1) Defense, National Security, and Understanding of the Military
McCain’s military career, POW experience and family legacy gives him a perspective that may be unique among Presidential candidates in the history of this country. He knows generals and admirals to be human, capable of brilliance and blunder—not wizards whose word must be taken as golden. He knows soldiers need technology to succeed against our enemies, and to protect themselves, but understands better than most the importance of the morale & training of the individual soldier, sailor or airman. He will not send, as Reagan (Lebanon), Carter (Iran hostage crisis), Clinton (Somalia) and W (Iraq & Afghanistan) have done, the American military to places where the mission is vague, troops are ill-equipped or ill-prepared, or where multiple combat and post-combat strategies are not considered. He will ensure, as he has done in Iraq (to the best of his power as a senator) that when troops do leave a combat area, they leave in victory, with the stature of the United States military intact. When today's soldiers defeat the enemy and leave a better, freer state behind them, that reputation protects future troops and lessens the likelihood of emboldened enemies risking engagement.
My uncle died as a young POW of the Japanese in the Philippines, so John McCain's epiphany during his captivity in Vietnam regarding the exceptionalism of the United States strikes home in a very personal way. His story created an emotional connection for me that underwrites not only my loyalty to McCain, but my view of the world. Imagine that you have a son, daughter or spouse in the Armed Forces, because they also believe that this is a country worth fighting for. Honestly, whom would you trust more as his or her Commander-in-Chief: McCain or Obama?
Those who continue to call McCain a "warmonger" have never listened with an open mind to his thoughts on the subject of war, as expressed here in March of 2008: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/872473dd-9ccb-4ab4-9d0d-ec54f0e7a497.htm. McCain is far more reticient about sending troops into Pakistan than Obama, who seems anxious to send more troops everywhere except Iraq.
On January 10, 2007, the night the surge of troops to Iraq was announced, Obama declared, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." Yet to admit his original error, and subsequent denials of the effectiveness of the surge-in-progress to the contrary, Obama finally recently expressed his amazement that the "surge had succeeded beyond our wildest dreams" (what--Petraeus, Kagan and Keane are lucky lunatics?) and removed all prior criticism of the surge from his campaign website.
I agree with Senator Obama that sound judgment is a much more essential trait for a wise leader than a resume of experience, but he has yet to provide any strong example of either characteristic, while in McCain I see plenty of both.
Finally, I'm confident that McCain's foreign policy will not invite emergency responses by adopting weak, vacillating postures against our enemies, and against the enemies of our allies. For the bitter breakdown of the value of assuming the dulcet tones of one's own voice are sufficient to prevent conflict, see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/obama-s--talking--cure-12504 by Joshua Muravchik.
2) Taxes & Spending
The differences between Democratic and Republican economic plans boil down to this: Democrats want to take your tax dollars and redistribute them to people and programs they think are deserving, while Republicans (the fiscally responsible ones, anyway, like McCain) want you to keep more of your net earnings to purchase products and services that you think are deserving (and which happen to be the most sustainable sources of jobs and income, rather than government-funded programs). In other words, Obama and Biden don’t trust you to make the correct decisions about what to do with your money, but McCain and Palin give you a little more credit.
Perhaps you’re thinking, "I’m not rich, so Obama/Biden won’t tax me, and maybe I’ll get some of those redistributed dollars (in the form of a universal healthcare plan, for instance)". Maybe, for the first year or so, that works. Then “the rich” (which, in good years, according to Obama/Biden, includes many subchapter-S small business owners such as yours truly, who combine business & personal income on one tax return) will adjust by downsizing, deferring projects and capital purchases—so that the anticipated tax revenue gain is never fully realized. Earlier this year an article appeared in the WSJ ("You Can't Soak the Rich", May 20, 2008) describing the work of a San Francisco-based economist, Kurt Hauser. Accompanying the article was a graph depicting the significant decline in the top income tax rates from 90% in the Fifties to about 35% today. The graph shows little blips upwards in the late Sixties and the Nineties, thanks to Democratic administrations, with big drops in the early Sixties and the Eighties, courtesy of JFK and Reagan). Here's the astonishing thing, though--at the bottom of the graph was an almost perfectly horizontal line indicating the history of tax revenues as a percentage of GDP in the same period---it remained almostly constantly at 20%, no matter what tax-cutters or tax boosters did to try to affect it. The state of the economy is a far greater influence on income, both personal and federal, than tax policy. If GDP increases, so do revenues; if it drops, revenues also drop.
