 |
Intermission 2005
brought to you by "Election Projection" |
Conservative Political Commentary during the election off-season |
Political Weblog |
2004 Projection Results |
Projection Formula |
The Blogging Caesar Bio |
||
| If you have enjoyed Election Projection and
you appreciate the effort that goes into it, you can make a contribution here. Thanks!! (no PayPal account necessary)... |
. |
|
Edicts and Commentary May 30, 2005 A solemn thanks When I think about the countless men and women who have surrendered their lives for a greater good they would never enjoy, I yearn to wax eloquent for their dedication and sacrifice to their beloved country. Yet any tribute offered would not suffice. So it is with a grateful, reverent heart that I simply say "thank you" to all those who've died in the defense of freedom and these United States. May God forever bless you and your families, and may God forever bless the USA. posted by Scott Elliott at 11:25pm 05/30/05
Bolton filibuster - Democrat misstep The Democrats in the Senate have decided to
filibuster another nominee submitted by President Bush. This time
they are obstructing an up-or-down vote on John Bolton, nominated by the President to be our ambassador to the United Nations. Only three days after the
blockbuster deal that allows "extremist" Appeals Court nominees to get a vote, the Democrats have hoisted the filibuster back into the limelight.
In my reaction to the judicial filibuster deal, I noted that Democratic
obstructionism would still be a point of contention in the future. I didn't realize it would come into play so soon. I must say I'm surprised Senate
Democrats would employ such a politically risky tactic for a United Nations nominee. I mean, who cares? Judicial nominees are much more important to their
(and our) agenda.
They claim the President won't release some documents that they've been requesting. It seems like a childish tantrum to hold up Bolton's nomination just
because Bush won't give them their way. They are sacrificing much more in political capital than the office to which Bolton would be appointed merits. Mark
my words, the filibuster will be a big-time winning issue for the GOP in 2006. To use it over a UN ambassador nominee seems like poor judgment to me.
posted by Scott Elliott at 11:55pm 05/26/05
The first dividend Welcome to the Appeals Court, Justice Owen. Do us proud. posted by Scott Elliott at 6:10pm 05/25/05
posted by Scott Elliott at 4:35pm 05/25/05 Link to this post |
Judicial filibuster deal is a good one Today is certainly a red-letter day on Capitol Hill. A deal has been reached in the battle over President Bush's filibustered
Appeals Court nominees. I'm sure many in conservative circles agree with Hugh Hewitt.
Solid conservative judges will now be confirmed and appointed to the appeals court bench. If we are to stem the tide of liberal judicial activism, we
must take what we can get now while preserving opportunities for future gains. This agreement provides a measure of progress. Janice Rogers Brown
(D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit) will get an up-or-down vote. To see those three extremely qualified nominees
get their day in court, so to speak, yields a dividend for the Bush administration - and future GOP administrations - that will keep on giving far into the future.
Overnight, the President's pool of solid, conservative Supreme Court possibilities just got a significant boost. I understand that we didn't get the whole
enchilada like some had wanted. But perhaps short-term sacrifice for long-term gain is not only justifiable, but desirable.
In essence, the deal borrows from the liberal playbook used so effectively over the last half of the twentieth century. For decades after FDR's presidency,
liberals slowly but surely built a base of activist, team-player judges at all levels of the judiciary. They did it gradually, incrementally. If those
guys had been stuck on seeing all their agenda implemented in a single term, they would no doubt have faced frustration and failure. Instead, by picking and
choosing their battles, look what they accomplished over time. Today, the GOP chose their battle wisely and reaped an immediate, lasting benefit. Yeah but,
you might counter, the GOP is in the majority. They should have gotten more. Well, the Democrats were in the majority most of that time period, yet they,
just like today's GOP, overcame the urge to gobble up too much at a time, to move too far, too fast.
The GOP gives up nothing. If you hold the view that scrapping the nuclear option is a concession, then you'll disagree with me here. Even so,
look at where we stand as a result of the agreement. The GOP position now is largely unchanged from its position before the deal - except for the better. Republicans
conceded no judicial nominee; yet gained a vote, and most likely a seat on the bench, for three. If "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush," then surely three
judges on the bench are worth far more than three nominees in committee. And we got that even as the GOP improves its status in the mind of the electorate on the
whole issue of judicial nominees and the filibuster.
Think about it. The GOP can now trumpet, truthfully, I might add, that it is the party of restraint and reason, of compromise
and bipartisanship. Yes, even though Republicans hold the majority and could have eliminated the obstacles set before them by the Democrats, they chose the high road.
The GOP chose to compromise when it didn't have to. Moreover, the fact that all the other filibustered nominees are still waiting in the wings, ready to take center
stage in the coming weeks and months, is an added benefit - which leads me to the third reason to be glad tonight.
The issue of Democratic obstructionism is still on the table. I know the agreement contains language reaffirming that the President should seek the
advice of members of the Senate before submitting a nominee, but that is a vague and ambiguous requirement which, in fact, was already in place before today's events.
