Tomorrow, February 6, 2009, Newt Gingrich will "premiere" a DVD commemorating President Ronald Reagan. While this post percolated in the "I'll get a round TUIT'" section of my organic CPU for some time, the imminence of the DVD pushed the project to the front of the queue. To begin, please take a moment to reflect on the following:

Typically, at the change of Presidents, leading historians and political scientists rank every President from George Washington through the departing incumbent. Should the experts vote in 2052, which Presidents will they rate as the top three of the twentieth century?

Your correspondent created the challenge, or puzzle, after many years of listening to people bash President Reagan. Trying to defend President Reagan directly generally proved fruitless; however, giving them a challenge to consider normally moved them from stridency to reflection—perhaps a "Reagan-free reflection." A somewhat reasoned discussion, though certainly not always agreement, typically followed.

Among all of the responses to "the challenge," one stands out. Although your correspondent would not recognize her today, one woman burned her response vividly into my memory. Upon hearing the challenge, she thought a moment, and then followed:

"Franklin Roosevelt, I suppose . . .” , . Then, with an increasingly strident and frustrated tone, "You don't mean Reagan do you!"

Your correspondent diplomatically avoided the terms “checkmate" and "touché." Still, she had quickly reached to the core of the argument. History grades presidents on their accomplishments, not on charisma, looks, or speaking style. Here then, are the top three presidents of the Twentieth Century, the same today as years ago:

1. Franklin Roosevelt (apologies to my fellow Republicans)

2. Ronald Reagan

3. A two and a half way “toss up” among:

a. Teddy Roosevelt

b. Harry Truman

c Dwight Eisenhower - Ike had the "misfortune" of presiding over a period of relative peace and prosperity; this has tended to mask the significance of his accomplishments.

By now, the question burning—perhaps searing—in the hearts of some readers is, "How did Ronald Reagan rank so high/low on this list?" Here, in "sort of" priority order, are some of the accomplishments that earned Ronald Reagan a place in history that many of his peers will and would envy:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]-->Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

While far from Reagan's greatest accomplishment, someone defending Ronald Reagan does well to start here. Citing this one act blunts the most common Ronald Reagan myths: the myth of Reagan the front man, the puppet; the man reciting the lines fed to him by “his handlers”—those "real powers," and brains, in his Administration who really got everything done. The story of that most famous line in his most famous speech obliterates those ill-informed claims.

The man who wrote the speech included the line in his first draft after a visit to Berlin. Those “puppeteers” and “tune callers” repeatedly deleted the line from the speech over the following months. Each time, Ronald Reagan put the line back in. While flying to Berlin on Air Force One, the President was still receiving messages and Faxes begging him to take that "inflammatory remark" out of the speech. If Reagan were only a puppet or a toady, the world would never have heard those now universally recognizable words.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->2. <!--[endif]-->Won the Cold War

Despite the claims of Mikhail Gorbachev and hoards of others to the contrary, polices implemented by Ronald Reagan ultimately buried the System that so confidently planned to bury us. Many specifics that follow will buttress this claim; so only two need appear here: ramping up the arms race; supporting the Afghan resistance. These two much maligned polices went far to bankrupt the Soviet Union and end the Cold War.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->3. <!--[endif]-->Regained strategic nuclear supremacy conceded by Carter

While "conceded” in this context could have several meanings, we will focus on the more important one. During the only Presidential debate of 1980, President Jimmy Carter acknowledged the Soviet lead; although he did not mention that he had lost it. President Carter probably felt quite smug after asking:

"Governor Reagan, what do you suppose would be the response of the Politburo if Secretary Brezhnev told them he planned to concede nuclear supremacy [back] to the United States?"

As in so many cases, President Carter apparently failed to consider the implications of his little coup. The answer in the end was of course, "Go broke trying to keep up."