So what happens to the “affordable” healthcare plan funded by those supposedly increased revenues? As with Medicare, the guarantee of government backing removes the risk that usually keeps costs in check in the private sector, so the program's costs soon start to exceed initial projections, and "universal healthcare" becomes yet another entitlement deficit-buster.
Democrats who support Obama’s tax increase on the “rich” and tax cuts for the “middle class” claim that the Clinton era from 1993 to 1999 proves the argument that such increases will help decrease the deficit. While it is true that the federal budget went from a deficit to a surplus in those years, a Senate Finance committee study determined that only 13% of the deficit reduction could be attributed to the tax increase, according to a floor speech by Senator Chuck Grassley in July 2008. The rest of the reduction resulted from economic growth (which Democrats can reasonably argue was not hurt by the tax increases, but Republicans can argue was helped by the end of the Cold War and Bush One’s prevention of a Saddam Hussein takeover of the Kuwait oil fields) and spending cuts—mostly in defense (Clinton cut eight divisions from the Army, in response to the above-mentioned "Peace Dividend"). Without substantial spending cuts, such as those addressed in McCain's proposed one year spending freeze on all budget items except defense and veterans' benefits, the deficit will continue to expand. McCain has also promised to balance the budget by the end of his first term, something Obama never even mentions as a commitment.
Anyway, Bill Clinton dropped his plans for a middle class tax cut just before the 1992 election, privately calling it “intellectually dishonest” (The Agenda, by Bob Woodward). Besides, which would you prefer--the $500-$1,000 Obama has promised as his tax cut/refundable credit (actually a refund of Social Security payroll taxes paid, meaning this will have to be paid by other, higher-earning taxpayers) or a private sector job created and sustained by businesses unburdened by mandated benefits or the second highest corporate tax rate in the world?
Obama's sliding tax credits phase out as individuals earn more (over $75,000), as well, putting them into higher tax rate brackets than the current system, and thus, as with all "progressive" tax policies, provide a disincentive to work to earn more (taxable) income.
Further justification for my support of McCain as a friend to small businessmen and taxpayers comes from a couple of congressional watchdog groups who have compared McCain's record with Obama's:
McCain gets a 100% rating in both the 109th & 110th Congress from the National Federation for Independent Businesses (we belong to this organization), while Obama got a 13% rating his first year, and in the 110th (as he began his run for President) a 50% rating (the rating indicates the number of times his vote matched the recommendation of the NFIB).
From the Citizens Against Government Waste, McCain gets an 88% lifetime rating (sixth highest in the Senate), Obama lifetime 18%, Biden, in 2007--0%. Comparing records, not rhetoric, puts McCain way ahead in this category.
3) Healthcare
Is the goal of universal health care to make citizens healthier? Or is it just to make those of us who have health insurance feel less guilty, and hospitals more profitable? As Mike Huckabee has said, having health insurance does not automatically make you healthier, nor does it guarantee that you will seek out preventative medical care even when it is free or cheap to do so. How else does one explain the higher survival rate of American women diagnosed with breast cancer than their British counterparts, who’ve had free healthcare for decades?
As an employer who subsidizes 75% of our employees’ health insurance premiums, I figured out that I could afford to give each of our 40 covered employees an average annual raise of about $4500 ($2000 +/-more for families, $2000 +/- less for singles) if I didn’t have to pay any health insurance premium at all on their behalf, which they could then deposit in their own individual Health Savings Account, supplemented by their former 25% contribution. Throw in the savings gained by cancelling thousand-dollar contracts with the compliance industry and there's more than enough to pay a family's HSA premium (granted, at group rates). A reluctant monarch, I would much rather have my employees choose their own plan and make their own healthcare decisions, free from my decidedly un-omnipotent interference.
I detest the current paternalistic, privacy-invading system that encourages employers to oversee their employees’ personal health, chiding perfectly self-aware adults for smoking or overeating to try to keep group rates low. Obama’s plan, which encourages people to seek government rather than private plans, will have the government doing the scolding, but if individuals ignore those admonitions, I’ll still have to pay for their poor decisions in the form of higher premiums or higher taxes—or will individuals face individual consequences for poor decisions under the Obama plan? That doesn’t sound “fair”, so I doubt it.
Who pays for Obama's health plan? He says that, in addition to raising $50-65 billion from tax increases, additional funds will come from "eliminating waste and inefficiency" in the health care system. How will he extract those funds from the system? Why, by spending $50 billion to promote ways to "eliminate waste and inefficiency"!
