for earning more. You will be taxed on what you spend, and not on what you make. It is revenue neutral, and will encourage investment in America again.
In the coming days, whether this bill is passed or not, I will incorporate these proposals into a true stimulus bill. My intention is to raise public awareness for the alternatives before us, and to make others see that we don’t have to be saddled with a debt burden that we aren’t able to bear.
Senators, my fellow Americans: what the president said in his Inaugural Address was true. We have a long, hard road ahead of us, and no easy choices to be made. But it seems that with this bill we are taking the easy way out of our present troubles, ignoring the warnings of what our children will go through that would make this crisis seem benign. Consider this when you vote, and ponder if you wish for our children’s future to be less than it was for us.
Thank you, and may God bless the United States of America.
I am single and in my mid twenties. I was home educated since first grade and though I didn't actually enroll in college, I have accumulated college credits. I love discussing history and current events, and am a budding entrepreneur. I have two web site businesses I am building in my spare time between work and writing. To pay my bills, I work in retail.