<!--[if !supportLists]-->4. <!--[endif]-->Regained, or extended, supremacy in conventional arms

Reagan took office at the lowest point of American power, relative to our adversaries, since about 1942. The world viewed Communism as the wave of the future, and America as beginning her inevitable decline. Ronald Reagan left America with a restored and peerless military; the Navy was the strongest we have ever had. No one believed that the Soviets could cavalierly threaten Western Europe, Asia or anyone outside of Eastern Europe.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->5. <!--[endif]-->START talks

Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon began the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) in the late 1960s. These were an effort to reduce the rate of increase in the deployment of nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles. While SALT may have slowed the rate of increase somewhat, nuclear weapons continued to increase in number. Ronald Regan had a different vision—perhaps more accurately he had a vision. START stands for Strategic Arms Reduction Talks.

During the 1980 Campaign, when Ronald Reagan proposed START, few believed he was serious, much less that he could pull it off. In rather unkind and cynical terms, some of Candidate Reagan’s detractors said START was just campaign rhetoric; that he had no intention to pursue the idea beyond Election Day. Your correspondent considered START a good, but probably doomed, idea. Fortunately, one “amateur” believed the idea was achievable; when he left office in 1989, the world the super powers had far fewer nuclear weapons aimed at each other than when that same “amateur” took office in 1981. Moreover, START not only survived his return to California, much of it remains in force at this writing.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->6. <!--[endif]-->INF Treaty

INF stands for “Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces.” In many ways, the INF Treaty highlights the most effective way to negotiate with a bully. In the mid-1970s, the Soviet Union began deploying what became 300 SS^‑20 “Intermediate-Range” ballistic missiles, aimed them at the Western European NATO nations. President Carter began, and President Reagan carried through with, a plan to counter to the Soviet threat with additional ballistic missiles and cruise missiles that employed new technologically.

As negotiations dragged on, and American plans moved ahead, the Soviets pulled out all the stops to halt the NATO deployment. “Pulling out the stops” meant setting in motion what one might call their “Western European Assets”—leftists, pacifists, agents, fellow travelers and others—both on and off the Soviet payroll. In huge demonstrations, tens of thousands of people protested the U.S. Missiles. Banners, signs, and effigies of skeletons and missiles abounded. Oddly, no one seemed to protest the already deployed Soviet SS-20s. As stated above, “Assets . . . both on and off their payroll.”

Throughout the protests, and both diplomatic and domestic opposition, President Reagan and Margaret Thatcher stood resolute; eventually, leading to the treaty in Reykjavik eliminating intermediate range weapons in Europe. Many may remember watching the nightly news and seeing large explosions on TV as Soviet SS-20 and American Perishing and cruise missiles were blown up.

By standing firm in the face of intense pressure, President Reagan achieved a second deep reduction in deployed nuclear weapons: 900 Soviet warheads on 300 missiles—fewer NATO weapons because the Soviets backed off before NATO completed its deployment. Incidentally, the “Nuclear Freeze” movement emerged in the United States at this time, added its weight to the protests overseas, and eventually faded away along with the SS‑20s.

President Reagan could have gone along with advice to negotiate rather than risk provocation. That was the view of many experts, those masterminds “pulling his stings.” Had he done so, the Soviets would probably have long ago replaced aging SS-20s with updated SS-40s—incidentally, the Soviets never produced a missile that NATO named the SS-40.

Is this getting long? Consider a bookmark. Just don’t blame your correspondent; Ronald Reagan did all of this stuff; yours truly only reports it.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->7. <!--[endif]-->SDI – Star Wars

SDI—Strategic Defense Initiative—Star Wars—the final nail in the coffin of the Soviet Union. Need one say more? Only that we should hope someone finishes enough of SDI to stop incoming missiles launched from some rogue state. Dick Morris coined the term “Kamikaze Country” to describe the new threat.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->8. <!--[endif]-->From National Ennui to National Confidence and Optimism

In a rare moment of clarity and candor, Jimmy Carter characterized the mood of America at one point during his presidency as “a state of national ennui.” Paraphrased that meant a we were all “bummed out”; bummed out by Post Viet Nam Syndrome; bummed out by American decline internationally; and most of all, bummed out by the horrible state into which Jimmy Carter had plunged both the nation and the world. It is rare that a peacetime president can have as huge an impact as did Jimmy Carter; sadly, that huge effect was a nightmare.