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.28755/pub_detail.asp
Does this sound like the definition of a circular argument?
McCain’s plan to remove the current deduction for group-covered employees, and to issue a tax credit ($5000 for families, $2500 for individuals) to all taxpayers (not just those covered by a group plan) who purchase health insurance (individually or through payroll premium contributions) is the first step towards allowing the currently uninsured, or individually insured, the same access to credible coverage as their group-covered peers. Even one of Obama's senior economic advisors, Jason Furman, endorsed removing this deduction two years ago, as a step towards greater equality of access to health insurance (Jason Furman, "Our Unhealthy Tax Code," Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. Issue 1, Summer 2006).
Employees can still remain with their current plan, and use the savings from the credit to make deposits in an individual HSA, which they can use for out-of-pocket medical expenses, or to save for a future job change. Employees or individuals enrolled in an HSA may obtain even greater savings through incentives for healthy behavior from the insurance plan.
Those who are currently uninsured due to the cost of covering their high risk medical conditions would, until all states began to require Guaranteed Access Plans, would still face exorbitant premiums--but would receive help from the tax credit if they used that to help purchase insurance, as well as income-level assistance. Also, McCain's plan to allow insurance companies to sell plans across state lines would allow individuals whose only choice now is their state "pool" far more options.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
Why McCain: My Next Three Reasons
I've already spoken at length (to put it mildly) about my Reasons Four & Five (Immigration Reform, Pro-Life Agenda) for supporting McCain, so I won't repeat myself. Here's my Sixth Reason for Supporting McCain, which is really just a chance to talk about a subject important to me, not to echo anything the Senator has said.
Education Reform
Well-educated children grow into adult citizens that can solve almost any of the daunting problems our country faces. Although McCain seems a bit of a lightweight on substantive education reform ideas, that doesn’t mean I believe that any of Obama’s policy proposals will significantly improve our current system. And, as with most Democratic proposals, I believe we will pay through the nose for negligible results.
Neither candidate has advanced any plan as dramatically innovative and far-reaching (albeit failed, in some eyes) as NCLB, and perhaps that’s a good thing. Rather than creating entirely new programs, why not study, publicize, and copy the programs and methods that have been already been proven to be successful (Massachusetts, for instance, leads the nation in achievement levels, even though they increased their standards above the norm)? A successful school system is its own reward to its community—what the federal government ought to do is find creative ways to dispense this valuable information to other communities.
Instead of building on successes, however, the main feature of Obama’s education platform is the expansion of a forty-year-old program that has had little success in improving the cognitive abilities of young, disadvantaged children, Head Start (this negative evaluation courtesy of a Clinton-era commissioned study http://www.aei.org/publication23373). Obama’s Zero to Five Plan envisions educating infants as soon as they’re born instead of waiting until they’re three—which may be a good idea---I just don’t know how that works practically without somehow forcing parents to participate, and it’s a little creepy to think about the State taking away infants who should be bonding with their parents in order to mold them into future scholars. Even now, many children eligible for Head Start don’t participate, because their parents are disinterested or because they enroll their children in private pre-school programs, despite their cost.
Imagining that we can improve the education of disadvantaged children through increased funding for a program that has continually failed to do just that seems illogical--at best. Since the evidence from the study shows that the improvements over time for a child enrolled in Head Start are negligible, perhaps no institutional early education program, no matter how expansive, can really improve a child’s educational ability beyond what his genetic predisposition and his home environment provide. That may seem discouraging and defeatist, but many teachers complain that NCLB is forcing them to raise every child to an educational level that many cannot meet, due to these factors (genetics and home life).
Perhaps the focus of education policy, instead of exhorting teachers to jump higher and higher, ought to work on those factors that educators feel helpless to control, and find ways to better prepare students for school, where educators do have more control. The government has, for a long time, been doing an excellent job of preventing birth defects and promoting pre-natal health, and I can’t think of any ways to improve pre-school readiness in that area that a free society could tolerate. However, maybe policy should concentrate on enlisting parents themselves (the “home environment” part of those currently uncontrollable factors) to improve their child’s learning potential in those early years, and beyond, through the use of financial and tax-related incentives.
