U.S. foreign aid: our best diplomatic tool

I recently saw an interview with Rand Paul, the newest Senator from Kentucky, in which he advocated eliminating foreign aid from the federal budget. While foreign aid takes up less than one-half of a percent of the federal budget, Paul rightly argues that it will take cutting everything, no matter how "small," to restore fiscal stability.

However, I think he glosses over one of the biggest reasons for foreign aid. I really don't believe it's all about America's generosity. Paul is right, we don't have the money on hand to be generous. We need to cut back. But for all of the cutbacks we'll need to make, foreign aid won't be one of them.

Foreign aid is simply too important of a tool for negotiations. I read a story today that highlights the plight of a U.S. diplomat who's being imprisoned in Pakistan for presumably killing two Pakistanis in self-defense. The title of the story warns that "Pakistan could lose aid dollars over detained U.S. diplomat."

That's right, the negotiating tool for obtaining the release of an American diplomat is money. And we've seen cuts in aid used as a threat with many other countries, most recently with Egypt.

Money talks. It always will. Because of that, look to military and domestic budget cuts before foreign aid is ever even considered for the chopping block. Cutting foreign aid is simply too big a risk for international relations.

Why I didn't vote Republican for governor

The St. Paul Pioneer Press was looking for someone who voted for Independent Party candidate Tom Horner for governor Tuesday night. Since that was me, I responded and was interviewed.

Here are the couple of lines they pulled out of the interview for the story that ran yesterday:

Joey White, 25, of Burnsville, considers himself a Republican but cast his vote for the IP candidate. "Horner had so many people lined up behind him saying, 'Yep, this is a balanced approach,'" White said.

"Emmer's only ideas were just cut, cut, cut Horner was able to find solutions that I think both sides of the aisle agreed with, and that was attractive to me."

Well, sort of.

When a 5-minute conversation is cut down to two sentences, you're not going to get much.

In short, Minnesota's biggest problem is the budget. It's a mess and needs to be fixed. Mark Dayton's proposal to raise taxes and inability to cut spending were a problem. Tom Emmer talked a lot about cutting taxes and cutting spending, but he said very little about what he would cut and what he did say didn't make much sense.

Horner was the only guy with a solution that included a combination of tax and spending proposals with cuts where needed and increases where needed. Horner was the only one whose proposals gained the support of independent groups and policy wonks across the board.

I knew Horner wouldn't win. The polling at the end made that obvious. Yet I don't consider my vote a throw-away vote.

My vote simply said that I thought Horner had the best solutions of the 3 candidates running. That's it, and that's really what a vote should say.

Clever political advertising

My first job out of college was as a campaign manager for a congressional campaign, which I left 2 months before election day. The candidate started showing signs of being a little crazy as early as a few months into my unfortunate tenure with the campaign. By the time I left the campaign I was at the point of being unwilling to send the press releases as my original press release drafts became butchered with venomous language I just couldn't support.

After I left, he put out ads that still make me cringe. I saw one of his ads used 2 years later in a news piece on how outrageously negative campaigns can get.

I haven't been following the congressional race in Minnesota's 5th District this year, but recently came across an ad from Joel Demos, who's running against Keith Ellison for the seat. The 47-second internet ad was just turned into a 30-second TV ad and is getting rave reviews from the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and others.

Joel's going to lose, but he's not going down without a clever fight.


(via)

But he could regain conservatives' confidence...

...if he really follows through with his promise to do this.

Bush Renews Threat to Veto War Spending

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Friday renewed his threat to veto any war and hurricane spending bill that exceeds his request.

"Congress has got to be wise about how they spend the people's money," Bush said at Frager's Hardware on Capitol Hill. "They've got to make sure the supplemental comes to me at a rate that I'll accept."

The president says he'll veto any bill exceeding his $92.2 billion spending request for the war in Iraq and hurricane relief plus an additional $2.3 billion to prepare for a possible bird flu pandemic. The Senate on Thursday passed a $109 billion supplemental spending bill, but it includes add-ons, making it some $14 billion more expensive than Bush has said he is willing to accept.

Honestly, if he actually vetoes this, his approval rating in my book will jump over 70%. He must veto this bill!!

It may be defense spending, but let's be honest; if we can't afford to be in Iraq, then we have to either cut other programs to compensate for the cost of being there or we have to get out. We can't just spend money that doesn't exist.

Oh, but wait...that's what we've been doing....

More federal $ down the toilet

The main point of this "news story" by ABC was to talk about how moderate Republicans in the Senate have distanced themselves from Bush. However, what I noticed most was this comment, in reference to Condoleezza Rice defending herself and the Bush administration:

Rice tried to take the offensive by announcing an administration request for $75 million this year to build democracy in Iran, saying the U.S. must support Iranians who are seeking freedoms under what she called a radical regime.

I can't help but wonder where we're going to get this magical $75 million. Even if we get it, what will it really accomplish? So we "support Iranians who are seeking freedoms." I'm all for that. But I'm also reminded of Cuba, the Bay of Pigs, and...well, you know the story. If Bush is trying to mimick John F. Kennedy, he's making a big mistake. I'm also reminded of the Afghanis we supported in the 1980s. Can anyone say "bin Laden?" Those weapons we bought them have now been turned on us.