As Carter before him, Ronald Reagan had a material effect on America and the world; and he did so during a time of relative peace. President Reagan took office with America in a state of national ennui; and he left office with America in a state of unparalleled, to then, optimism and prosperity. The 1984 Reelection Campaign used the theme, “It’s Morning Again in America”; and truly, it was.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->9. <!--[endif]-->From Stagflation to Growth and Prosperity

In his 1976 Campaign, Jimmy Carter developed the “Misery Index”: defined as the rate of inflation plus the rate of unemployment. Candidate Carter castigated President Ford, saying that he, or anyone, should be ashamed to run for reelection with a misery index above 10. In 1980, the rate of inflation was 13% (Wikipedia says 11.8%); unemployment was around 9% (Wikipedia says 7.5%); the Prime Interest Rate was 21%; Jimmy Carter did not make much of the Misery Index in 1980.

When Ronald Reagan left office, Inflation was about 6.5% and falling; the Prime Rate was around 9%, and falling; the January 1989 unemployment rate was 5.4%, well below Carter’s.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->10. <!--[endif]-->Income Tax Reform

In what one could arguably call the most important single domestic policy stroke of an American presidential pen, Ronald Reagan eliminated the profit that had accrued until then to the Federal Government from inflation. The action in question was the 1981 tax law that indexed the basic income tax tables. In addition to bringing about an end to inflation, indexing slowed, if it did not completely halt, the phenomenon known as bracket creep.

Bracket creep came about when, because of your pay rate went up to match inflation. Your increased money income put you in a higher bracket despite the fact it did not purchase any more. In 1980, I received a 16% pay increase—13.5% for the Cost of Living plus 2.5% for merit. The inflation part alone pushed me into a higher tax bracket. Thus, the money I received just to “tread water” caused my tax rate to go up and my real income to drop. Indexing fixed most of that by moving up all the numbers when the CPI went up. Lacking an incentive to cause inflation, Federal Policies changed; and since then, inflation has remained quietly lurking in the background. While more important than “Stagflation” and “National Ennui”, they came first to lay a foundation for the importance of tax indexing.

The much-maligned Tax Reform Act of 1986 further improved the tax code by reducing the number of tax rates from 24 to three and then two. The law offset revenue losses by eliminating most tax loopholes. Both of these measures increased incentives for entrepreneurs and decreased the negative affect of the tax code on the economy. Perhaps least known, the Tax Reform Act of 1986—backed by Democrat Tip O’Neil—dropped about 16 million poor families from the income tax rolls. Not a bad piece of legislation.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->11. <!--[endif]-->Leon Klinghoffer / Achille Lauro

For those who do not recall, Leon Klinghoffer was an American passenger on the Italian cruise liner Achille Lauro. Palestinians hijacked the ship; and, because Klinghoffer was a Jew and an American, the hijackers murdered him. The ship then sailed into Egypt amid a hero’s welcome. Later, the “heroes” boarded an airliner for Libya, their point of origin; presumably, expecting another hero’s welcome. Moments after Egyptian airliner entered international air space, the landing, and running lights on a flight of American Navy F-14 fighters suddenly “lit up” all around the plane. The F‑14s ordered the Egyptians to follow them or be forced down. The plane landed in Italy where the terrorist murders received long prison sentences. Sadly, one, Ibrahim Fatayer Abdelatif, was released in 2008.