What if, instead of redistributing wealth in the form of dependent child tax credits (checks in the case of those who pay no net taxes), those tax credits or checks were issued on the basis of your child’s behavior and performance in school? It would have to be coupled with a mass marketing parent education kit (handed out at the hospital?) to explain goals and parameters, and contain information on ways to meet those goals, but it would get folks who might otherwise be discouraged by the long term goal of their child’s eventual success to focus on short term goals (set by teachers and school boards). This would reward effort rather than mere existence, as the current tax credit system does, and enlist those who have the most contact with their children to share the educational burden with their teachers and society. Society would benefit much more from a system that rewards parents for raising civil children who want to learn rather than just rewarding parents for having children.
The devil is in the details, definitely, but school systems that are struggling to cope might welcome self-interested (and therefore genuine) assistance from the parents in their community, with no new bureaucratic system to enforce it. Simply generate the entry level standards for each grade based those already in existence, add a behavior component (the “Conduct” grade on a report card), and distribute it to the IRS and parents in the same way that employers distribute W2s. Teachers would appreciate the help on behavior and learning from previously disinterested parents. The parents of newborns might receive the standard “existence credit” for the first two years of their child’s life, but that credit would be replaced at age three by a credit (or no credit) based upon a preschool report card. Thus even the parents of newborns would know that they need to begin at birth to prepare their child for school. If they chose to educate and nurture their child at home, performance on a test conducted by a private sector educational testing service that uses the standards set by the local school district would determine their eligibility for the credit. If that seems too invasive, well, eventually home-schooled children will need to participate in the workforce, and so they need to meet or exceed the same standards as their institutionally-schooled peers.
Coercion of teachers by parents unhappy with their child’s report card might be a problem, but would it be worse than the situations teachers face every day in their classrooms with unruly, disrespectful, truant students? This system rewards good behavior and attendance, as well as at-home support without publicly embarrassing poor (in an ethical, not income sense) parents in a way that might cause retribution. Entering and exiting grade and conduct report cards might reflect both on the parents and the teacher, and pinpoint the problem more specifically. If a child enters a grade on par with his peers, and his performance drops that year, but picks up the next, it may be the fault of a situation at home, but it may also not be the parents’ fault—this may be a bad teacher. Fire the teacher if this trend continues with his students. Conversely, a student who continually underperforms, no matter who the teacher, may have bad parents, and should be a candidate for intensive outside help in all categories (and fund this outside help with the tax credit/check that you DON’T give to his parents).
The situation of learning-disabled kids would naturally need to be handled separately---but, with a nod to NLCB, I wonder if some children aren’t prematurely labeled, and if their parents had access to educational aids in their homes from birth (that marketing kit), there wouldn’t be fewer kids entering the system already labeled as failures. I’m very ignorant of the educational needs and expectations that should address learning-disabled children, but I would think that similar standards could be set by the educators of those children, to make their job easier by focusing on the amount of readiness for school education provided at home, even if it is just simple behavioral standards.
And just as differing natural abilities to learn should not condemn learning-disabled children to a life of bleak poverty or state support, neither should their more “average” peers all be expected to point towards college as the only suitable educational goal. Charles Murray of AEI has written extensively about the need to elevate vocational education to the status of higher education, and a number of educators agree that many children either don’t want to, or simply cannot achieve the academic levels necessary to be successful at a white collar job. Again, publishing studies accurately comparing the lifetime earnings and workplace satisfaction of skilled craftsmen versus bachelor-degree-holding office workers might encourage more children to seek out occupations desperately in need of workers---welders, carpenters, pipefitters, etc. The tax credit system could just as easily reward the parents of a high school student who behaved, came to school regularly, and passed his welding certification test instead of College Prep English. Don’t get me wrong, I think core knowledge of history, literature, writing, science and math is critical to the citizens of a democracy, and should never be neglected in any curriculum. But if a kid can’t do well in college preparatory classes, shouldn’t we insist that he demonstrate sufficiency in some workplace skill, so that he doesn’t leave our educational system unable to support himself? Perhaps, if vocational education began at an earlier age, a high school graduate might leave school able to earn far more, and contribute more to the economic growth of the country, than his peers heading to college will in a decade, or ever.
In a nutshell, I think education and spending policy should amplify what has already been proven to work, and focus on parents as the missing link in today’s education policy proposals.
Education Reform
Well-educated children grow into adult citizens that can solve almost any of the daunting problems our country faces. Although McCain seems a bit of a lightweight on substantive education reform ideas, that doesn’t mean I believe that any of Obama’s policy proposals will significantly improve our current system. And, as with most Democratic proposals, I believe we will pay through the nose for negligible results.
