Showing posts with label legacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legacy. Show all posts

Friday, October 5, 2018

A Fitting Legacy For Brett Kavanaugh


With the news that Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) intend to vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court tomorrow, the bitter confirmation fight appears to be nearing an end. Soon the question will be what Justice Kavanaugh will be like. What will be his legacy on the Court?

A popular meme going around in conservative circles gloats, “Every time he makes a ruling for the next 40 years, [Justice Kavanaugh] thinks about how Democrats tried to ruin his life with lies and deceit [sic].” The implication is that Kavanaugh will remember his treatment at the hands of Senate Democrats and will let personal emotions affect his decisions. I sincerely hope that this is not the case. If I thought that this meme described Kavanaugh’s legal philosophy, I would have to oppose his confirmation. As a conservative and a constitutionalist, I would prefer that Justice Kavanaugh’s rulings were based on the Constitution and the written text of other laws rather than sour grapes.

Unfortunately for America, many Republicans don’t seem to want an objective justice in the mold of Scalia. Like liberal Democrats, they want a justice who gets his legal reasoning from the “mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.” The difference is that they want a justice with a right-wing fortune cookie instead of a left-wing one.

This outlook is evident from a recent case in which Neal Gorsuch ruled against the Trump Administration on an immigration case. Never mind that Trump’s Department of Justice was trying to twist the law to make it say something that Congress never intended. Never mind that Gorsuch ruled the same way that Scalia did. He’s our justice, he should rule for us was the reaction from most Republicans.

My fervent hope for Justice Kavanaugh is that he can put the bitterness of his confirmation behind him and rule on the merits of each case and the law as it is written. I don’t want to see another judicial activist seated on the Court, even if I agree with that activist most of the time.

The best legacy that I can imagine for Justice Kavanaugh is one of restraint. The Court that includes Kavanaugh should be very hesitant to make rulings that are based on the whims of the justices rather than the laws that were passed by Congress. Conservative elites don’t know what is best for every American any more than liberal elites do.

Kavanaugh’s confirmation was so acrimonious in large part because the Supreme Court’s importance has become outsized. The Founders never intended for nine people to make sweeping rulings that fundamentally change the country without input from voters, but that is where we are today. When Congress can’t pass a law, activists look the courts to pass it from the bench. I hope that a constitutionalist majority on the Supreme Court will help to change that.

If the Court restrains itself from activism then Congress will return to a more prominent position in the federal government and will have to do its job of passing laws. If activists don’t look to the Court to make laws then the importance of confirmation hearings will wane. The Court will become more objective and less controversial.

In the final analysis, if Brett Kavanaugh does what I hope he will do as a justice, the Supreme Court will be a very different institution that will have far less impact on American life than has been the case for the past few decades. That would be a fitting legacy for Brett Kavanaugh.




Originally published on The Resurgent

Saturday, December 23, 2017

I Was Wrong (And Right) About Trump

In the wake of a historic tax reform bill and almost all the way through President Trump’s first year in office, I have a confession to make. I was wrong about Donald Trump.

Prior to the election, I had three major objections to Donald Trump. I felt that he was unqualified to be president, I doubted his conservative ideology and I had questions about his character and temperament. On the point of his political ideology at least, events have so proven my fears unfounded and I have to admit that the Trump Administration has accomplished more for conservatives than I expected. In addition to tax reform, Trump’s only significant legislative win thus far, his judicial appointments and deregulation represent important gains that should be applauded by conservatives like me.

In spite of the limited successes of the Trump Administration, I still cannot offer my unlimited support to President Trump. Even though his administration has governed far more conservatively than I dared hope, my other objections to a Trump presidency remain.

With respect to Trump’s qualification to lead the government, he has confirmed my fears. After 11 months as president, Trump has shown himself to be the same man that he was on the campaign trail. Trump’s successes seem to have more to do with his cabinet appointees than with Trump’s skill at governance. With respect to tax reform, the success seems to have come despite Trump rather than because of him. While Republican congressional leaders worked to write and gather support for the bill, Trump was tweeting about NFL players.

