 | ||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | theconservative@usa.net | Number 64 |
http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn | ||
| ||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | theconservative@usa.net | Number 64 |
http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn | ||
17 December 2000
** If I were president…
I originally had no plan to offer a slate of the cabinet members I would pick if I were elected, but I was mildly rebuked for being so negative in my assessment of those GW is expected to name, so here goes. This is, in my opinion, a list of cabinet members that conservatives could be positive about.
** Secretary of State - Alan Keyes
Alan Keyes has the international experience and the proper view of the US Constitution to handle this position. He also has the ability to clearly and accurately state US policy. There would be no ambiguous speeches simply for the TV exposure. When he spoke it would be with meaning and for a reason. I think Mr. Keyes is the perfect pick for this office.
** Secretary of Defense - Col. David Hackworth
The military is in bad shape. It needs leadership. Col. Hackworth is a man that has a proven track record at leading and the conservative stance that the military can appreciate. The colonel would have a big job, but he is a big man and I would see to it that he had the resources to build readiness and morale.
One of his first tasks would be to plan the withdrawal of US forces from Europe and placing them on stateside bases. WWII is over. The EU has the ability and the desire to protect themselves. We do not need to spend the money to support a military force in Europe.
** Secretary of the Interior - Richard Lugar
I have followed Dick Lugar's career since he was the mayor of Indianapolis. My first political science professor was an aide to Mayor Lugar, so I heard much of the conservative ideology that he works from. His experience in Congress and his background in the agriculture of the heartland make him a good candidate for this office
** Secretary of Transportation -
Moved under Interior Department.
** Secretary of Commerce - Steve Forbes
I liked much of what I heard from Steve Forbes during the primaries. I was disappointed that he dropped out so early. The Commerce Department needs the cool conservative business head of Steve Forbes. So often this office is a purely political position filled by a faithful campaign worker and actually run by slick lobbyists. Steve Forbes would cut the graft and corruption and put American commerce back on the even keel that it should have had all along.
Steve Forbes would also work closely with the Treasury Department to see that taxes and tariffs were at a level to once again fund the operations of the US government… That raised an eyebrow or two.
** Secretary of Health and Human Services - Out of Business
** Secretary of Housing and Urban Development - Shut it Down
** Secretary of Education - Shut it Down
** Secretary of Labor - Lock the Doors
Here is one way that the federal budget could be greatly reduced. The federal government has no business in these areas. These are state issues. Taxes currently received from the states and then returned to these areas with controlling strings attached would no longer be collected. The money would stay in the state and they would have control of their schools.
Labor issues would be local issues and stay that way just like housing and health care. These are not federal issues and government control of these areas has been not only crippling to the various industries themselves, but has led to thousands of do-nothing jobs that eat tax dollars at a ridiculous rate.
I would appoint one businessman with multilevel behemoth management experience and give him a handsome two year budget to oversee the orderly closing of all four of these departments.
** Secretary of Energy - Bill McCollum
Mr McCollum showed himself to be a fighter during the impeachment hearings. The Department of Energy needs cleaned up. Richardson's ineptness has ruined security and I think the bulldog-like tenacity of Bill McCollum is what it will take to bring productivity and character back to what was at one time a world-leading department.
** Attorney General - Larry Klayman or another attorney from one of the watch-dog groups
The attorney general's office has traditionally been filled with a prosecutor or an attorney experienced with criminal law. I don't think this is the right approach to this office. I would tap an attorney with the experience in constitutional law. I also think that there are many excellent men in watchdog groups like Judicial Watch or American Center for Law and Justice that would fill this office with honor and dignity.
The enforcement branches of this department would be greatly reigned in and reduced in number. Counter-terrorism groups would be clearly identified and reduced in number to balance the threat. Carnivore would be shut down and the right to privacy of US citizens would be respected.
There would be NO use of this department for political activities of any kind.
** National Security Advisor -
My Secretary of Defense would fill this office. Can anyone tell me why this is not always the case?