In his speech announcing the capture President Reagan gave a memorable warning to the terrorists, “You can run; but you cannot hide.” Few Presidents would have “the moxie” to order such a bold action; but then, Ronald Reagan was both a visionary, and bold.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->12. <!--[endif]-->Berlin Night Club Bombing Response

On April 5, 1986, terrorists bombed a discothèque in Berlin killing several Americans, including two soldiers, and injuring many more. Nine days later, after finding evidence of Libyan complicity, the United States bombed that nation in retaliation for the attack. Among the targets of the American planes was the home of Muammer Gaddafi. Sadly, his stepdaughter died in the raid. After the retaliatory bombing, Gaddafi “cooled his jets” somewhat. That is, he apparently decided to tone down his support for terror—although the Lockerbie bombing, one month before Ronald Reagan left office, was a noteworthy exception.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->13. <!--[endif]-->Grenada Rescue

In late October 1983, a pro Castro radical wrested control of the small island nation of Grenada from an ostensibly more moderate pro Castro regime. Chaos immediately erupted; order broke down. Cuban construction workers, probably combat engineers as events would show, continued their work of building a military grade extension of an airport runway they had begun months before. The chaos led to concerns over stability of the Caribbean; and, over the fears that about 800 Americans attending medical schools on the island would become hostages. Remember that President Reagan took office literally during the closing moments of the Iran Hostage Crisis; the Iranians released their last prisoners just as Ronald Reagan finished taking the oath of office.

President Reagan doubtless had all of this on his mind as he listened to pleas for help from the leaders of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States and weighed his options. As was his way, Reagan acted quickly, sending troops to liberate the tiny island nation and rescue the American students—likely averting a second national humiliation. At the time, a friend at work observed that the Cuban "construction workers" were almost certainly soldiers; "civilians do not fight that well,” he said. Incidentally, this Marine Reservist friend did not say "almost certainly”; he said, "were.”

<!--[if !supportLists]-->14. <!--[endif]-->Latin America

When President Reagan took office, dictators or authoritarian regimes ruled much of Latin America. When he left office, all but two Latin American nations were representative republics with free and frequent elections. Technically, only Cuba remained a dictatorship; however, in one Latin American country, the same political party won every Presidential election from 1924 through 2000. Somehow, counting that nation as a representative republic, as of 1989, seems less than accurate.

Part of the liberation of Latin America involved toppling the Marxist Sandinista regime in Nicaragua—this brings up the Iran-Contra Affair. Given the overall outcome, historians will probably treat Iran-Contra much more gently than do most Reagan detractors of today. Keep in mind what happened when the Sandinistas boldly believed their own bilge. They recklessly held a fair election and got tossed out on their collective ear; the entire nation then spontaneously partied in the streets for a week.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->15. <!--[endif]-->PATCO Strike

In 1981, the Air Traffic Controllers staged an illegal strike that tied up air travel nationwide, and threatened to continue doing so until the Federal Government caved in. During a hastily called Cabinet meeting, all but one person there was engaged in a rather heated, if not frantic, discussion of options and risks. One of them though seemed so disinterested that he had begun to "doodle" on a yellow pad. That was, of course, the President.

After doodling a while longer, President Reagan nudged James Baker, showed him the yellow pad, and told him to call a press conference in a few minutes. There, President Reagan read his "doodles" to the world. In short, precise and firm words, he told the strikers to return to work in 48 hours or find other jobs.

Nobody believed President Reagan would carry out his threat; the end of air travel and commerce would follow? When the deadline passed, those controllers who stayed home lost their jobs. Amid much hand wringing, commentators nationwide predicted disaster; one in Los Angeles gravely stated, "people will die." In the end, no one died, air travel resumed, and commerce continued. Again, the bold decisiveness of Ronald Reagan had triumphed over the sober, experienced, thoughtfulness of "his handlers."

Naturally, you have seen a somewhat winnowed down list of Reagan accomplishments. Some readers probably still feel that the author omitted some critical Reagan achievement; of course some will wonder how I, or anyone, could admire Ronald Reagan. Many readers may have noticed that "PATCO" would have gone well with the story of the Berlin Speech. It seemed fitting though to put PATCO here. It makes a nice bookend to emphasize that Ronald Reagan kept a firm hand on the tiller of policy during his Presidency. PATCO also demonstrates how President Reagan so often accomplished the unthinkable; all the while proving that he meant what he said; and making every effort to do what he promised. Contrary to what the “best minds in America” believed, this unique individual proved that he could indeed become, Ronald Wilson Reagan, 40th President of the United States.