While Trump’s lack of legislative experience did not derail the tax reform bill, the president’s distracting behavior may have contributed to the bill’s unpopularity. Like the Democrats in 2010, Republicans have expended their political capital on a bill that most voters don’t want. Astoundingly, the Republican tax cuts are even less popular that some past tax increases. If President Trump had used his bully pulpit and Twitter account to educated the public about the positive effects of lowering the corporate tax rate, the chief goal of the bill, and how individual taxes will go down for most taxpayers as well, the GOP might have found more support for the legislation.

The grunt work of passing tax reform was carried out by Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who get little credit for their efforts. Realizing this, President Trump was uncharacteristically gracious to McConnell in a tweet congratulating him on the passage of the tax reform bill.

Sadly, events have also confirmed my fears about Trump’s character and temperament. The president’s behavior has caused several notable setbacks for the Republican Party over the past few months. Mr. Trump’s war of words with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, while popular with conservatives, has brought the United States to the brink of a second Korean War. President Trump originally had the right instincts in Alabama when he said that Republican candidate Roy Moore should withdraw. Moore stayed in and Mr. Trump eventually reversed course and endorsed Moore, shortly before Moore suffered an embarrassing defeat. Moore’s behavior and Trump’s endorsement damaged the Republican brand.

If 2017 has shown anything, it is that the Trump Administration has a surprising amount of potential. Possibly because President Trump is an outsider with few preconceived notions of acceptable policy positions there are opportunities for significant changes, such as the recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, during his presidency.

The downside is that Trump’s erratic behavior and low approval ratings continue to dog the GOP. Polling shows that Democrats have an enormous lead in the generic congressional ballot leading into 2018. If Republicans and President Trump cannot win voters over to their agenda, then future “winning” will be impossible and previous gains will be endangered.

I don’t view Donald Trump as a conservative savior or as the only man who could have turned the country around. Any of the other Republican candidates would have arguably done a better job and accomplished more, such as passing the health care reform bill. Nevertheless, Donald Trump is the president that we have. Looking at his record objectively, Trump is undoubtedly “better than Hillary,” which is a low bar in itself.

If Trump wants to be great, he must change and rise to the occasion. He must put down his phone and show himself to be the dealmaker that he claimed to be during the campaign. Trump must tone down the rhetoric and reach beyond his base to moderate voters. Trump’s presidency depends on winning the support of people who did not vote for him in 2016. He cannot assume that will cruise to re-election with another popular vote loss and victory in the Electoral College. The tax reform bill may help, but it won’t be enough to stave off an electoral landslide by itself.

The stakes are high. If the Democrats win control of Congress next year, prospects for advancing the Republican agenda will be nil. Worse, President Trump’s entire legacy would be at risk. A Democrat Congress might be able to start rolling back the accomplishments of 2017 and impeachment would be a real possibility.

The best way for Trump to defend his legacy and continue to advance his agenda is make peace with Democrats. Tax reform was passed with a simple majority, but other bills will require Democrat votes for cloture. The already small Republican majority will be smaller yet when Doug Jones (D-Ala.) joins the Senate.

Trump may realize this. In a tweet that sounds as if it could have been written by Democrat, Trump said, “At some point, and for the good of the country, I predict we will start working with the Democrats in a Bipartisan fashion. Infrastructure would be a perfect place to start. After having foolishly spent $7 trillion in the Middle East, it is time to start rebuilding our country!”

If Trump can successfully pivot to the center, he may be able to appeal to moderate voters and save his presidency.


