The last week has seen Iran take center stage in world diplomacy, as President Obama has revealed that the United States knows the location of a facility in Iran that is being used to develop nuclear technology. The possible nuclear capabilities of Iran are what make this country so dangerous. Iran, which has a reputation as a state sponsor of terrorism and whose leader has called for the destruction of Israel, may be close to possessing nuclear weapons.
Obama wants to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and hopefully he will be successful. However, his method for achieving this goal is negotiations, which may not be enough. The one option missing is a credible threat of force, and this threat has not been present since President Bush left office.
Bush has been roundly criticized from many quarters for his aggressive foreign policy. Critics say he took on too much in going into Iraq and did not concentrate enough on Afghanistan. But Bush had the resolve to change and implement a successful strategy in Iraq during the troop surge. Bush made this move despite its unpopularity at the time.
In dealing with Iran, Bush did not take military action. But given his willingness to go after regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian leaders had to suspect that Bush would be willing to confront them as well.
The recent democratic uprising in Iran provides insight into the differences between Bush and Obama. When protesters took to the streets and denounced the re-election of Iran’s hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, Obama seemed reluctant to come to their defense. Although it cannot be stated with certainty, Bush likely would have issued a strong statement of support. Such an uprising is the best chance for positive change in Iran, and Bush would not have backed down from supporting it.
Obama’s policy with Iran has been one of engagement. But if talks are all that Obama seeks, then Iran has no incentive to give up its nuclear program. Iran wants a nuclear weapon, and if no pressure is applied, it will not give up its ambitions.
If Bush were still president, military action against Iran may not have occurred. It may not even be a wise course of action. But with President Bush, the military option would always have seemed plausible, and may actually have made Iran more likely to negotiate seriously on abandoning its weapons program.
Obama seems to be banking on the good will he can create through negotiations. In the best case scenario, Obama seems to be hoping that Russia will come to his aid, particularly after he recently abandoned a missile defense shield in Poland, which was an irritant to the Russian leadership. Russia is an ally of Iran and could exert pressure to deter Iran from any nuclear program. But if no deal has been made, or the deal has been made and is not honored, then Obama is left counting on the good will of Iran, which is not likely to lead to an abandonment of its nuclear program.
Hopefully, Obama’s plan of negotiation will work. Iran with nuclear weapons is not a good scenario. But Bush’s diplomacy seems like it would have been far more likely to deter Iran. Although the rest of the world often denounced Bush, he was respected and backed up what he said he would do. Obama is trying an approach based more on diplomacy. Hopefully, he will be successful.
October 1, 2009
OUR VIEW: WE NEED BUSH BACK!
September 24, 2009
OUR VIEW: CASEY’S GOING NUTS?
Sen. Robert Casey’s vote to continue to fund ACORN was in the distinct minority in the Senate and was indeed the wrong course of action. ACORN, which is a community activist group, was caught in a sting operation in which its employees were taped giving advice on how to set up an underage prostitution business. After these tapes were made public, ACORN should not have received one dime more of federal funding, but Casey believed that it should.
ACORN is an umbrella group of community organizations. Its most publicized activities are registering people to vote and providing assistance for people who need low income housing. To promote its goals, ACORN has received federal funding.
Little public attention was focused on ACORN until the most recent presidential election. President Obama was close to ACORN and reportedly once served as its lawyer. ACORN was involved in the last presidential election in getting out the vote. After the election, conservatives began to scrutinize the group more closely, although how closely Obama is tied to ACORN remains a matter of debate.
Two enterprising, independent journalists recently decided to investigate ACORN after one of them was jogging by an ACORN housing office and decided to find out what happened behind the scenes. She and a friend posed as a prostitute and a pimp, went into several ACORN offices with a hidden camera, and proposed to ACORN officials that they help them set up an underage prostitution business. The ACORN officials agreed to help them and even offered suggestions about how the business could be logistically organized and could be structured to avoid tax consequences.
