Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer their insight into the biggest story burning up the blogosphere today.


Today's question:

Is $18 billion enough to spend on a jobs bill? Is it too much?

It was less than one year ago when acting U.S. DEA administrator Michelle Leonhart publicly declared that the escalating violence on the U.S.-Mexico border should be viewed as a sign of the "success" of America's drug war strategies.

"Our view is that the violence we have been seeing is a signpost of the success our very courageous Mexican counterparts are having," said Leonhart, who was recently nominated by President Obama to be the agency's full time director. "The cartels are acting out like caged animals, because they are caged animals."

Well, if the DEA's chief talking head thought that some 6,300 drug cartel-related murders in 2008 was an indication of progress, one can only imagine that she believes that this weekend's south-of-the-border killing spree -- which included the murder of a pregnant U.S. official and her husband -- must be downright victorious.

For the better part of 2009, hardworking Americans were able to put a serious wrench in plans to rush passage of an irresponsible bill.  They succeeded by using new media tools, community meetings, and rallies to inform their friends and neighbors about the job-killing tax increases and mandates that stockpiled the bill.  As the 11th hour of the countdown to a vote begins, we need concerned citizens across the country to channel the energy they had this summer to stop this health care takeover. We must spread the message that this job-killing health care takeover could not come at a more irresponsible time as unemployment still hovers double digits across the nation.

For 109 years, people in Muskegon, Michigan have been making paper – until last year. The Sappi Fine Paper North America mill shut down in 2009 and 190 workers lost their jobs. Mark Evans, a Sappi employee, said "The [Asian companies] can sell the paper cheaper than we can make it. This is foreign competition killing the American worker again".

Mark was half-right. It's not competition that is killing the American worker – it's cheating.

Some people argue that it really is just fair competition. If only Americans would accept lower wages, dangerous working conditions, and non-existent environmental standards, maybe Mark's plant could have stayed open. But I don’t call giving massive industrial subsidies, stealing American companies' intellectual property, and manipulating your currency a "comparative advantage". I call it what it is – cheating.

Read more...

This month, America enters our eighth year of fighting simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Our troops have carried an enormous burden with honor and professionalism.  We owe each and every one of them our gratitude.

Many have spent multiple tours of duty in combat.  Despite the need for trained and dedicated individuals willing to serve, since 9-11, at least 5,800 service members have been discharged simply because of their sexual orientation.  Doing so has damaged our military readiness and placed our troops under unnecessary strain. Read more...

March Madness has taken over the nation. As sports fans across America gear up for the NCAA basketball tournament this month, liberal Democrats are playing their own games with the future of our health care system.

Speaker Pelosi has declared that a government takeover of health care should become the law of the land without taking a vote on the actual bill.  If Democrats are confident that the American people want this new, multi-trillion dollar program, then why are they avoiding an up or down vote?

The simple truth is House Democrats don’t want to vote on the Senate bill because then they will have to go on record for supporting taxpayer funded abortion and special deals for Louisiana, Nebraska, Florida, Vermont, Michigan and labor unions.   Another simple truth -- House Democrats don’t want to defend their vote for supporting billions of dollars of tax increases that will increase health care costs for families and small businesses.

Last week, Republicans in the House of Representatives took an important step in returning fiscal responsibility back to Congress by self-imposing a one-year moratorium on appropriations earmarks. Republicans supported taking this initiative because we understand that America’s fiscal condition is reaching a crisis point.

However, it is not enough to simply stop seeking earmarks for local priorities only to see those tax dollars spent elsewhere, and that’s why days after House Republicans enacted our earmark moratorium I wrote to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (and was joined by 38 of my Republican colleagues) in asking that: 1) Democrats enact a similar earmark moratorium, and 2) Congress use these savings to pay down our $12.5 trillion national debt. To give some perspective on just how significant of savings this would be, appropriations projects for members of both parties cost nearly $16 billion in fiscal year 2010, according to the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer their insight into the biggest story burning up the blogosphere today.