Neither candidate has advanced any plan as dramatically innovative and far-reaching (albeit failed, in some eyes) as NCLB, and perhaps that’s a good thing. Rather than creating entirely new programs, why not study, publicize, and copy the programs and methods that have been already been proven to be successful (Massachusetts, for instance, leads the nation in achievement levels, even though they increased their standards above the norm)? A successful school system is its own reward to its community—what the federal government ought to do is find creative ways to dispense this valuable information to other communities.
Instead of building on successes, however, the main feature of Obama’s education platform is the expansion of a forty-year-old program that has had little success in improving the cognitive abilities of young, disadvantaged children, Head Start (this negative evaluation courtesy of a Clinton-era commissioned study http://www.aei.org/publication23373). Obama’s Zero to Five Plan envisions educating infants as soon as they’re born instead of waiting until they’re three—which may be a good idea---I just don’t know how that works practically without somehow forcing parents to participate, and it’s a little creepy to think about the State taking away infants who should be bonding with their parents in order to mold them into future scholars. Even now, many children eligible for Head Start don’t participate, because their parents are disinterested or because they enroll their children in private pre-school programs, despite their cost.
Imagining that we can improve the education of disadvantaged children through increased funding for a program that has continually failed to do just that seems illogical--at best. Since the evidence from the study shows that the improvements over time for a child enrolled in Head Start are negligible, perhaps no institutional early education program, no matter how expansive, can really improve a child’s educational ability beyond what his genetic predisposition and his home environment provide. That may seem discouraging and defeatist, but many teachers complain that NCLB is forcing them to raise every child to an educational level that many cannot meet, due to these factors (genetics and home life).
Perhaps the focus of education policy, instead of exhorting teachers to jump higher and higher, ought to work on those factors that educators feel helpless to control, and find ways to better prepare students for school, where educators do have more control. The government has, for a long time, been doing an excellent job of preventing birth defects and promoting pre-natal health, and I can’t think of any ways to improve pre-school readiness in that area that a free society could tolerate. However, maybe policy should concentrate on enlisting parents themselves (the “home environment” part of those currently uncontrollable factors) to improve their child’s learning potential in those early years, and beyond, through the use of financial and tax-related incentives.
What if, instead of redistributing wealth in the form of dependent child tax credits (checks in the case of those who pay no net taxes), those tax credits or checks were issued on the basis of your child’s behavior and performance in school? It would have to be coupled with a mass marketing parent education kit (handed out at the hospital?) to explain goals and parameters, and contain information on ways to meet those goals, but it would get folks who might otherwise be discouraged by the long term goal of their child’s eventual success to focus on short term goals (set by teachers and school boards). This would reward effort rather than mere existence, as the current tax credit system does, and enlist those who have the most contact with their children to share the educational burden with their teachers and society. Society would benefit much more from a system that rewards parents for raising civil children who want to learn rather than just rewarding parents for having children.
The devil is in the details, definitely, but school systems that are struggling to cope might welcome self-interested (and therefore genuine) assistance from the parents in their community, with no new bureaucratic system to enforce it. Simply generate the entry level standards for each grade based those already in existence, add a behavior component (the “Conduct” grade on a report card), and distribute it to the IRS and parents in the same way that employers distribute W2s. Teachers would appreciate the help on behavior and learning from previously disinterested parents. The parents of newborns might receive the standard “existence credit” for the first two years of their child’s life, but that credit would be replaced at age three by a credit (or no credit) based upon a preschool report card. Thus even the parents of newborns would know that they need to begin at birth to prepare their child for school. If they chose to educate and nurture their child at home, performance on a test conducted by a private sector educational testing service that uses the standards set by the local school district would determine their eligibility for the credit. If that seems too invasive, well, eventually home-schooled children will need to participate in the workforce, and so they need to meet or exceed the same standards as their institutionally-schooled peers.
Coercion of teachers by parents unhappy with their child’s report card might be a problem, but would it be worse than the situations teachers face every day in their classrooms with unruly, disrespectful, truant students? This system rewards good behavior and attendance, as well as at-home support without publicly embarrassing poor (in an ethical, not income sense) parents in a way that might cause retribution. Entering and exiting grade and conduct report cards might reflect both on the parents and the teacher, and pinpoint the problem more specifically. If a child enters a grade on par with his peers, and his performance drops that year, but picks up the next, it may be the fault of a situation at home, but it may also not be the parents’ fault—this may be a bad teacher. Fire the teacher if this trend continues with his students. Conversely, a student who continually underperforms, no matter who the teacher, may have bad parents, and should be a candidate for intensive outside help in all categories (and fund this outside help with the tax credit/check that you DON’T give to his parents).