Stimulus and Readiness

As Congress works to transform President Obama's economic recovery package into a trillion-dollar picnic featuring pork, payoffs, and pandering, let us hope they to divert some funds to the task of restoring part of America's strained, if not quite broken, military.

Former President Bush, while pursing the campaigns in Iraq and elsewhere, allowed Defense budgets to remain dangerously low. As a consequence, the last three presidents have left America with a military that finds much of its equipment in a state of disrepair, and with some equipment "just plain used up" and in need of replacement. The much needed stimulus package provides an opportunity to restore some of the military capability lost over the last 20 years. One program in particular fulfills a critical need; and satisfies the requirements President Obama defined for programs in the stimulus package. That program, the F-22 Raptor, would:

• Put people to work quickly. Because the Bush Administration left the program on life support, the F-22 is, to steal a term from governors and mayors, "shovel ready". The production line is in place, costs, suppliers, and contractors are known. All that remains is to call back laid off workers, order and receive raw materials, and start building planes.

• Provide a lasting benefit. The F-22 will have a life span of 20 to 40 years; considerably longer than the playground equipment, pothole repairs, and water slides proposed by many state and local politicians.

• Stimulate the Economy quickly by spending most of the money over a couple of years. The F-22 will employ myriad contractors and thousands of workers in many states. Running production lines three shifts a day will get Americans back to work and deliver more bang for each buck than spreading the purchases out over many years. Building the F-22s faster will also restore Air Force capability more quickly, which could in turn deter a war; a "small benefit" that might ultimately save the lives of many.

Arguments that fighter planes have become unneeded, obsolete relics of the Cold War reflect a dangerous tunnel vision. If you disagree, please consider what might happen if Taiwan made an ambiguous statement that China misinterpreted as a declaration of independence. China has emphatically stated that such a move would lead to war. Provoked or not, one reality above all others has deterred any Chinese move across the 90 mile Taiwan Strait. Regardless of how many troops China dispatches to Taiwan, the Chinese understand that none of those troops can swim across the last 45 miles of the Strait.

For ten years or so, China has worked on modernizing its Air Force; a program that continues today. With equally capable pilots, most of the new planes could match or best a new F-15--much less one degraded by age. Of greater concern, if China believed, rightly or wrongly, that it could gain and hold air superiority over the Strait, China might gamble on an invasion--regardless of provocation. Thus, a role seems to remain for air superiority fighters.

Designed to replace aging F-15s, the Air Force urgently needs the F-22. During 2007, an F-15 broke apart in the air, injuring the pilot. The crash investigation found flaws that endangered pilots and indicated that some F-15s had simply worn out. For about three months, the Air Force grounded or severely curtailed the operation of roughly half of the F-15 fleet. The grounded planes had, and still have, the mission of winning and holding control of the air; that is, flying against and defeating enemy fighter planes. The pilots of those F-15s could easily find themselves up against newer, more modern fighters; fighters that are superior to brand new F-15s.

Deployed in sufficient numbers, the Raptor could give America unchallenged control of the air for years to come; years during which no power would dare challenge our Air Force. In the face of that opportunity, imagine your son, grandson, or any American pilot flying from Okinawa to Taiwan in a worn out F-15 to duel newer, more advanced fighters.

For years, the Bush Administration ignored Air Force requests and defied Congress by holding up production of the Raptor. A continued willingness to send American pilots against up to date fighters in F-15s, and later in F-35s, instead of more capable F-22s breaks faith with our pilots and those on land and sea who depend on them. Doing so when Congress plans to toss a trillion dollars around like hot cakes at a church breakfast borders on criminal malfeasance. The time has come to fund enough F-22s to allow the Air Force to do its job.

If you agree with the views presented here, please send a note to your senators; your Congressman probably has a safe seat; hence, he or she does not care what you think or how you vote.

