 | ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 24 January 2001 | Vol. II No.12 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 24 January 2001 | Vol. II No.12 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
Back on December 21, all of the networks highlighted how Gene Sperling and other Clinton operatives were blaming George W. Bush for allegedly creating a recession by pointing to the slowdown in manufacturing and other weak spots in the economy. But after the Federal Reserve's Open Market Committee cut rates by a half percent on January 3, ABC, CBS and NBC refused to call it vindication of Bush's warning. Instead, journalists pushed the idea that Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan had acted to undermine the pitch for Bush's tax reduction program and that tax relief wouldn't matter in the current economic climate. At the same time, the networks continued to represent the proposed tax cut as either "big" or "huge" -- an insupportable statement if the tax cut is placed in its proper context.
Anchor Brian Williams, on the January 3 NBC Nightly News, acknowledged that "Bush has warned of a recession on the way and still wants to see his big tax cut enacted." From Bush's economic summit David Gregory noted how they "toasted" the interest rate cut, adding: "Bush and his corporate allies, eager to see his huge tax cut enacted, argued strenuously today that much more is needed to save the economy from a free fall."
On World News Tonight, ABC's Terry Moran noted that "Mr. Bush made clear he will now push even harder for his big tax cut." CBS's Dan Rather also labeled the tax cut as "big," remarking that Bush "believes the Fed just gave him some new ammunition for his battle to get a big tax cut through Congress."
But CBS's John Roberts then tried to argue that Bush would be wrong if he thought the Fed favored lower tax rates. Roberts asserted there is a "fundamental difference between Bush and Greenspan over how best to spur economic growth, from cutting interest rates or cutting taxes."
Actually, as has been widely reported, Greenspan has said he that although he would prefer that the surplus was used to reduce federal debt, he agrees with Bush that tax cuts are far more desirable than the new increases in federal spending that many liberals propose.
On the weekend discussion shows, two former Democratic administration officials who are now media commentators lobbied against the tax cut. Former Carter administration official Margaret Carlson, now with Time, appeared on the January 6 edition of CNN's Capital Gang and advocated that Bush adopt defeated Democrat Al Gore's positions: "He should signal that he wants to raise the minimum wage. It's one way to counteract the effect of this huge tax cut he's pushing which goes to the wealthy."
The next morning on This Week, ABC's George Stephanopoulos - the same Stephanopoulos who claimed back in '93 that Bill Clinton's relatively puny $31 billion "stimulus" spending plan would work immediate miracles on the economy -- lectured that "this argument...that because we're going into some kind of a dip, even if it's not a recession, that you need to have a huge tax cut now is completely specious, especially because, as you pointed out in your questioning, the tax cut is not going to take effect right away and the real effect, when it really costs a lot of money, is many years down the road, five or ten years down the road. It was interesting when [Bush economic advisor Lawrence] Lindsay said we might then speed up the tax cuts. That means it's going to cost even more, far more than the $1.3 trillion they're talking about."
For the record, President Clinton announced in late December that ten-year projections for the budget surplus now total $4.996 trillion, according to the New York Times. That's $803 billion more than the administration's late June calculation of $4.193 trillion, which was itself $1.275 trillion higher than the ten-year estimate before that. As these numbers show, it's more likely that future surpluses have been underestimated by government economists, not overestimated as many in the media continually fret.
Additionally, the $1.3 trillion tax cut -- which Bush had planned for in his budget before Clinton's budget office added $2.078 trillion to the surplus -- is neither big nor huge, according to statistics compiled by the National Taxpayers Union (NTU). According to the NTU, Bush's total tax cut amounts to only 0.9% of total GDP. In contrast, Ronald Reagan's 1981 tax cut represented 3.3% of GDP, and even Democratic President John F. Kennedy's tax cut -- proposed in 1963 and passed in 1964 - was 2.0% of GDP.
Noting that journalists have, for 13 months, consistently tagged Bush's program as either "big" or "huge," Investor's Business Daily editorialized on January 8 that "the idea was to make the cut...seem bigger than it is. But by overstating its size, they're making the implicit admission that it's not that big to start with. Each day the media hammer Bush's tax cut, they're sounding more and more desperate."
And, by dwelling on the estimated "costs" of the tax cut, the media are feeding the notion that tax cuts work like spending and that Bush needs to avoid busting the budget. But, as economist Arthur Laffer argued in a Wall Street Journal column published on January 8, that's not the way the real world works.