Originally published on The Resurgent

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Obama's legacy of failure



As the Obama era draws to a long awaited close, it’s appropriate to look back on the past eight years and contemplate the legacy of Barack Obama. For those seeking to put a positive spin on President Obama’s seemingly endless administration, I’m reminded of Mr. Chow’s standard of excellence from the “Hangover” movies: “Did you die?” No, I didn’t die during Obama’s tenure, but by any other standard his administration will probably be judged a failure by history.

Mr. Obama’s signature piece of legislation, the law that bears his name in popular culture, is a failure and its days are numbered. The Affordable Care Act, better known as “Obamacare,” has not lived up to its name. Health insurance premiums have increased sharply under Obamacare, even as deductibles and coinsurance have increased. This means that Americans are paying more for healthcare both at the insurance office and the doctor’s office. And, of course, Barack Obama’s promise that “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it” went down in history as the Lie of the Year.

Even by the standard of providing coverage to the uninsured, Obamacare is a failure. The uninsured rate is at a historic low, but remains above 10 percent. For its enormous cost and disruption, Obamacare hardly ushered in an era of universal healthcare.

Obama’s 2009 stimulus plan is largely forgotten now, but it is part of his legacy. The plan failed to stimulate the economy, but the Obama era has been a period of heady deficit spending. The borrowed $787 billion stimulus set the tone for the rest of Obama’s presidency. In the final analysis, President Obama nearly doubled the national debt. According to data from USgovernmentspending.com, the total federal debt has increased to more than 100 percent of GDP under Obama. The debt increased from $12 trillion under President Bush to about $23 trillion today. That is more than a trillion dollars per year of debt for every year of the Obama presidency!

Even after inflating the national debt, the US has still not fully recovered from the Great Recession. Even though unemployment has stabilized and decreased, the labor participation rate, the metric that shows how many Americans are in the work force, has decreased throughout Obama’s presidency. To find a historic level that is as low as the current level under Obama, you’d have to look all the way back to 1978 and the presidency of Jimmy Carter.

One part of the Obama legacy that will stand, for better or for worse, is the redefinition of marriage. While this was an action of the Supreme Court and not the president, Obama failed to adequately defend marriage laws in court and appointed justices that helped to upend thousands of years of tradition. As the first sitting president to embrace same-sex marriage, the landmark decision will be linked to his presidency.

Barack Obama also has a secure place in history as the first black president. His election did not heal the racial divide among Americans however. His tenure was marred by racial tension, especially over shootings by police, and race riots. A CNN/ORC poll in October found that more than half of Americans think that race relations have gotten worse under Obama.

President Obama’s record on foreign policy isn’t much better than his domestic record. One of the first things that comes to mind with President Obama’s efforts at diplomacy is the withdrawal from Iraq. President Obama campaigned in 2008 on withdrawing from Iraq and, in 2012, made good his promise after failing to negotiate a status of forces agreement that would permit US troops to remain in the country.

In 2012, Iraq was a stable and functioning democracy. A short time later, after US troops left the country, the Islamic State launched an offensive and gained control of large parts of both Iraq and Syria. Military leaders say that Obama ignored their advice to maintain a US force in Iraq to stabilize the region. The hundreds of thousands of dead, many brutally murdered by ISIS, are a part of Obama’s legacy as well.

The Middle East is not the only region where America’s enemies advanced during the Obama years. Russian President Vladimir Putin brazenly annexed Crimea in 2014. Russia has been fighting a proxy war against the Ukraine ever since. The Ukraine had relied on US and British protection under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in which Ukraine gave its nuclear weapons to Russia in exchange for “security assurances.”

In Asia, China has not fired shots in anger, but the communist country has illegally been turning South China Sea atolls into artificial islands. Military bases are being built on the islands that could threaten many US allies in the region.

Obama’s seminal foreign policy achievements are abject failures. His nuclear deal with Iran was never ratified by Congress and is already being violated by the Iranians. The Trans Pacific Partnership, one of Mr. Obama’s few conservative achievements, was pronounced dead on arrival by President-elect Donald Trump, who is on par with Bernie Sanders when it comes to free trade agreements.