The tapes were aired on the Fox News Channel, and an outcry against ACORN ensued. The ACORN CEO said the employees shown on tape were fired, and that they do not represent the group as a whole. ACORN, she said, does much good work in helping poor people and should not be judged on the actions of a few bad employees.
Notwithstanding the explanation of its CEO, ACORN receives federal money and must be held accountable for its actions. The group might have received even more money under the economic stimulus plan. Such money should not be poured into a group about which serious questions have been raised.
The Senate responded quickly, with even many liberal members voting to end funding. Casey, however, voted to continue it. Casey told the Allentown Morning Call that he opposed the measure because it was a political move, although he did say the statements made by ACORN officials were “indefensible and inexcusable.”
“We’ve got bigger priorities than this,” Casey said, according to the Morning Call.
Casey sought to justify his vote by comparing ACORN to banking institutions, according to the Morning Call.
“But I would hope those putting forward these kinds of votes will apply the same standard to financial institutions,” Casey said, according to the Morning Call. “What does Congress do with a financial institution where a number of people within that institution violate the law? Are they banned from any kind of federal money?”
Casey’s vote and his rationale for that vote are simply unacceptable. ACORN must be held accountable for its use of taxpayer dollars, but Casey has failed to take that organization to task. Instead, he has followed the destructive path of vilifying financial institutions, at a time when these institutions are vital to the nation’s economic recovery.
Now that Casey has backed ACORN, voters must remember his action and hold him accountable in his next election. This course of action is the only correct one that voters can take.
The taxpayers deserve better.
September 15, 2009
OUR VIEW: PROTESTERS REPRESENT DEMOCRACY
The protesters who descended on Washington, D.C., to protest the ballooning federal budget robustly displayed our democratic values. The foundation on which the United States was built is the ability and willingness of the people to call their government to task when it gets too big and too power hungry. President Obama’s plan for health care certainly justifies their expression of outrage.
The people who make up the protests are not people we are accustomed to seeing at such events. Protests often are thought of as a tool for more liberal causes. What differentiates the present protests from the ones run by liberal groups is not only political philosophy, but also effectiveness.
Liberal protests have become commonplace, almost expected. Protests by conservative groups and non-activists, at this point, are surprising, and they actually have affected the debate on Obama’s health-care plan, causing many conservative Democrats to think twice about supporting it.
In another sign of protest, Congressman Joe Wilson also raised his voice to Obama’s plan when Obama was making a speech before Congress. When Obama said his health-care plan would not cover illegal immigrants, Wilson yelled out that Obama was lying.
No one actually knows whether the health-care plan would cover illegal immigrants. Obama had said 47 million people in the United States do not have health-care insurance, a number that includes illegal immigrants, although in his speech to Congress, Obama revised the number downwards to somewhere around 30 million.
While a heckler’s veto cannot be permitted, and people cannot be allowed to randomly interrupt a president’s speech in the halls of Congress, Wilson’s outburst gave expression to the frustration that many people have with Obama’s health-care plan. This frustration stems from the fact that no supporters of this so-called health-care reform can seem to give a straight answer. No one can say who the plan covers or how much it will cost. Obama cannot explain how any reform could plausibly expand coverage, bring down insurance premiums, and not add to the deficit, all at the same time. It would not be at all surprising if Obama says one thing, and the exact opposite of what he says appears in the actual health-care bill. Obama would then blame this shift on Congress. Wilson’s outburst cut through the fog and brought an important issue to the forefront.
A particularly aggravating aspect of the Wilson controversy is that while Wilson is being denounced, no one seems to be commenting on the tenor of Obama’s speech. He used his appearance before Congress to take potshots at Republicans and the protesters who oppose his health-care plan. Such remarks are out of place in the setting where Obama was speaking. He should stop acting like he is on the campaign trail and tell people exactly where he stands.
Given the health-care confusion, the protesters in Washington were doing exactly what they should be doing. They have not been given straight answers, and they are demanding accountability from government.