The situation of learning-disabled kids would naturally need to be handled separately---but, with a nod to NLCB, I wonder if some children aren’t prematurely labeled, and if their parents had access to educational aids in their homes from birth (that marketing kit), there wouldn’t be fewer kids entering the system already labeled as failures. I’m very ignorant of the educational needs and expectations that should address learning-disabled children, but I would think that similar standards could be set by the educators of those children, to make their job easier by focusing on the amount of readiness for school education provided at home, even if it is just simple behavioral standards.
And just as differing natural abilities to learn should not condemn learning-disabled children to a life of bleak poverty or state support, neither should their more “average” peers all be expected to point towards college as the only suitable educational goal. Charles Murray of AEI has written extensively about the need to elevate vocational education to the status of higher education, and a number of educators agree that many children either don’t want to, or simply cannot achieve the academic levels necessary to be successful at a white collar job. Again, publishing studies accurately comparing the lifetime earnings and workplace satisfaction of skilled craftsmen versus bachelor-degree-holding office workers might encourage more children to seek out occupations desperately in need of workers---welders, carpenters, pipefitters, etc. The tax credit system could just as easily reward the parents of a high school student who behaved, came to school regularly, and passed his welding certification test instead of College Prep English. Don’t get me wrong, I think core knowledge of history, literature, writing, science and math is critical to the citizens of a democracy, and should never be neglected in any curriculum. But if a kid can’t do well in college preparatory classes, shouldn’t we insist that he demonstrate sufficiency in some workplace skill, so that he doesn’t leave our educational system unable to support himself? Perhaps, if vocational education began at an earlier age, a high school graduate might leave school able to earn far more, and contribute more to the economic growth of the country, than his peers heading to college will in a decade, or ever.
In a nutshell, I think education and spending policy should amplify what has already been proven to work, and focus on parents as the missing link in today’s education policy proposals.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Biden's Blunder
My IQ is nowhere near the stratospheric number that I can only imagine Joe Biden’s to be--
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyEqyYUGk4I)
--so I’m sure he could condescendingly explain to me why his support for abortion rights and his belief that life begins at conception are not contradictory, and therefore not subject to easy challenge in debate by lesser minds, such as those of his Republican opponents.
Here’s how I interpret his recent statements:
1) A woman is carrying a human life inside her womb, not a yet-to-be-determined something that is not human life.
2) Whatever the woman does with that life, as long as it remains inside her womb, is her business and her business only (he would not support turning his personal views into law).
3) Meanwhile, society has every right--even a responsibility--to interfere with her actions towards that life once it is outside her womb—unless Biden supports a woman’s right to neglect, murder or abuse her child without civil or criminal consequence---which, I think I can safely say without checking, the Senator does not. So, in this case, when life exists outside the womb (unless you voted against the Born Alive amendment, like his running mate), it is perfectly acceptable to impose personal views, in the form of law, upon individual women who injure or attempt to harm their child.
4) In effect, Biden answered the Saddleback question that Obama sidestepped—a life doesn’t acquire human rights in the United States until it is outside the womb. A life, an American citizen’s life, with fewer rights by virtue of location? But aren’t the protections of the American government extended to its citizens even in locations outside the U.S.? So, location can’t be the legal support, as of course the crafters of Roe vs. Wade knew, which is why they promoted privacy rights as the basis for that law.
5) Thus women, by virtue of Roe vs. Wade, may injure or kill their child only as long as it is still inside the womb. If Democrats would admit that as their position, and argue its justifications, instead of dancing around it with euphemisms like “choice”, they just might persuade me that some of the party’s other positions---on defense, taxes and health care, are also intellectually and practically sustainable. Until they drop the sophistry on abortion, though, I can’t respect their analytical thinking on any issue.
6) There used to be a saying that intelligent Catholics (I’m sure Joe Biden considers himself one) had to “leave their brains outside the door” in order to attend a church promulgating antiquated and outdated dogma. Perhaps Senator Biden’s big brain should come inside the Church with him next time, and consider adopting the Church's very defensible stance on Life: Just wars are okay, but abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty are not. No nuances there--if you don’t favor killing the rapist, don’t kill his child, even when it is still in the womb (unless its birth may take the life of the mother). That’s just as disconcerting a stance for me as it must be for Joe Biden to condone the taking of what he knows to be innocent life, but even to my little brain, it’s forensically sound.