** Treasury Secretary -
I don't know who I would appoint to this spot. I can tell you what I would expect this department to do though. I would want it to start by reducing the IRS to a shadow of its current size and all current tax laws scrapped. This could easily be done because of the reduction in the amount of taxes collected from the people. By the end of my first four years the income tax would be just a black spot on history. The federal government would be small enough to fund from tariffs and a small national sales tax (maybe just on a corporate level).
I would also want to see our money printed by the government rather than the Federal Reserve and have our money valued on the GDP rather than some fictitious credit system.
** Veteran's Affairs - Norman Schwarzkopf
Our veterans have paid the price for our freedom. They need to be respected and taken care of. I think Norman Schwarzkopf would watch out for those who have watched out for us. He would have the budget needed to see that this was done.
** White House Chief of Staff -
While this is the last position that I will list here, it is very likely the first office I would fill. In fact, I would probably name this person sometime between my opponent's concession phone call and my acceptance speech. The person that would easily win this spot would be well qualified. Who is it? Any campaign manager that could get me into the White House!
** The First 100 Days
While we are playing the game let's cover the priorities of the first one hundred days. While my cabinet is getting started on their restructuring programs, I would be making some major changes in the Oval Office as well.
Every Executive Order ever issued would be crafted into a bill and submitted to Congress. Congress would have ninety days to pass it or reject it. At the end of those ninety days every Executive Order would be reversed and a bill submitted to Congress ending the abusive authority of the president to issue Executive Orders.
Law making would be back in the constitutionally designated branch of government.
[ D. Marlett ]
Washington, D.C. - Today U.S. Representative Dave Weldon joined with fellow conservatives in opposing the final fiscal year 2001 spending bill, which increases spending by 26% more from last year. Below are excerpts from a floor statement made by Representative Weldon:
I am disappointed that Congressional leaders and President Clinton have chosen to enact a catchall omnibus bill with hundreds of billions of dollars in spending and various unrelated legislative provisions. This omnibus bill was just finalized earlier this morning and no one member of Congress is quite sure what is in the bill.
We do know of several things that are in the bill. This omnibus bill would provide a 26% increase in funding for programs funded under the Labor, Health and Human Services (Labor/HHS) Appropriations bill, increasing funding from $85 billion in FY 2000 to over $111 billion in 2001. This will result in additional spending of at least $140 billion over the next ten years for these programs. I am concerned that spending this money here will make it more difficult to find the money needed to pay for Medicare prescription drugs plans, a tax deduction for health insurance and long-term care insurance, and other priorities
Also, dropped was a provision adopted by the Senate and supported by the House on a 250-170 vote which would have prohibited taxpayer funding from being used to provide the "morning after" abortion pill to school age children at school based health clinics. Without this provision, federally funded school clinics will distribute "morning after" abortion bills to 12 and 15-year-old children without their parents' permission. This undermines the rights of parents and should not be allowed. It will also foster promiscuity among teenagers and contribute to the rapid progression of sexually transmitted diseases among teenagers. It was wrong to drop this provision due to President Clinton's objections.
The bill also creates a new federal school construction program but does so in a way that will force school construction in Florida to increase between 15 and 30 percent. President Clinton insisted that Florida school construction projects funding under this program be subject to the more expensive Davis-Bacon, prevailing union wage requirements. This means that the taxpayers will get 15% to 30% fewer classrooms for the same amount of money.
I am also troubled that the bill cuts national defense spending by $500 million at a time when our military leaders tell us they do not have enough resources for proper training.
The Republican congressional leadership caved to President Clinton when it approved a $35 million increase for "family planning" in next year's Labor and Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill, pro-life groups said.
The House and Senate subcommittees for Labor-HHS have approved $35 million for "family planning" under Title X, a large percentage of which will go to the pro-abortion group Planned Parenthood, they said.