Liberals have been particularly angry both at the protesters and at Wilson. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for instance, condemned the protesters as “astro turf” and initially said Wilson would not be reprimanded, although this position did not stand for long. Liberals are uneasy, however, because their own tactics are being used against them, with far more effectiveness. They do not know what to do.
The protesters should keep up their push to bring government spending under control. They are exercising their rights to have their grievances heard by their government. Their activity is what keeps democracy in America strong and thriving.
September 10, 2009
OUR VIEW: OBAMA’S COSTLY PLAN
President Obama did a fairly good job in his nationwide speech of outlining the problems that people have with the health-care system. Unfortunately, the speech contained no real solutions. The solutions that Obama did offer were not believable.
Two areas emerged from the speech that show Obama did not coordinate the problems he condemned and the solutions that he proposed. These areas are covering the uninsured and the cost of paying for the plan.
When discussing the expansion of coverage, one problem that Obama outlined was that people with serious conditions often cannot receive coverage. Most people probably would agree that people who need health insurance because of serious conditions should receive it. Obama’s solution is to force insurance companies to insure these people.
However, Obama also said insurance premiums are too high. Everyone can agree on that. Most people do not like paying insurance premiums. But how can insurance premiums be lowered if insurance companies are forced to insure patients who have a higher risk and need more medical care?
Common sense dictates that if insurance companies are paying for costlier medical care, they will have to raise premiums. Thus, the problem of higher premiums would not be solved.
The only possible solutions are that government will end up reimbursing insurance companies for these patients, or perhaps reimbursement rates for doctors will be cut. But if the government is putting more money into the health insurance system, people will have to pay higher taxes. Regardless of whether premiums or taxes are raised, people will pay more money. If reimbursement rates for doctors are cut, the number of practicing doctors likely will decline. The health-care system would not be improved. Thus, Obama’s solutions to rising premiums and restrictions on coverage cannot work when they are added together.
Obama’s solution to deal with the cost of reforming the health-care system is not convincing either. He claims that fraud and abuse in programs such as Medicare and Medicaid can be cut. But if fighting fraud and abuse were easy, this money already would have been saved. Fraud and abuse actually is difficult to detect, and as government involvement in the health-care system increases, fraud and abuse are likely to increase as well. The potential to save money by cutting back on fraud and abuse probably is miniscule.
In short, Obama’s health-care speech was just another campaign tactic. The specifics were not really specifics. Instead, they were a jumble of clearly enunciated problems coupled with vague and contradictory solutions.
Obama gives the feeling that he does not really care how a health-care measure would work, only that a bill passes that he can call health-care reform. The American people must demand more. If a health-care bill is passed, it must actually work, and it must actually improve the situation.
September 4, 2009
OUR VIEW: CHENEY’S RIGHT — AGAIN!
Former Vice President Dick Cheney has fortunately stood up to the Obama administration’s plans to investigate the CIA agents who interrogated terrorists. These agents were doing their job to keep America safe. Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to subject them to Justice Department scrutiny is simply a way to cater to far left Democrats, and Cheney has called him on it.
The issue is whether these agents should have been allowed to use tougher methods to get information from these terrorists. Holder’s spokesman said his probe would focus only on CIA agents who exceeded the Bush administration’s guidelines for questioning terrorists. According to this official account, presumably the lawyers who crafted the guidelines and high-level political officials would be spared.
However, neither the agents nor any lawyers or political officials should be targeted by any investigation. They were doing their job to protect the United States, and they have succeeded. They should be commended, not condemned.
Unfortunately, Obama and his officials are taking a typical left-wing view of the CIA. They are afraid to go after enemies of the United States. Their belief is that somehow, if the United States is just nice to everyone, everyone will be nice in return.
These beliefs are misplaced. They did not work when Jimmy Carter was president, and they are not going to work now. The United States must confront its enemies with appropriate, realistic policies. If people want to launch attacks inside the United States, and they have plans to do so, they must be interrogated toughly.