At worst, Bush's future nominees will incite claims of radical conservatism and accusations of power-grabbing. That will be nothing new. Democrats
may try to say that the GOP is not living up to its side of the deal, to which the GOP can simply say "yes we are." However, whenever a future Bush nominee is filibustered,
the President and the GOP will still be able to use, rightfully so, the obstructionist argument against the Democrats. So, conservatives gain a concrete advantage on the
Appeals Court, and the Democrats are stuck in the unenviable position of having to continue defending the filibuster of judicial nominees.
If you're a GOPer bemoaning the lack of backbone in the GOP Senate to win the day, I encourage you to step back, look at the big picture, and relish the wisdom displayed today
that lays the foundation to win the future. Today's deal gives the courts a significant conservative breath of life. It does nothing to harm the GOP position in trying
to get more of Bush's nominees confirmed, except eliminating the rules change option (which I believe is a good thing in the long run). And it allows Republicans to build
clout with the electorate while retaining their ability to paint Democrats as obstructionists in future elections. All in all, a good deal was made today, a very good deal.
posted by Scott Elliott at 11:50pm 05/23/05
Raise the retirement age In 1935, the year Social Security was born, the life expectancy of people fortunate enough to reach 65 was about 11 years.
Today, it is almost twice that long. A person entering retirement now can reasonably expect to live for 20 years.
According to Robert J. Samuelson,
the greatly increased length of time seniors receive Social Security benefits has doomed it. Of course, this claim is nothing
new. Not counting political-gain-at-all-cost democrats in Congress who claim there is nothing wrong with the entitlement program or its
future, nearly everyone in Washington concedes we need to do something about it. The problem is deciding what is the best course of action
to take.
If you've been listening to the debate much at all, you've problably heard President Bush or some other politician mention the number of
workers supporting each retiree as a function of time. Early in the life of Social Security, the worker/retiree ratio was over ten times
what it is today. Clearly, we're talking about an entirely different equation these days. Let me put it in perspective. If FDR and
his contemporaries had decided to set up Social Security with the same characteristics as today's version, the retirement age would have been set
at 56 or 57. Immediately, that would have significantly lowered the worker/retiree ratio and drastically diminished the program's long-term
feasibility.
At this point, the best thing to do begins to jump out at me, and hopefully you, too. We simply need to get Social Security back in line
with the way it was created. Let's return it to the days when recipients could expect to receive benefits for 11 years or so, not 20.
That means the age at which seniors begin to receive benefits should be raised. The author of the article linked above suggests a
gradual move to 70. That would help for a while. I say we institute a indexed retirement age that is tied to life expectancy.
But not the life expecatancy of the general public. Instead, I would use the life expectancy of those who have made it to retirement
age, which is the figure used by the article's examples. An important point also brought out in the piece is the fact that living longer
has been accompanied by living better and healthier. Older Americans are capable of working longer than their counterparts in the
1930's, so this plan does not introduce any hardships on present-day seniors that were not there back then.
Here's how I would do it. First, for the purposes of calculation, set 20 years old as the beginning of a person's working lifetime. In
1935, that means a worker would have 45 years contributing to Social Security and 11 years drawing from it - essentially a 4 to 1
ratio. If we use that ratio as the basis for determining the retirement age, we've instantly restored Social Security to solvency for as
long as the Lord tarries His return. Using the numbers put forth in the article and the indexed formula I suggest, the current retirement
age would be right around 72 years old. That translates to 52 working years and 13 retirment years for the average American retiree.
I understand some kind of gradual scale would need to be implemented to ease the transition for those currently approacing retirement age,
and I would certainly support that. I also understand that political forces, on all sides, will probably make it impossible for a simple,
logical idea such as this to get anywhere. It sure would be nice, though, to fix the problem in such a way that our grandchildren don't have
to rehash this same debate all over again.
posted by Scott Elliott at 10:50am 05/18/05
Howard Dean - what a guy! Sometimes when we're in the midst of a bad news cycle for the GOP, I start to fret a bit about
the next round of elections. Then, Howard Dean
opens his mouth.
Quotes like this...
posted by Scott Elliott at 9:35pm 05/15/05
Soldiers, police arrested in drug sting Ever wonder why we can't seem to get a handle on drug trafficking in this country?
This might shed some light on that...
posted by Scott Elliott at 8:50am 05/13/05
Happy Mother's Day, Mom I love you and miss you so much. God is still working; His impact through your life is still expanding. I'm looking so forward to our reunion day! posted by Scott Elliott at 6:00pm 05/08/05
US Military in Iraq - the good guys Amid all the distortions and lies concerning our presence in Iraq, I turn your attention to
this touching post. Look at that picture and read the comments. How clear is it who the good guys
and who the bad guys really are over there? To The Blogging Caesar, it's crystal.
Thanks, Lorie.
Update: Michael Yon is the owner of the site I reference in this post. He is currently serving in Iraq.