DJ

Read These Questions for Obama By George Will

Obama's Scary Defense "Strategy"

Take a look at this You Tube Video if you want a frightening reason to vote for McCain over Obama. After hearing it on Micheal Medved's show, it has taken me quite some time to find the clip. The video speaks for itself.

Click on the title of the post; it links to the video.

DJ

Immigration Reform Enhancements

Should the "Immigration Compromise” reach the House, the House Immigration Reform Caucus should insist on some or all of the following "clarifications" to add "specificity" to the bill. Each recommendation addresses a legitimate concern of American workers, taxpayers, or both.

Jobs Americans won't do at slave wages:

Before allowing guest workers to enter the country, Congress must ensure that citizens and legal residents have work. Equally important, Congress must ensure that neither guest workers nor newly legal residents impose an economic burden. To that end, the rules for advertising a job should satisfy all of the following conditions:

1. The wage advertised for job must have been at least the higher of:

a. Twice the minimum wage

b. The prevailing wage for that position multiplied by 125% of:

i. The average regional wage for that position

ii. The average national wage for that position

iii. The 65^th percentile of the national wage paid for that position

iv. The 65^th percentile of the regional wage paid for that position

2. Employers wishing to hire guest workers must guarantee they do not become a burden on:

a. The taxpayers

b. The healthcare system

c. Any other service provider subject to current or future mandates by:

i. The Federal Government, including the courts, pseudo courts, and independent agencies

ii. State and local governments, including the courts, pseudo courts and independent agencies

iii. Treaties, international agreements, or Supra-governmental bodies such as, but not limited to, the United Nations, the EC, GATT, WTO, NAFTA, or NGOs

d. Guarantees could take the form of requiring employers to:

i. Provide health insurance

ii. Provide housing

iii. Post bonds

3. Of note: African American unemployment is roughly twice the national average; when adjusted for differing “labor participation rates” the number grows by about 50%--to over 14% earlier this year.

Homeland Security Must Certify the Border Security

The Government Accountability Office should certify accomplishment of all prerequisite controls before the liberalization provisions of the law take effect. The law should not allow any person who serves “at the pleasure of the President” to certify any amnesty trigger. Let us assume the President signed the Bill at noon on June 4, 2007. The Secretary would probably need until at least noon on June 6, 2007, and no longer than June 7, 2007, to “discover” that the Border was secure. Of course, he might speed the process by beginning work on his certification before the Signing Ceremony. Either way, we would learn that the Border was sealed more tightly than the Los Alamos Nuclear Weapons Lab! While some might characterize this example as “a tad cynical,” you will doubtless recognize that “hyperbole” describes it more accurately.

Funding and Timing

Congress must pass funding for all capital and personnel provisions of the bill. Since Congress can only pass a funding bill over a period of two years, the bill must specify that the Corps of Engineers will complete and/or manage the completion of all Border barriers within two years.

Illegals will have to pay a fine

The fines paid by aliens make no sense. First, aliens only have to pay a fine if they want to become citizens. Secondly, the fines amount to less than the fee typically charged by “coyotes” to bring illegals across the border. The fines should equal at least twice the going rate for new illegals.

Illegals will have to pay their back taxes

Americans should receive the same benefits as illegals under this provision of the Bill. As I recall, last year’s bill said that illegals had to pay their taxes due for three of the previous five years. For the sale of equity, Americans should receive an income tax refund equal for any two of the previous five years. To limit this benefit to “hard working Americans,” Congress could limit the refunds to the taxes paid on the first $50 thousand of taxable income. OK! This recommendation might not have much chance of passing. Still, it would give equal protection to American citizens; and, could easily constitute the “ultimate poison pill.”

How to End Congressional Earmarks

This post began in January 2007, just after the Senate had defeated an effort by Harry Reid to protect the hollowed practice of Congressional earmarks. By this and other maneuvers, Congress passed a “non-reform reform” and deftly deflected the “Earmark Controversy”. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will doubtless trumpet her so-called reform loudly during the 2008 Election. Sadly, Congress seems to have overlooked a simple--and genuine--reform of the earmark process.