Cheney is absolutely right on this question. He said these tactics have kept the United States safe, and that he was comfortable with decisions by interrogators to exceed the guidelines provided by the Bush administration when necessary. Furthermore, Cheney points out, targeting the CIA will make it more to difficult to recruit people to work in such a difficult job in the future.
“I just think it’s an outrageous political act that will do great damage, long term, to our capacity to be able to have people take on difficult jobs, make difficult decisions, without having to worry about what the next administration is going to say,” Cheney said in an interview on Fox News Sunday, according to USA Today.
Basically, Obama is playing politics with people’s safety. Instead of denigrating the CIA, Obama should be building it up. He should be standing behind the decisions that agents had made in the past, not caving in to his left-wing base. Terrorists are dangerous, and they pose a threat to our country. The government must do what is necessary to neutralize that threat, and a strong CIA is essential.
August 27, 2009
OUR VIEW: KENNEDY’S DEATH CAN’T ALTER DEBATE
The death of Sen. Ted Kennedy should not be used to help pass a health-care bill. We mourn Sen. Kennedy’s passing. But the debate over health care should be resolved by logically looking at what is contained in any bill that Congress considers, not by emotionalism.
Kennedy dedicated many years of his career to advocating universal health care. Under such a system, the government apparently would run the health-care system. This plan would be costly and should be avoided.
But a type of universal coverage has been a centerpiece of President Obama’s recent efforts to change health care. Only after intense public opposition at town halls and in the polls did Obama appear to back off of a demand for a public insurance option. No one should be fooled, though. Obama likely still wants a public option, and he likely is looking for a catalyst to get the public on his side. Obama might try to use Kennedy’s legacy as a plea to help his health-care plan pass.
Instead, the public opposition to Obama’s plans must continue. The vehemence of the public’s rejection of a government takeover of the health-care system already appears to have taken the Obama administration aback. The people are winning this battle, and they should not change their minds now.
What people should remain focused on in the coming weeks is cost. A health-care plan would add billions to the deficit. A ballooning deficit and debt, which will run into the trillions, should provide a warning against big government spending and the need for continuing opposition to Obama’s health-care plan. Although the government has never gone bankrupt, the limits are being pushed.
The other major concern is inflation. With the government spending so much money it does not have, more money has to be introduced into the economy, which increases the risk that prices will go up. If anything, the government should tighten its belt.
To solve the current economic crisis, instead of expanding government, costly programs should be trimmed and the printing of more money should be halted. The stimulus bill should be repealed, and no more cash giveaways should be created. All of this government money brings short-term jolts but no long-term fixes.
To restore long-term economic growth, the deficit must be eliminated, which is the opposite direction from where Obama is headed. The first major way to stop the expansion of government can be to defeat Obama’s costly and ineffective plans to reform health care. The people must continue to make their voices heard in opposition.
August 21, 2009
OUR VIEW: PROTESTERS RATTLE OBAMA
The strength of the town hall protesters was shown by the resulting confusion from the Obama administration over whether his health-care plan would include a government health insurance company. Obama previously had said such an entity must be included in any so-called health reform bill. Now Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius appeared to back off on the public option, at least temporarily.
The town hall protesters are the reason Obama does not know how to handle the possibility of government run insurance. The protesters vehemently opposed any such government takeover of the health-care system. Some of the most strident opposition happened right here in Lebanon, and Obama is taking notice.
The anger on the left shows how effective the protests are. Attempts to demonize the protesters have backfired. They are ordinary people who are concerned about the government spending trillions of dollars that it does not have. Their concern is not difficult to understand.
The Obama administration has not been able to combat the force of the protests. Obama made one attempt to counter the opposition by criticizing health-care “myths.”