Is this the debate in which Obama's eager to engage? Really?
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyEqyYUGk4I)
--so I’m sure he could condescendingly explain to me why his support for abortion rights and his belief that life begins at conception are not contradictory, and therefore not subject to easy challenge in debate by lesser minds, such as those of his Republican opponents.
Here’s how I interpret his recent statements:
1) A woman is carrying a human life inside her womb, not a yet-to-be-determined something that is not human life.
2) Whatever the woman does with that life, as long as it remains inside her womb, is her business and her business only (he would not support turning his personal views into law).
3) Meanwhile, society has every right--even a responsibility--to interfere with her actions towards that life once it is outside her womb—unless Biden supports a woman’s right to neglect, murder or abuse her child without civil or criminal consequence---which, I think I can safely say without checking, the Senator does not. So, in this case, when life exists outside the womb (unless you voted against the Born Alive amendment, like his running mate), it is perfectly acceptable to impose personal views, in the form of law, upon individual women who injure or attempt to harm their child.
4) In effect, Biden answered the Saddleback question that Obama sidestepped—a life doesn’t acquire human rights in the United States until it is outside the womb. A life, an American citizen’s life, with fewer rights by virtue of location? But aren’t the protections of the American government extended to its citizens even in locations outside the U.S.? So, location can’t be the legal support, as of course the crafters of Roe vs. Wade knew, which is why they promoted privacy rights as the basis for that law.
5) Thus women, by virtue of Roe vs. Wade, may injure or kill their child only as long as it is still inside the womb. If Democrats would admit that as their position, and argue its justifications, instead of dancing around it with euphemisms like “choice”, they just might persuade me that some of the party’s other positions---on defense, taxes and health care, are also intellectually and practically sustainable. Until they drop the sophistry on abortion, though, I can’t respect their analytical thinking on any issue.
6) There used to be a saying that intelligent Catholics (I’m sure Joe Biden considers himself one) had to “leave their brains outside the door” in order to attend a church promulgating antiquated and outdated dogma. Perhaps Senator Biden’s big brain should come inside the Church with him next time, and consider adopting the Church's very defensible stance on Life: Just wars are okay, but abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty are not. No nuances there--if you don’t favor killing the rapist, don’t kill his child, even when it is still in the womb (unless its birth may take the life of the mother). That’s just as disconcerting a stance for me as it must be for Joe Biden to condone the taking of what he knows to be innocent life, but even to my little brain, it’s forensically sound.
Is this the debate in which Obama's eager to engage? Really?
Friday, September 5, 2008
I Used to be a Liberal Democrat
Long before Joseph Lieberman "betrayed" his political party by endorsing John McCain and speaking at the Republican convention, I admired his thoughtful approach to public discourse on political issues. During one debate early in the 2004 Democratic primary season, he stood out as the only candidate of seven or eight who actually attempted to answer the questions asked, instead of endlessly repeating his campaign's and his party's anti-Bush talking points. I didn't necessarily agree with his answers at the time, but I respected his efforts to seriously confront issues with an intellectual pragmatism not often found in politics. Later, when he and John McCain separately staked their political careers on victory in Iraq, I knew that Lieberman's earlier display of principled thinking had been no temporary tactic.
Personally, I used to be a liberal Democrat because I “knew” Republicans to be money-grubbing, prejudiced and heartless souls. I voted wholly with my heart, not my head (at least not the intellectually curious part).
I only began to peel away the caul covering my eyes and mind after observing the disparate ways in which Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas and President Bill Clinton were treated by the feminist left for their transgressions with subordinates. In Thomas’ case, it was a determined stretch, by pro-abortion activists, to even call his clumsy overtures to Anita Hill sexual harassment—though they were certainly inappropriate. In Bill’s case, Monica Lewinski was just another one of many employees susceptible to Clinton’s “charms”, and the sex with a vulnerable intern many years his junior was real, not imagined. Yet Bill was excused and Thomas excoriated and humiliated, by activists disinterested in the real or imagined crimes of either man. N.O.W. and N.A.R.A.L. were concerned only with the need to preserve the “right” for women to end the nascent life of a child in a safe (for the mother) and sterile environment.