Ironically, one of the biggest legacies of Obama, the champion of the nanny state, is the loss of faith in government among Americans. Gallup shows that American trust in government peaked in 2003 when 60 percent of Americans believed that government would do the right thing most of the time. The current number is lower even than when President Bush left office amid the Iraq War and the Great Recession. In spite of – or perhaps because of – Obama’s conviction that government is the solution to every problem, only 19 percent of Americans now trust the government. Gallup also shows that 67 percent of Americans see government as the biggest threat facing the country. This is a 13-point increase over Obama’s term.

The falloff in trust in government may explain another Obama legacy. Under President Obama, the Democratic Party has been devastated at the state and local level. During Obama’s eight years, the party of Big Government lost more than 1,000 seats in state legislatures, governorships, Congress and the White House.


Even though President Obama leaves office with a respectable approval rating of 57 percent, his coattails have been short to nonexistent. Barack Obama’s personal popularity has not translated into popularity for his party or his ideas. With few rising stars surviving the Republican electoral victories of the past four years and Democratic ideas rejected by voters, the Democratic Party has a difficult road ahead. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Saturday, January 17, 2009

A Farewell to George W. Bush

On Tuesday, January 20, 2009, President George W. Bush will cease to be president of the United States as Barack Obama takes the oath of office. Many people will be happy to see him step down. For the last half of his presidency, he has been dogged by low approval ratings. Many, especially in the media, consider him to be the worst president ever. He has been charged with being everything from an imperialist mastermind to a mindless puppet.

In the 1980s, President Reagan was referred to as the Teflon President because bad publicity never stuck to him. President Bush should be referred to as the Velcro President because everything seems to stick to him, even things that are not a result of his policies. A fair look at President Bush’s record reveals that he is neither the worst nor the best president that the United States has ever had.

The most important aspect to the Bush legacy deals with his response to the 9/11 attacks. In the dark days of 2001, President Bush rallied the nation and helped to prevent a panic. He took the necessary steps to help prevent future attacks on the United States as well. Many of these steps have been criticized, such as his program of eavesdropping on telephone conversations between terror suspects and American citizens (which was recently ruled legal by a federal intelligence court) and the detention of Taliban fighters and other terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. President Bush’s decision to take the fight to the terrorists, rather than waiting for them to attack American targets, is directly linked to the fact that the US has not experienced a major terror attack since 9/11.

A second controversial legacy is his decision to depose Saddam Hussein. Based on the information available at the time, this was the right decision to make. The intelligence agencies of virtually every allied country believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and was working to develop nuclear weapons. It was also common knowledge that Iraq was supporting terror groups worldwide. Additionally, Iraq remained in a state of war with the US, firing at Coalition aircraft patrolling no-fly zones on an almost daily basis. Finally, the world was aware of the atrocities committed by Saddam’s government, including the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Any one of these actions, by itself, would have justified the removal of Saddam.

Since the regime fell, we have learned that many of the pre-war statements were not incorrect. The primary failure was the inability to find large stockpiles of WMD. It has been determined conclusively that Saddam’s Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. UN inspectors found that Iraq possessed al Samoud 2 missiles that violated the Gulf War ceasefire. We also learned that Saddam had corrupted the United Nations Oil-for-Food program. Saddam bribed UN officials and businessmen worldwide as a means to successfully circumvent the sanctions imposed after the first Gulf War. Saddam was working to eliminate the sanctions totally, after which, he would have restarted his weapons programs. Finally, the discovery of artillery shells in Iraq containing the deadly nerve gas sarin were conclusive proof that Saddam had once possessed chemical weapons. The question of what happened to these weapons was never conclusively answered.