Although, typically special interest pork and often paybacks to big campaign contributors, their method of passage gives earmarks, as discussed here, their most noteworthy feature. To understand earmarks, contrast them with the normal provisions of any bill that gets through Congress. Sections, subsections, paragraphs, line items, and supporting documents make up any spending bill. A bill’s most important provisions undergo tedious and time-consuming scrutiny and debate during myriad hearings in subcommittees and full committees. These bodies then vote on each provision or on sets of provisions. Each house of Congress votes on the bills passed by its various full committees.

Earmarks take a slightly more direct route to enactment than the normal provisions of a bill. Because the Senate and House virtually always pass slightly different versions of a bill, each such bill goes to a “conference committee” that “conforms” both bills. Conforming means that one bill with exactly the same wording goes “from conference” to each house of Congress. Each house then votes on, and generally passes, the conformed bill. During the conference process, influential lawmakers can, and routinely do, "slip" earmarks into “the bill", often quite literally during the “dead of the night". Few Representatives or Senators beyond the author and a few influential leaders ever see the details of an earmark before it becomes law.

The most ballyhooed part of the new “Earmark reform” requires Senators and Representatives to put their names on some of the earmarks they insert into bills. Somehow, adding the names of sponsors to each earmark seems unlikely to blunt the zeal for earmarks of any representative or senator. This seems especially true in the meticulously gerrymandered House.

Imagine the voter response to a hypothetical “attack ad” about earmarks. Such an ad might boil down to:

"Senator Reid got $80 billion of pork for Nevada over the last six years; vote for me and I won’t do that.”

With opponents launching “attacks” like this, incumbents would not have to spend their own money running for re-election. More practically, few voters would hold the sin of “bringing home the bacon” against any senator or representative. The fact that some fat cat got the cash would be lost on most voters; and, many would not care if they knew.

Given the controversy and the “hammer and tongs” fight whirling around Earmarks in January, one could conclude that a solution was simply not possible. Perhaps a workable answer would prove too complex, too difficult to craft, or simply impractical. In fact, one very workable solution does exist; and, it is not at all complex. In simple terms, the proposal would require that “Nothing comes out of Conference that did not go into Conference.” This would limit the latitude of conference committees to the following:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->1) <!--[endif]-->Add a provision to a bill that neither house had passed

<!--[if !supportLists]-->

<!--[if !supportLists]-->2) <!--[endif]-->Set spending amounts to a total between the amounts passed by each house; that is:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->a) <!--[endif]-->Greater than or equal to the lower amount; and,

<!--[if !supportLists]-->b) <!--[endif]-->Less than or equal to the higher amount

<!--[if !supportLists]-->c) <!--[endif]-->One might instead grant conference committees the ability to reduce an amount below the lower value passed by either house; but, that would seem to create more problems than the value it might add

<!--[if !supportLists]-->4) <!--[endif]-->The proposed reform would apply to the various supporting documents that make up a bill, not just the law itself

The foregoing provisions would end the practice of inserting spending into bills when neither house had seen them; it would not end the practice of inserting sweetheart spending into bills upon which their house actually votes before conference. Of course, neither did the “reform” actually passed. In addition, this reform assigns accountability to every member of Congress who votes for an appropriation; more importantly, the proposal makes all spending go thorough at least one pre-conference vote.

The beneficiaries of earmarks would probably challenge the proposal here as a barrier to vital legislation. Without earmarks, they might argue, some powerful legislators could stop critically needed legislation. This argument holds no water! One should question the "vital necessity" of any bill that can only pass with the help of a secret payoffs. In addition, powerful members have other means to channel funds to pet projects; albeit, sometimes inconveniently visible means. Most importantly, every part of every bill should go through the full process of Congressional examination; and, should stand or fall on a full vote of either the House or the Senate.

While the proposed reform only addresses those “dead of the night” and other measures added in conference, it certainly does so better than the meaningless “reform” that Congress passed.