But this spin should be ignored. The fact is that neither Obama nor anyone else knows exactly what this health-care bill will do. It is 1,000 pages, and contains provisions expanding government’s role in people’s lives in new ways. It is not a myth that this bill is a giant expansion of government, and it is not a myth that the Congressional Budget Office said it would cost $1 trillion. The protesters should not be dissuaded by Obama’s argument.
Even though they have been effective so far, the work of the protesters is not over. Since seeming to back away from the public option, Obama administration officials then appeared to reverse course when angry liberals said the public option must be included. Talk then surfaced that Democrats would try to pass a health-care bill without any Republican votes.
To prevent the re-introduction of the public option, protesters must stay after so-called moderate and conservative Democrats. These Democrats are from swing districts and try to play both sides of the fence by voting against big spending measures when their votes are not necessary to pass them, but not really trying to forestall them either. If these Democrats are really conservative, they must stop any public option from being introduced. To make sure these Democrats actually stick to their conservative principles, their voters must make their voices heard.
People also should not be fooled by talk of putting insurance co-ops in the bill as opposed to a public option. No one really knows how these co-ops would work at this point, and they could be just another way for the government to create a quasi-public insurance company. The Democrats might try to sneak co-ops into the final bill as a way to appease liberals and conservative Democrats. Voters should remind their elected representatives that they do not want these co-ops in the bill, either.
Overall, the protesters have changed the course of the health-care debate. The government during the last several decades has been spending an increasing amount of money. The Obama administration, though, has taken this level of spending to new heights. The voters have stood up and said they have had enough.
August 13, 2009
OUR VIEW: ‘OBAMACARE’ BASHERS ARE PATRIOTS
The people who went to the town hall meeting in Lebanon and grilled Sen. Arlen Specter on the health-care “reform” legislation should be commended. Their participation is part of a nationwide reaction to health-care proposals that appear to be both costly and lacking in any substantial benefits. The appearances of local residents and their tough questions hopefully will convince Congress that this health-care proposal is a bad idea.
President Obama and other supporters of health-care “reform,” most notably House Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, have turned to attacking the protesters and their motives for showing up at these meetings. These attacks are misguided, however. The Democratic Party leaders only should be blaming themselves.
Democratic mismanagement is the main reason the health-care proposals are floundering right now. Obama tried to sell his health-care plan as a way to fight rising medical costs. Then the Congressional Budget Office, which is nonpartisan, said the health-care reform proposal would cost close to $1 trillion. This report basically destroyed the whole rationale for Obama’s plan, and he has never recovered.
Insuring the uninsured was another major reason Obama gave for his plan. But his proposal would not significantly affect this problem either. In fact, indications are that existing benefits, such as Medicare, would be reduced. Paying more money for fewer benefits does not make sense. Obama was thus 0-for-2 in trying to sell health-care legislation.
Additionally, people do not even know whether Obama supports the government running a public insurance company, and whether such a measure would bring socialized medicine to the United States. Obama has tried to dodge this question.
The way the bill has been handled by Congress has not been smooth either. Congress tried to pass a bill, which was more than 1,000 pages in the House, as quickly as possible. Congress did not seem interested in debate or even what was in the bill. They just wanted to do something, regardless of whether it would work or not. Obama himself did not delve into the specifics of the bill in his public appearances. Obama also has delegated producing a bill to Congress, and his message on health-care reform has been largely rudderless.
To their credit, average citizens across the country became fed up with this process. They constructively took their anger to these town hall meetings. Their reaction has been patriotic. If citizens do not agree with what their legislators are doing, the most appropriate course of action is to show up and challenge them.
The response of the legislators has been varied. Many of them seem perplexed. In his appearance in Lebanon, Specter seemed to lose his cool. But these legislators must realize that it is their job to withstand such criticism. If they are trying to push through a massive change to the health-care system with little debate, they should be yelled at.
The benefits and even the objective of the current plan seem to be murky even to the legislators themselves, and such a wide reaching piece of legislation should not be passed without legitimate debate.
August 7, 2009
OUR VIEW: KEEP ON FIGHTING!