President Bush is ultimately responsible for the victory in Iraq. After 2004, as al Qaeda funneled fighters into the country and violence increased, many called for a withdrawal and stated that there was no military solution possible in Iraq. President Bush, along with Senator John McCain, believed otherwise. They fought Congress for money to send additional troops to secure Iraq. This “surge” in forces eventually led to what is now known as the Anbar Awakening. New commander General David Petraeus shifted to a strategy of clear-and-hold, which removed American troops from fortified bases and placed them alongside Iraqi civilians. The reduction in violence was swift and immediate. Because President Bush remained true to his principles, American troops will be leaving Iraq under much different circumstances than the Democratic withdrawal plan envisioned.

President Bush also had foreign policy successes that had nothing to do with the War on Terror. For instance, he helped supply African nations with lifesaving anti-AIDS drugs as part of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Created in 2003, PEPFAR focused on both treatment and prevention of AIDS in Africa and has saved countless lives while helping to slow the spread of the disease.

President Bush also took the lead in an initiative to stop human trafficking and sex tourism. Under President Bush, the Department of Justice has not only sought to prosecute child pornographers, but also US citizens who travel abroad to have sex with children in other countries. The Bush Administration also worked internationally to stop the trafficking of modern day slaves, particularly children and young women, who are often used for sexual purposes. As President Bush said, “Human life is the gift of our Creator— and it should never be for sale.”

On the domestic side, President Bush’s largest success was undoubtedly his tax cuts. When he took office in 2001, the country was entering a recession. Eight months later, the shock of the 9/11 terror attacks threatened to slow the economy even further. President Bush’s across-the-board cuts to tax rates provided the spark needed to restart the economy. After the tax cuts were enacted, the United States entered a long period of sustained growth, in which the US outperformed its peer group of countries (which includes Canada, the European Union, and Japan).

Interestingly, after the tax cuts took effect, federal tax receipts increased. The federal tax share of the GDP remained near the historical average, and even climbed above the average prior to the current recession. At the same time, the top taxpayers shouldered a larger percentage of total taxes paid, while the bottom taxpayers paid less.

George W. Bush also had a solid record of supporting pro-life legislation. He banned the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortions in other countries as well as banning the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research. He also signed several important pro-life bills into law including the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. He fought UN attempts to recognize a fundamental right to abortion and appointed judges who interpret the law as it is written, rather than substituting their own morals and values. These constructionist justices will likely have a positive impact on many other issues as well.

It would not be fair to discuss President Bush’s legacy without addressing his failures. Many of his problems resulted from poor communication. America’s image might have been less tarnished internationally if the United States had made better use of propaganda and communication in the War on Terror. Many domestic critics accused the Bush Administration of imperialism and war crimes and these charges were never answered loudly or strongly enough. The media bias in this country and around the world is to blame for this as well.

Many of President Bush’s most notable failures were on the domestic side. One of the most serious lost opportunities were his failed attempts to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As far back as 2001, the Bush Administration believed that Fannie and Freddie could be a problem. Despite numerous attempts at reform, nothing was done until the problem could no longer be ignored by Congress and the economy was in shambles.

President Bush’s attempt at Social Security reform likewise was blocked by Congress. Unlike Fannie Mae’s excesses, Social Security is still a ticking time bomb. Taxes paid into Social Security go into a trust fund, which was long ago robbed by Congress. According to current projections, in 2017 Social Security will begin paying out more money than it takes in. At that point, unless benefits are cut or taxes are increased, Social Security will be totally bankrupt by 2041. Similarly, Medicare will be bankrupt by 2019, if current trends continue.

President Bush’s proposal involved letting workers who chose to do so invest their Social Security money in the private accounts. The money in these accounts could then be invested in a variety of financial products. Investing one’s Social Security money in the stock market over the long term could provide much greater retirement benefits than is typical under traditional Social Security, especially given that the program will likely be bankrupt by the time workers born after 1990 retire. At present, the twin crises in Social Security and Medicare are still unresolved.