"When tax rates change, the one thing you can count on is that people will change their behavior. Lower tax rates mean more taxable income, and more taxable income means less revenue shortfall. It's my guess that Mr. Bush's tax-rate cuts will help secure the $3 trillion Social Security surplus and not come near the $2 trillion cost Sen. Daschle claims," Laffer wrote. "But there's nothing that will eat that surplus up faster than a bad economy, with lower incomes, higher unemployment and earlier retirements."
Most in the media have apparently adopted Clinton's view that the surplus is like fine china, and must be safely locked away. But if Laffer's right, the worst thing that the defenders of the surplus could do is block efforts to boost the ailing economy by giving taxpayers back a portion of their own money.
[ MediaNomics ]
I expect DC to be a busy place during the sitting of the 107th U.S. Congress. Two bills have already been presented for the purpose of protecting 2nd amendment rights that need our support. We have never had a better chance to reclaim lost ground to the liberal gun-grabbers.
Rep Barr of Georgia has introduced the "Firearms Heritage Protection Act of 2001" (H.R. 123) that has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The description of HR 123 reads: "To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others."
A note on the KABA site states that a search on the Thomas web site for HR123 yeilds a different bill introduced in the 106th Congress. If you search Thomas for the bill, search for it by name. An easier way to check the contents of the bill would be to read it on the KABA site.
The Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2001 (H.R. 31) was introduced by Rep Bartlett of Maryland. The purpose of HR 31 is "To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right."
Both of these bills are important pieces of legislation and NEED our support. Contact your representative in Congress and ask them to support both of these bills. Contact all of the members of the Committee on the Judiciary and urge them to move these bills through to the floor for consideration.
While we have never had a better chance to enact this type of protection for 2nd amendment rights, it will not happen if we don't make it a priority for this busy session. The only thing that will make it a priority for most congressmen is hearing from home about it.
If you don't know your congressman's e-mail address, go to the TCN web page and search for it by putting in your zip code. Sample letters are on the KABA web site if you aren't sure what to say. Do it today. Do it now.
For more info visit KABA
By Kent Snyder - The Liberty Committee
Dear friend of liberty,
The gavel hits. Its piercing crack commands the room. History is made.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is now in session -- and our country will never be the same.
"In July of 1998, 120 nations met in Rome and voted to endorse an international criminal court. According to its own terms, when the treaty is ratified by 60 nations, it will be capable of exerting universal jurisdiction over every human being on the planet. This type of criminal court has been on the wish list of the United Nations since 1947." -- Dr. James Hirsen, 1/5/01
"Once created, the international court will give the U.N. the mechanism it needs to enforce its global 'laws' against American citizens. All Americans concerned with our sovereignty as a nation should be very alarmed by this latest development." -- Congressman Ron Paul, 1/8/01
"In short, the treaty gives the ICC the right to try and imprison U.S. citizens, including our military and other government officers, even [if] we have refused to sign it, let alone ratify it." -- former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, 7/3/00
"On the International Criminal Court treaty, 'the [Defense] Department's position has been clear,' a Pentagon official said. 'We were against signing it and still are.'" -- Washington Post, 1/1/01
"Casey [Lee A. Casey, a former Justice Department official who specializes in international law] said he opposes the creation of the permanent International Criminal Court under the auspices of the United Nations because he believes its powers are too extensive, and could subject American citizens to trial without allowing them the rights and protections they are guaranteed by the Constitution." -- Washington Post, 1/1/01
"National sovereignty, which means that Americans are answerable to no one but their own government and their own laws, should never be compromised. The creation of a permanent, international war-crimes tribunal certainly would compromise the national sovereignty of every country on Earth." -- Charley Reese, 1/11/01
The Liberty Committee is indeed very alarmed by the International Criminal Court. According to recent press reports, President Bush is alarmed also. Today, The Liberty Committee is launching a nationwide petition drive asking President Bush to rescind the signature of the United States to the International Criminal Court treaty that former President Clinton authorized on December 31, 2000.
To complete the on-line petition, go to http://www.TheLibertyCommittee.org. Please ask family and friends to do the same. There is a printable version of the petition that we ask you to print, copy and distribute to people who don't use the Internet. All completed and received petitions, on-line and printed, will be presented to the White House.