Throwing more money at the problem just won't fix it. That money should be used to put body armor on the troops who will be heading into Iran if the problem gets that bad.

Give us the line-item veto!

Wisconsin has it. Representative Clifford Stearns (R-FL) wants the president to have it. It's called the line-item veto. It (H. J. Res. 77) gives the president the authority to "reduce or disapprove any appropriation or authorization of new direct spending in any bill presented by Congress." In other words, the president (any and all presidents) would be able to reduce or elminate any spending in any bill presented to him.

In this system, the president would have to take full responsibility for all spending approved, and therefore for all deficits. As it is, he has the option of either passing the whole pork-barrel-laden piece of garbage, or not passing a budget at all.

This would require an amendment to the Constitution. It would be nice, but don't count on it.

Like it or not, Newt's back

Newt Gingrich is back in the public eye. Actually, he's been working his way up there for a while now, starting with a book release that has lead to speaking tours, talk show appearances, and more. Many consider him to be a contender for president in 2008.

I have a problem with his inability to keep his personal life in order, but I think America still respects his success with the 1994 Contract with America that gave Republicans control of the House, and in a time of corruption in Washington, I think a lot of people actually believe Newt when he talks about change. Even I think he'd do a better job than the current House leadership. He's talked the game of change before. He's delivered results. People respond to that. Besides, Bill Clinton's continued popularity following his own personal scandal(s) shows that - like it or not - Americans look past that. We seem to have an increasing tendency to say "you do your thing, I'll do mine" in politics, unprecedented in American politics until sometime within the last ten years.

Here's a bit from Newt's latest stop at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference).

Newt Gingrich, who led the Republican Party to power a dozen years ago, told cheering conservatives Saturday it is time to overhaul a balky, slow-moving government locked in the last century.

Citing multiple government failures after Hurricane Katrina, the former House speaker said the government meltdown at all levels illustrated how badly government needs to be updated in all of its operations.
...
Gingrich's appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference was scripted like a presidential campaign stop, with young supporters in red T-shirts passing out buttons and pamphlets.

"We clearly need the Republican Party to reacquire a movement that designs a 21st century Contract with America," Gingrich said, recalling the set of proposals at the heart of his successful 1994 strategy to win congressional races.

Gingrich, who has been on a promotional book tour, said he isn't currently running for president, though he hasn't ruled it out.
...
The former lawmaker from Georgia was accorded "rock star" treatment by those in the crowded hotel ballroom. He was interrupted frequently by standing ovations, hailed with cries of "Newt, Newt, Newt and besieged by young fans eager for a photo with Gingrich.

Conservatives at this conference expressed mounting frustration with the expansion of government and increased spending [I'm frustrated too!] in the last five years, even with Republicans in control of the White House and Congress.

The Republican Party has not been conservative over the last six years. Oh, they've held the line on moral conservatism. But their fiscal policies have run amuck. Newt's been out of the game for a while, and went out pretty disgraced. But if he could prove to me that he's serious about fiscal discipline, there's a small chance he could get my vote.

Can anyone say "flat tax"?

Get rid of property taxes (and income taxes), institute a 23.5% flat sales tax (some even say 16 or 17 percent would work), and this whole problem would never have happened.

A house erroneously valued at $400 million is being blamed for budget shortfalls and possible layoffs in municipalities and school districts in northwest Indiana.

An outside user of Porter County's computer system may have triggered the mess by accidentally changing the value of the Valparaiso house, said Sharon Lippens, director of the county's information technologies and service department. The house had been valued at $121,900 before the glitch.

County Treasurer Jim Murphy said the home usually carried about $1,500 in property taxes; this year, it was billed $8 million.

...the $400 million value ended up on documents that were used to calculate tax rates.

Most local officials did not learn about the mistake until Tuesday, when 18 government taxing units were asked to return a total of $3.1 million of tax money. The city of Valparaiso and the Valparaiso Community School Corp. were asked to return $2.7 million. As a result, the school system has a $200,000 budget shortfall, and the city loses $900,000.

Officials struggled to figure out how the mistake got into the system and how it could have been prevented. City leaders said Thursday the error could cause layoffs and cost-cutting measures.

The flat tax may do away with CPA's, but that may not be all that bad. Besides, it works in Iraq.

Republicans need a wake-up call

Lauderback and Pence hit the nail on the head.

"What conservatives have realized during the last five years is that we have not elected a conservative president," said Bill Lauderback, executive vice president of the American Conservative Union. "Nor do we have a conservative majority in either the House or Senate."
...
"We are in danger of becoming the party of big government," said Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee.
Pence said he and his allies in Congress plan to make sure that trend is reversed.
"The era of big Republican government is over," Pence said....

Just as Republicans needed Jim Doyle to win the governor's seat in Wisconsin in 2002 to send them a wake-up call, Republicans just might need to see their Congressional majority in the US House of Representatives up-ended. War or no war, 9/11 or no 9/11, Hurricane Katrina or no Hurricane Katrina - the "spend, spend, and spend some more" policy has got to stop!