A more recent failure of the Bush Administration was its inability to reform immigration. In the aftermath of 9/11, it became obvious to many Americans that it was no longer a good idea to allow “undocumented workers” to simply walk across our borders unmolested. Similarly, many immigrants who entered the US legally overstayed visas and remained in the US illegally or falsified visa applications and travel documents. The 9/11 hijackers used a combination of falsified applications, new passports (to hide travel to training camps in Afghanistan), gaming the systems, and overstaying visas to remain in the US until 9/11. Most were also able to obtain state identification, such as driver’s licenses, in spite of the fact that they were foreign nationals on temporary visas.

The Bush Administration’s attempt at immigration reform failed for several reasons. Most obvious was its size. The attempt was a bipartisan effort at comprehensive immigration reform, remaking the whole system. The bill eventually drew opposition from both the left and right. The right opposed the idea of amnesty for illegal aliens and doubted that the borders would ever be secured. The left opposed restricting the flow of “undocumented workers” into the United States for humanitarian reasons. In the end, a grass roots effort derailed comprehensive reform.

In October 2006, President Bush did sign the Secure Fence Act, which authorized the construction of a 700 mile border fence between the US and Mexico. Bush also used the National Guard to patrol some border areas in the southwest and asked Congress to add 6,000 Border Patrol agents. Under President Bush, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) significantly stepped up prosecution of employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. Much of our borders remain unsecured, however, and vulnerable to passage by terrorists.

For all the small failures, there are two glaring errors that will undoubtedly cause problems for the United States long after President Bush leaves office. One of these errors is in the realm of foreign policy, while the other relates to domestic policy.

In foreign policy, President Bush’s most glaring omission was in not dealing with Iran’s nuclear weapons program. On February 9, 2003, the oil rich nation of Iran revealed the existence of several nuclear facilities that would eventually be able to enrich uranium. They announced in 2006 that they had successfully enriched uranium, a necessary step in creating nuclear weapons. Iran has repeatedly stalled against UN demands for inspections and a halt to enrichment, while at the same time, purchasing advanced air-defense systems from Russia (who is also providing nuclear reactors). Current estimates are that Iran may have an operational nuclear weapon as early as 2011.

A large part of the difficulty in dealing with Iran was a National Intelligence Estimate issued in 2007, which assessed that Iran’s nuclear program was ended in 2003 and had not been restarted. This assessment seemed to fly in the face of the statements of Iran’s leaders, but, due to Bush’s problems with intelligence reports in Iraq, made it politically impossible to use military force to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities, even in light of the fact that Iran was implicated in assisting Iraqi insurgents to kill American soldiers. The determination of Iran’s leaders to gain a weapon to destroy Israel made a diplomatic option unworkable. President-elect Obama is unlikely to have success diplomatically and is even less likely to use military force against Iran. At present, the Iranians are still working on their bomb. The first indication of their success may be a mushroom cloud over New York or Tel Aviv.

As dangerous as nuclear weapons in the hands of Muslim extremists would be to the US, the unprecedented infusion of government money into the private sector may be even more dangerous to American society in the long run. Amid the collapse of the mortgage industry, in February 2008 President Bush and Treasury Secretary Paulsen first passed the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, then, when that failed to restart the economy, pressured Congress to pass the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA) of 2008 in October. Neither stimulated nor stabilized the economy.

The danger in these laws lies in the fact that Congress appropriated $700 billion to the Treasury with very little direction on how to spend it. Many experts believed that, if anything, the government should have purchased “toxic” securities from banks in order to free up credit markets. Instead, the Treasury chose to force nine major banks to sell stock to the government. The government also engineered several takeovers of failing banks. Additionally, in December 2008, $5 billion in bailout money was injected into GMAC, the parent company of Chrysler, with the promise of more money coming in 2009 with a larger Democratic majority in Congress. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the 2008 deficit at $1.2 trillion, or 8.3% of GDP. This will be the largest deficit since WWII.