Today's question:

As more Republicans openly embrace the Tea Party movement, will the movement begin to lose its grassroots appeal?


Hal Lewis, professor of Physics at UC Santa Barbara, said:

Of course that's its challenge---to broaden its appeal without losing the base (I wouldn't have called it grassroots---that term is overused). The Republican Party embraces (as, in fairness, does the pre-Obama Democratic Party) many principles that most people like (an emphasis on individual freedom from government intrusion).  The independent vote is now in full flow toward the Republicans, and their problem is to exploit this without overly antagonizing their own extremists. It can be done, as Scott Brown illustrated, but it will take skill. The extraordinary unanimity of the congressional Republicans is a measure of how completely the Administration has alienated a large fraction of the country by Chicago-style politics, apparently with no qualms whatever. Scratch the truly extreme left and the more-or-less unanimous black vote, and the field is open for the tea-partiers. It is an advantage that it is theirs to lose.

Peter Navarro, professor of economics and public policy at U.C. Irvine, said:

Populist political movements are a lot like guerilla wars. It’s way easier to attack something (in this case big government) than it is to build something (in this case a specific policy agenda to solve our problems). As more Republicans jump on the bandwagon, all they will be able to do is just say no.  Eventually, it all collapses without a specific agenda that actually gets us out of our mess.

Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist, said:

In part, it depends on which Tea Party. The genuinely grassroots parts of it will remain independent. The people who've tried to hijack parts of it will move on. (Disclaimer: I'm a libertarian pragmatist, have been for about 40 years.)


John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, said:

If the Republican-firsters muscle their way into taking over elements of the Tea Party movement, its grassroots appeal will certainly be destroyed.  Attempts to accomplish this are already being reported in some locales.
 
What's occurring, and what's surely desired by GOP operatives, reminds me of the Gingrich-led Contract With America in 1994. Grassroots revulsion directed at the Clinton agenda spurred then-congressman Newt Gingrich to take control of that obvious turn toward the GOP in 1994. He forced his Contract With America on House incumbents and the many sure-to-be-elected candidates in a publicity stunt that amounted to very little substance. Then he parlayed his grandiose stunt into becoming Speaker of the House.
 
Lost in all the hoopla was the fact that the real Contract With America is the U.S. Constitution. Gingrich's highly publicized Contract was largely fluff that, even if enacted, would accomplish little to rein in government and reverse the nation's decline. Some of it would do great harm. Example: Term limits for members of Congress would almost always mean replacing poorly performing officials with similarly deficient newcomers. And it would mean having to get rid of some who should be kept in office. Also, the Contract's call for amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget essentially says there's something wrong with the Constitution, a falsehood. Congress can balance the budget any time it has the guts to do so and an amendment isn't needed.
 
That grassroots Americans are stirring is obvious. That party professionals would like to steer all these troubled Americans into their grasp is as certain as knowing the sun will rise in the east each day. Local leaders of the Tea Party, the Tenth Amendment movement, and other newly awakened and alarmed groups must be on guard. They will do themselves and their country a great service by demanding a return to the Constitution, not relying on the Republican or Democratic Parties.
               
 

Three years ago, when I met with Senator Barack Obama in his Chicago office and we contemplated his possible run for the presidency, I was enthusiastic.

On that day, it was hard for me to imagine a time I would have to say no to Barack Obama when he asked me for support. But last week, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus sat down with the president, and he asked us to vote for the health care reform bill -- a bill that denies immigrants the opportunity to purchase health care with their own money. It was one more in a string of disappointments for the Hispanic community, and today, I no longer find myself able to confidently say "yes" when President Obama asks me for his support.

I remember clearly the afternoon I sat down with Obama. In December 2006, he was preparing for a family trip, and the decision to run weighed heavily on his mind. As a progressive member of Congress from Illinois, I was excited and energized by the prospect of my Senator, and my friend, running for President. At the depths of the Bush presidency, the idea of a like-minded, forward-looking leader for our nation seemed almost too good to be true. 



Read more...