The International Criminal Court will consider itself to be formally and officially established after only 60 of the world's 161 countries ratify the Rome Statute of the ICC. As of today, 27 countries have ratified the treaty. The ICC needs just 33 more ratifying countries, from among the 112 which have signed but not yet ratified, to claim jurisdiction over all 161 countries and their citizens.
"It is my fervent hope that ...a large majority of United Nations Member States will have signed and ratified [the ICC treaty], so that the Court will have unquestioned authority and the widest possible jurisdiction." -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, 7/18/98
"Only hours before the Dec. 31 [2000] deadline, Bill Clinton gave the United Nations its most significant victory so far in its relentless quest for global governance: the International Criminal Court." -- Henry Lamb, 1/3/01
Supporters of the ICC have worked for years to establish this new world court. It is now time for us to do our work. Please sign our petition and ask others to do the same.
[The Liberty Committee - http://www.TheLibertyCommittee.org ]
Despite a series of reports that Secretary of Labor-designate Elaine Chao, formerly an Asian studies expert at the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation, has significant personal and business ties to communist China, little if any opposition to her nomination is expected on Capitol Hill.
"It's safe to assume this will be a one-day hearing," a spokesman for the Senate Health Education and Labor Committee said on Monday.
In a series of WND reports, sources said Chao -- wife of Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. -- and her father, James S.C. Chao, have a close personal friendship with Jiang Zemin, the president of China.
Also, last week, WND reported: "A review of financial assets held over the past six years by Elaine L. Chao and her husband, Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, reveals that the labor secretary-designate serves as director of an insurance company that jointly owns a Lippo Group subsidiary with the Chinese government."
Other sources insist Chao was instrumental in the firing of a former Sino military analyst -- Richard Fisher Jr. -- from the Heritage Foundation after 16 years because of his "anti-China" military and political analyses -- a charge which Heritage officials deny and one that Fisher himself would not discuss.
Nevertheless, despite the questions raised by Chao's and her husband's past dealings and associations, little protest awaits her on Capitol Hill -- certainly nothing of the kind of partisan attacks suffered by Attorney General-designate John Ashscroft through four days of rancorous hearings last week.
Sources yesterday said the lack of opposition was most likely due to the fact that McConnell served as President George W. Bush's inaugural chairman, and other senators -- including Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn. -- "won't want to raise the Chinagate issue" for fear of a backlash against Democrats who supported former President Bill Clinton's questionable Chinagate connections and dealings.
Chao's nomination hearing is set to begin this morning around 9:30 a.m. Eastern in the Senate's Dirksen Room 106.
[WorldNetDaily.com ]
By David Hackworth
Dereliction of duty, from the bridge of the USS Cole to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, left 17 American sailors dead, a billion-dollar ship mangled and our nation humiliated by a two-bit gang of terrorists.
And now, three months and millions of dollars and investigative hours later, no one involved in the disaster is to be held responsible!
When Secretary of Defense William Cohen and his damage-control squad released the results of their Pentagon investigation last week, it was no wonder of wonders when the guilty walked free. No court-martials, brig time or firing squads. Holding folks accountable for misdeeds in Washington has flat gone out of style.
Far more thought went into the timing of the press conference than went into the writing of the flawed Rules of Engagement that the Cole followed when it sailed into the Port of Aden in Yemen. Cohen and spinners knew the press and public preferred tuning into inauguration whoop-de-do rather than worrying about accountability for widespread negligence. Late Friday afternoon provided the perfect opportunity to slip another Pentagon whitewash past a distracted media and public.
Cohen, who released his report as he was putting on his hat and joining the ranks of ex-Clinton officials at the high-paying speaker and lobbyist bureaus, said everyone from the ship's skipper to himself was responsible. In other words, no one was responsible.
That's like saying all Nazis were responsible for the Holocaust, so no one should have visited the hangman at Nuremberg.
When I was growing up back in the "brown shoe" Army, you had to memorize and live by the Principles of Leadership to make corporal. One "do as I say not as I do" removed your stripes and returned you to the KP roster faster than the Top Kick could shout, "Report to the mess, now!"
SEEK RESPONSIBILITY AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS is one of those Principles of Leadership still on the books, especially if you're enlisted. Let a grunt goof today and it's still the hammer or the slammer, while with the brass it's normally a quiet gold-watch retirement ceremony.