I just took some time to look further down at other posts. Wow! Mr. Yon, welcome to my blogroll. You've just earned a spot in my "favortie links" section.
Oh, that the mainstream press in the US could print the information you do! Thanks for being there and for relaying the truth. Unfortunately, when it comes to
Iraq, the truth is scarce on this side.
posted by Scott Elliott at 9:00am 05/06/05
Apparently, terrorists would love to attack our bridges. USMC_Vet follows the post I linked to last night with an alarming story of two men who seem
to be intent on that end. Both are included on a terror watch list; one was actually working with
the NYC bridge authority. The two terror suspects were fortunately arrested before they could cause harm. I wonder, though, how many more like these two are out there
yet undetected? May God protect us.
posted by Scott Elliott at 8:40am 05/06/05
Thursday night roundup Here's a look at what's happening on my blogroll this evening...
By the way, in case you missed it, today is May 5, 2005, which translates to 05/05/05. Cool, huh?
posted by Scott Elliott at 10:00pm 05/05/05
My thoughts exactly...and from a social liberal! Correction: Mr Harsanyi has written to inform me that, though he holds liberal positions on social issues, he is not a true
liberal. As he is fiscally conservative, to say he is a libertarian would be much more accurate.
I don't usually find a lot to tout in articles written by liberals, but this time an exception is highly warranted. David Harsanyi, of the
Denver Post, has written an amazingly accurate critique of conservative,
politically-active Christians. The piece is so good, start to finish, that I'm not going to highlight excerpts from it. Please go read the whole thing.
Well, on second thought, I must feature this little gem...
Too bad. I’ll have to try to convince more of you. (Emphasis added)
I paraphrase the commenter... If [fill in the blank] goes against your beliefs, then it is perfectly
fine if you don't do it. It is not fine when you try to impose your beliefs on the whole population, because many people may not necessarily agree with your
beliefs.
This comment epitomizes, in my opinion, one of the very serious misperceptions people have about the way this republic is
supposed to work. The phrase "impose your beliefs" or "force your beliefs" on the rest of us is used time and time again to silence those who believe as I do
in a certain set of values.
The fact is every single person who is politically active has an idea of how things should be and what laws should be
passed. Every one of us attempts to pick politicians who will advance our world view. This is not isolated to Christians. Environmentalists,
homosexuals, the rich, the poor, women, men, minorities, all have laws they want to see enacted - many times in direct opposition to what other people want.
And they want other people to abide by those laws, regardless of what the others believe.
For instance, there are those who believe we should not drill in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve. For decades that was the
law. Other people wanted to drill there. However, because of the law, they were prohibited from doing what they wanted. In effect, what that law did was to
force one group's beliefs on another group. But in reality, they didn't force any "beliefs" on anyone. Instead, guided by their own beliefs, they elected
politicians who enacted a law that effected the "behaviors" of others. This is an important distinction.
Even though I am all for taking advantage of the oil reserves in the ANWR, the laws prohibiting me (if I had the means) to
drill there didn't force me to change my beliefs. It just didn't allow me to engage in that behavior.
Was I against the laws prohibiting the drilling? Absolutely. Did I feel those who passed the law were imposing their beliefs on
me? Certainly their beliefs would have affected my behavior (were I an oilman), so in a way they were. Do I feel they were out of line in trying to get that law
passed? That they should keep those beliefs to themselves? Absolutely not!! They were exercising their rights as citizens of this country. And because a majority
of those who bothered to vote, voted for like-minded candidates, that law was passed.
Now, let's say I am an oilman. What recourse do I have if I want to change that law? The right course of action is not to try to silence
worshipers of gaia, goddess of the earth, and others who are against what I want to do. No, I shouldn't try to demonize them for "imposing their beliefs."
Instead, I should wake up the people who believe as I do, get them to the polls to vote and bring my ideas to the public arena to try to garner more support for
them. If I am successful, politicians who think as I do will be elected and the law may be changed. ( Actually, as you probably know, this is exactly what
happened recently when ANWR was opened up to drilling. )
That's the way the republic is designed. That's what "self-governance" is all about. When you say to Christians, "that's ok for you to believe, but don't impose your beliefs
on the rest of us," what you're really saying is "it's ok for some people to impose their beliefs but not for others."
The truth is Christians who are politically active (and anyone else, for that matter) are simply trying to affect behaviors (which is what laws do anyway) without necessarily
affecting beliefs. Every group has a set of behaviors they want imposed on everyone else, otherwise they'd have no agenda!
... in conclusion, let me say this. I have no problem with you organizing, teaching, voting, debating and doing whatever else within the law to gain
support for that in which you believe. If you are successful in gaining enough support to see your agenda implemented, good for you. If my views don't support
yours, shame on me if I sit by and let that happen without putting forth the same effort. But shame on you if you wish to disqualify me from competing for my agenda
simply because you don't like it or the doctrine from whence it comes.
posted by Scott Elliott at 9:45pm 05/03/05
|
Favorite Links
Blogroll Archives |
|