While Planned Parenthood said it has earmarked the money to fund "family planning" services, conservative groups say the appropriation in effect reimburses the abortion provider an estimated $7 million to $10 million it spent to defeat pro-life Republicans in elections.
"I think for us as pro-lifers to describe Republicans as the 'party of life' is a total injustice to the children we are supposed to be defending," said Judie Brown, president of American Life League, one of the country's foremost pro-life groups.
"This tells me that individual human beings choose to be pro-life or pro-abortion, not parties," she said. ALL estimates that Planned Parenthood will receive about $7 million of the $35 million increase, bringing its total Title X share to about $52 million.
"We're extremely disappointed that the Republicans have not fought for families and unborn children," said Wendy Wright, a spokeswoman with Concerned Women for America.
"They could have fought for continuing resolution and let all these policy decisions be decided in the next Congress with a new administration that is friendly towards families. But instead they decided to cut a deal that binds taxpayers for the next year to bad policies," she said.
Donald Wildmon, president of American Family Association, said the Republican leadership caved to Clinton. "This is nothing less than a pay-off to Planned Parenthood for its campaign activities," he said. Congressional leaders of both parties met with Clinton on Monday in an effort to wrap up work on the FY 2001 budget before returning to the Capitol to pass another continuing resolution to keep the government funded through Friday.
Congress was busy cutting $3.7 billion from a pre-election version of the conference report on the bill (HR 4577). The new target will nevertheless permit "discretionary" spending for labor, health and education programs to increase by 12 percent over the fiscal 2000 level.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, asked the House to file a final bill Wednesday, in time for both chambers to vote by the end of the week.
According to Brown, "not only does the money go to Planned Parenthood and people of like mind, but it all goes with requirements from the federal government that 'a full range of reproductive services' be provided, which includes abortion referral. And that is why I don't think we should be describing Republicans as pro-life, because it's definitely not the case.
[ CNS ]
A federal judge has ordered lawyers for a government contractor hired to retrieve thousands of missing White House e-mails to testify about allegations its employees were silenced with threats of jail by Clinton officials.
Attorneys for Northrop Grumman Corp. had refused to answer questions about the threats, citing attorney-client privilege.
But on Wednesday U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered company lawyers to detail records they kept about White House threats against contractor Betty Lambuth and other Northrop Grumman employees.
Earlier this year Lambuth told the Washington, D.C.-based public interest law firm Judicial Watch that, starting in May 1998, senior Clinton administration officials used threats of incarceration to silence her staff about the e-mails, which she and White House computer specialist Sheryl Hall say covered the previous two years.
It's estimated that as many as 1 million e-mails that had been sought by investigators are still hidden in White House computer files, many dealing with a series of administration scandals including Filegate, Chinagate and the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Lambuth and Hall are the latest in a long line of Clinton witnesses to allege they were threatened to stay silent about a whole range of administration scandals.
Others making similar claims include former Clinton girlfriend Gennifer Flowers, Chinagate witness Johnny Chung, Sexgate taper Linda Tripp, Clinton sex assault accuser Kathleen Willey and dozens more.
[ NewsMax ]
"We have difficulty certifying Bush on moral grounds..." complains Jackson. "I've seen a day like this. Selma, Alabama, was a day like this when we [blacks] were fighting for the right to vote. ... The same forces that were against the Voting Rights Act of 1965...seek to disenfranchise us in 2000."
Memo to Jesse: The Voting Rights Act of 1965 received overwhelming support from Republicans -- 82% Republican support in the House and 94% support in the Senate. More than a third of Senate Democrats voted against the act!
[ The Federalist ]
The homepage and archives for The Conservative Newsletter are located on the WWW at http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn/
This newsletter is sent by subscription only. If you do not wish to be on the mailing list, please let us know and you will be removed immediately. To be removed from this mailing list, simply reply to this newsletter with the word REMOVE in the body of your reply. You may also send your request to theconservative@usa.net .
Thank you.