Take the case of Army Staff Sgt. Delmar Simpson of Aberdeen Proving Ground shame. His flings with female recruits at the Maryland post cost him 25 years in prison. But that standard didn't apply to the brass.
When Army Maj. Gen. David Hale did the same thing -- four times, in fact -- he only got slapped on the wrist, retired as a general and married one of the young wives he had seduced.
Or take the skipper of the Cole, Cmdr. Kirk S. Lippold. A report by the Persian Gulf naval commander said he should be disciplined for violating 31 of 62 security requirements. But not only did Lippold -- a well-connected former aide to the secretary of the Navy -- walk, he's being defended by the Navy's head guy. The same admiral who last October led his staff in an almost-successful attempt to muddy the facts of what really went down in Aden.
Such hush-ups aren't new inside the beltway, but they've become high art since Clinton took charge in 1993. Remember Somalia that year? Eighteen soldiers dead and 100 wounded. Everyone from Clinton to his top brass to two generals on the ground in Mogadishu were guilty of getting our soldiers slaughtered, but in the end everyone got away clean.
Now only the loved ones of these brave men killed and wounded in Mogadishu still care about bringing down those responsible for the military mess-up, just as must be the case with the near and dear of the sailors who died or were ripped apart by shrapnel on the Cole.
President George W. Bush promised Saturday in his inaugural speech that changes would be made and that Washington would return to a high moral standard. Amen. Washington's civilian leadership and our military's top command must get back to basic principles, stop playing us citizens for suckers and start punishing sinners at the top as well as at the bottom.
Admiral H.G. Rickover hit the bull's-eye dead center when he said, "Unless you can point your finger at the man responsible when something goes wrong, then you have never had anyone really responsible."
Sen. John Warner's Armed Services Committee cannot, and I suspect will not, let this grave injustice pass. The Cole cover-up must not be allowed to stand.
[www.hackworth.com ]
The city of Newburyport, Mass., faces a federal lawsuit for removing commemorative bricks from a public walkway because of the messages printed on them: "Jesus Loves You" and "For All the Unborn Children."
The American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative legal group, is representing two city residents who paid for the bricks as part of a fundraiser to improve the local park. Newburyport Mayor Lisa Mead is also named in the lawsuit, which was filed this week in federal court in Boston.
In their lawsuit, Thomas Savastano and Marie Cupo argued that the city placed no restrictions on the subject matter that could be inscribed on the bricks. More than 200 bricks were sold during last year's fundraising campaign, but Savastano's and Cupo's were the only two that were singled out for complaint.
Cupo said she inscribed "For All the Unborn Children" on the brick in memory of her baby, who died before birth. She said the city offered her a refund but she didn't care about that.
"I wanted my brick to be reinstated. I wanted to have that brick there for personal reasons...I thought it was an infringement on my rights that they removed it, and they removed it without even speaking to me about it first."
Cupo said she is a victim of somebody else's intolerance - somebody who misunderstood her sorrow over a miscarriage as a political statement. "My political views had nothing at all to do with the purchase of this brick," she said. "It was a sad thing to see someone take something so good and turn it completely into something that's tarnished. It really disturbs our family," Cupo said.
Savastano is quoted as saying he had "no intended agenda." He told a Boston newspaper, "My intention was just to express God's love for people."
ACLJ attorney Ben Bull released a statement saying, "This is a case involving a local government censoring a message because the message is religious in nature. The actions of the city were not only wrong but unconstitutional. We are asking the court to declare this censorship unconstitutional and a violation of our client's rights of free speech and free exercise of religion."
According to the lawsuit, Newburyport Mayor Lisa Mead ordered the bricks removed from the park's walkway last September, just days after a the city held a ceremony celebrating the success of the fundraising campaign. The suit contends the Mayor said the messages on the bricks were "religious" and needed to be removed from the sidewalk because some persons in the community were "offended" by them.
ACLJ, basing its case on the First and Fourteenth Amendments, is demanding both a preliminary and permanent injunction against the city and Mayor Mead to force them to cease their "discriminatory actions."
Mayor Mead told the Boston Globe that after talking with a lawyer, she concluded that "It's public property and it's not a place for religious or political speech."
[ CNS ]
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 tcn@wilderness-cry.net .
Thank you.