The angry protests from voters at town hall meetings on health care hopefully will continue. Constituents have shown up at these meetings and blasted politicians such as Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and in Pennsylvania, Sen. Arlen Specter and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. People need to keep up the pressure to defeat President Obama’s so-called health-care reform.
These politicians have drawn the most ire by stressing the need to pass the legislation quickly and providing unreasonable estimates about the legislation’s cost. Passing such far reaching legislation quickly does not make much sense. A plan and its possible effects should be well understood before legislators vote on any health-care bill.
A health-care bill that is passed just for the sake of doing something, but does not actually improve health care, is counter productive, particularly if it raises people’s taxes and adds to the ballooning deficit.
Any arguments from Obama that a health-care bill could save money were completely refuted by a Congressional Budget Office study showing that Obama’s version of health-care reform would add billions to the deficit.
Additionally, people are worried that they would be forced onto a substandard program of government run health care, and would pay more than they are paying now.
Decreased quality at a higher price is not a winning argument.
The Obama Administration seems completely flustered by the backlash from voters.
A Democratic advertisement has compared people protesting health care costs to an angry mob. These people are not part of a mob, but they are angry, and they should be. Obama is trying to rush through an unworkable bill, and he does not seem to care what is in it.
Far from being an unruly mob, the opposition to the health-care bill is needed because Democrats control both Houses of Congress by sizeable majorities. Many of these Democrats ran as being more moderate or conservative, but they are being pulled in the other direction simultaneously by the liberal party leadership. If these Democrats are not pressured, they may just support some type of wasteful compromise measure. They likely will claim that they saved some money, in an attempt to please their constituents. They also can use a compromise to stay on the good side of party leaders.
To prevent these malleable Democrats from caving to the liberals who run their party, voter protests at town hall meetings and other venues are absolutely necessary.
A tea party protest is being planned in Lebanon that hopefully will address the concerns about the health-care proposals. Everyone who is opposed to so-called health-care reform should attend.
July 24, 2009
OUR VIEW: STOP GOV. ‘SPENDELL’
Republican state senators should be applauded for their efforts to restore fiscal sanity to Pennsylvania. They have united in opposition to Gov. Edward Rendell’s proposed personal income tax increase to balance the budget. Instead of backing a tax increase, they are proposing to balance the budget by reducing spending. This approach is what most states, including our own, should be doing.
The senators are against a tax increase because of its effect on the economy during a recession and on the general principle that the people have a right to use their own money as they see fit. The Democrats, including Rendell, are criticizing the Republicans for withholding money from vital state services, including public education. As a result of the budget impasse, state employees have not been paid for their work.
The Democratic argument may appear to make sense at first glance. The Democrats say that if particular state services are needed, they should be funded. If the funding is not there, the Democrats want to raise taxes on residents to obtain the money.
The problem with this argument is that resources are not unlimited. If money is taken from people to pay for government services, the economy suffers because people are not spending this money to buy things, nor are they investing this money to start or expand businesses.
Instead, this money is taken out of the private sector, where it fuels job growth, and is given to the state, which is inefficient and wasteful. People faced with higher taxes will move their businesses to a state with lower taxes, and people are less likely to locate new businesses in a state with higher taxes.
In fact, the argument that raising taxes is necessary to promote social services is counterproductive. With a strong economy, the state needs to provide fewer social services. By taking money out of the private sector, the state is harming the economy and increasing the need for social services. The best way to cure this problem is to keep taxes low to keep Pennsylvania’s economy strong.
Pennsylvania should not end up like California and Massachusetts, which try to provide every social service imaginable. If Pennsylvania follows this route, businesses will leave the state and social problems will get worse, not better. Rendell’s approach of higher spending and higher taxation is based on this model.
Instead, Pennsylvania should follow the lead of the Senate Republicans. Lower taxes and less government spending is better for the economy. When the economy is doing well, social conditions improve. The Senate Republicans must continue to resist Rendell’s attempts to raise taxes.