Take Heart; Peace Possible in Darfur

Take heart! A statistic cited in a recent email from RGCl should encourage everyone, especially those concerned about Darfur. Specifically:

83% of the people killed by firearms in the world are killed in the USA, where most TV shows and movies either begin or climax with a woman being raped and/or murdered.

Most distressing.

Distressing as the cited figure may seem, it means that we, and the people of Darfur, can all rest more easily tonight! The U.S. Navy can almost effortlessly end the slaughter of innocents there by simply enforcing a no fly zone. Until the email arrived from RGCl, I had believed, mistakenly it seems, that Muslim militias generally made the venerable AK-47 their “weapon of choice.” That must not be true of the Janjaweed militias in Sudan.

Over roughly 20 years, the Sudanese Government (see ERRATA below) killed two million Christians and animists, an average of 100,000 each year. Only when the Janjaweed turned their weapons on fellow Muslims (with the aid of the Sudanese Government most sources agree) did the world suddenly realize that a moral crisis existed that demanded action. Even Hollywood got into the act, with many prominent celebs demanding that President Bush act immediately; but that is the topic of another post, isn’t it.

Let us return to the good news for Darfur. Since fewer than 6,000 people outside of the United States die by firearms each year (see table below), the Janjaweed militias must be using other weapons: bombs, spears, swords, clubs, knives—perhaps rocks. Actually, I think one safely can rule out knives, spears, clubs, and rocks. The people of Darfur could easily obtain or make any of those. Swords would not seem to provide enough of an advantage to enable a numerically inferior force to kill 100,000 people each year; thus, the Janjaweed must be using air power to kill so many people. Assuming that is correct, the U.S. Navy should have little difficulty suppressing the Janjaweed from the air. Deprived of their bombs, the Janjaweed will have to fall back on their swords, spears, clubs, knives, and rocks. The numerically superior population of Darfur should have little difficulty defending themselves against raiders armed only with such primitive weapons.

Here are some statistics (Sources in Red):

Incidents Involving Firearms

Incidents involving firearms resulted in 29,000 deaths or 1.2% of the total [deaths in the United States]

Source: http://dying.about.com/od/causes/tp/actual_death.htm

______________________________________________________________________

In 1993, a firearm was involved in the deaths of 39,395 people

Source: http://www.delta.edu/mkhiatt/gun_deaths_us.html

______________________________________________________________________

According to a new report from CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, injuries were the fifth leading cause of death in 2001, accounting for 157,078

The five leading causes of fatal injuries accounted for 78 percent of all injury deaths . . . firearms (19 percent)

Suicides accounted for 57 percent of all firearms deaths and homicides represented 38 percent. Unintentional firearms injury accounted for 802 deaths or 2.7 percent of the total.

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/data/timely0604injuries.pdf

Doing the math on the CDC statistics:

	Total Injury Deaths	157,078
	Firearms (19 percent)	29845
	Homicides (38 percent of firearms—includes those lawfully killed by police and in self defense—dj)	11341
	Suicides (57 percent of firearms)	17012
	Subtotal	29155
	Rounding et al	690
		29845
	Doing the math on the statistic quoted by RGCl:
	Estimated firearms deaths world wide (29155/.85)			35112
Firearms deaths outside the USA			5267

Q.E.D.

Please note, if any of the statistics cited by RGCl, fail to hold up, the people of Darfur remain in “a heap 'o trouble”; trouble for the Arab League to deal with – not the West.

DJ

ERRATA:

Earlier, I had attributed the two million deaths over 20 years to the Janjaweed. Per Slate, "(This conflict is entirely separate from the 22-year-old civil war that has pitted the Muslim government against Christian and animist rebels in the country's southern region. The Janjaweed, who inhabit western Sudan, have nothing to do with that war.)"

Although, the Sudanese government denies helping the Janjaweed, I do not consider lumping them and the Janjaweed together a major error; it is, nonetheless, an error.

See: http://www.slate.com/id/2104210/