It is here that the greater danger lies. By creating a precedent for government intervention, and takeover, of the market, President Bush has set the stage for even greater meddling by the Obama Administration. Bush has already requested the release of the second $350 billion of the EESA from Congress at Obama’s request. Obama’s advisors say that he also plans to ask for additional stimulus that will cost at least $775 billion. This could put the deficit as high as 15% of GDP. This is even before many of Obama’s campaign promises, such as universal healthcare, or a bailout of Social Security and Medicare are considered.

Many of Obama’s stimulus plans are of questionable immediate economic value. These include a tax credit for middle and lower income taxpayers, many of who already do not pay taxes, rebuilding roads and bridges, and money for schools and education. Additionally, cities, states, and numerous industries are all lining up to request stimulus money from the taxpayers.

The current crisis resembles the Japanese recession of the 1990s, now known as “the Lost Decade.” Both recessions began with crashes of the real estate and stock markets. The Japanese, like our current government, attempted to stabilize and prop up failing companies. This policy led to prolonged economic suffering and an extremely slow recovery. Even twenty years later, Japan’s stock market has not fully recovered to the levels of the 1980s. The United States suffered a similar lost decade in the 1930s when President Roosevelt’s interventions turned a recession into the Great Depression.

The temptation to continue the government intervention in the market started by President Bush is likely to be too much for Obama and the Democrats to resist. This is likely to continue the recession for years to come. This would lead to lost wealth for the majority of Americans.

Additionally, the higher taxes that will eventually be needed to pay for the stimulus will likely lead to lost economic freedom. We are likely to see vastly increased government regulation in an attempt fix the current crisis and prevent future problems. The Index of Economic Freedom shows a strong correlation between economic freedom and national income. Even in today’s economic climate, the US outperforms other countries, even the social democracies of Europe that the Democratic Party seeks to emulate.

President Bush’s legacy is not firmly established. Other presidents who were unpopular while in office have enjoyed the vindication of history. Harry Truman is a prime example. President Bush’s defense of the United States and his liberation of, not one, but two repressed countries will likely assure that history will be kinder to him than public opinion has been.


Sources:
Wiretapping
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/15/america/tap.php
Iraq
http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2008/P-4287%20Vol%201.pdf
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol1_rsi_key-findings.htm http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/26/iraq.duelfer/index.html
AIDS
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/01/world.aids.day/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
http://www.pepfar.gov/about/
Slavery
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/trafficking.html
http://www.cfr.org/publication/7197/remarks_on_human_trafficking.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fpublication_list%3Ftype%3Djournal_article%26page%3D9
Taxes
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-R1-Current-Federal-Tax-Receipts-Near.html
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-R3-Corporate-Income-Tax-Cuts-Boost.html
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-R2-Federal-Government-Tax-Revenue.html
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
Pro-Life
http://www.nrlpac.org/pdf/bush43record.pdf
FNMA Reform
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/09/17/obama-mccain-and-fnma-reform
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html
Social Security
http://www.socialsecurityreform.org/fastfacts/index.cfm
http://www.socialsecurity.org/reformandyou/faqs.html
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/06/09/the_coming_crisis_for_medicare/
http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Monograph.pdf
http://www.cfr.org/publication/11816/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5407041
http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/worksite.htm
Iran
http://irannuclearwatch.blogspot.com/2006/08/iran-nuclear-timeline.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16933380
Financial bailout
http://www.stlouisfed.org/timeline/timeline.cfm
http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/2008-10-26-bailout-economy_N.htm
http://www.forbes.com/markets/economy/feeds/ap/2009/01/12/ap5908548.html
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/05/news/economy/obama_stimulus/index.htm?postversion=2009010505
Digest Vol. 09 No. 2, www.patriotpost.us
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/01/democrats-push-2nd-stimulus-plan/
http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/07/17/the-lost-decade/
http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/07/18/lost-decade/
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/11/11/failing-like-japan.aspx
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123180425194675361.html

1/16/09