N.O.W. knew that Thomas found no guarantee of this right in the Constitution (and as most rational pro-abortion champions will admit, there is none) and that Clinton, though certainly perceptive enough to realize the same thing, was far more interested in power than intellectual (or any other kind of) honesty, and wouldn’t appoint judges likely to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
This hypocrisy by N.O.W. and other feminist groups began to settle into my consciousness in a more uncomfortable way than it ever had, forcing me to re-examine long-held, though only superficially explored, political beliefs. Before Monica, I hadn’t bothered to ponder long the ugly euphemism “choice”, nor even questioned any other standard philosophies of the post-Sixties Democrats:
1) a mistrust of capitalism and free markets as the best instruments with which to advance the human condition,
2) the belief that elite government stewardship trumps personal responsibility and individual decision-making, and
3) the preference for words over actions as the best weapons against our enemies.
This is where I am today-—a lot closer to JFK’s political philosophy than most Democrats, and nowhere near the Tom Tancredo/Pat Buchanan wing of the Republican party. I deplore their narrow vision of what it means to be American, but I am equally appalled by the hatred the left wing of the Democratic party expresses toward our current President and anyone who shares his view that we really are the best hope for freedom in the world---including soldiers who don’t see themselves as “victims” of recruiters or the Bush administration, but as defenders of a country worth fighting for.
While standing in line at the Post Office a couple of months ago, I heard someone on CNN read the results of a poll taken of citizens of Muslim countries. The report focused on the sinking popularity of Osama Bin Laden & Al Qaeda, but what I found most interesting was the same answer given to two different questions. The first question was, “Which country in the world is your greatest enemy?”, and the second was, “Which country in the world is your greatest friend?” The most popular answer (eliciting about the same percentage of respondents each time) to both questions was the United States. As with most polls, interpretations of the results are hampered by the rigidity of the format, but one possible conclusion to be taken from it is that other countries may talk about resolutions, sanctions, and aid programs (and the long term satisfactory results of all three of these types of solutions to crises are certainly debatable), but the US is the only one that can be counted on to take action. Sometimes, in the case of Afghanistan & Iraq, that means war. Sometimes, in the case of the HIV/AIDS crisis in sub-Saharan Africa, it means “the largest effort ever, by any nation, for an international health initiative dedicated to a single disease.” (WSJ, July 8, 2008). If someone holds that the first view about the U.S. (as a belligerent initiator of conflict) is the defining one, they’re much less likely, I’ve found, to even be aware of the second fact, much less keep it mind when arguing for punishing the Bush administration.
Personally, I used to be a liberal Democrat because I “knew” Republicans to be money-grubbing, prejudiced and heartless souls. I voted wholly with my heart, not my head (at least not the intellectually curious part).
I only began to peel away the caul covering my eyes and mind after observing the disparate ways in which Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas and President Bill Clinton were treated by the feminist left for their transgressions with subordinates. In Thomas’ case, it was a determined stretch, by pro-abortion activists, to even call his clumsy overtures to Anita Hill sexual harassment—though they were certainly inappropriate. In Bill’s case, Monica Lewinski was just another one of many employees susceptible to Clinton’s “charms”, and the sex with a vulnerable intern many years his junior was real, not imagined. Yet Bill was excused and Thomas excoriated and humiliated, by activists disinterested in the real or imagined crimes of either man. N.O.W. and N.A.R.A.L. were concerned only with the need to preserve the “right” for women to end the nascent life of a child in a safe (for the mother) and sterile environment.
N.O.W. knew that Thomas found no guarantee of this right in the Constitution (and as most rational pro-abortion champions will admit, there is none) and that Clinton, though certainly perceptive enough to realize the same thing, was far more interested in power than intellectual (or any other kind of) honesty, and wouldn’t appoint judges likely to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
This hypocrisy by N.O.W. and other feminist groups began to settle into my consciousness in a more uncomfortable way than it ever had, forcing me to re-examine long-held, though only superficially explored, political beliefs. Before Monica, I hadn’t bothered to ponder long the ugly euphemism “choice”, nor even questioned any other standard philosophies of the post-Sixties Democrats:
1) a mistrust of capitalism and free markets as the best instruments with which to advance the human condition,
2) the belief that elite government stewardship trumps personal responsibility and individual decision-making, and
3) the preference for words over actions as the best weapons against our enemies.
This is where I am today-—a lot closer to JFK’s political philosophy than most Democrats, and nowhere near the Tom Tancredo/Pat Buchanan wing of the Republican party. I deplore their narrow vision of what it means to be American, but I am equally appalled by the hatred the left wing of the Democratic party expresses toward our current President and anyone who shares his view that we really are the best hope for freedom in the world---including soldiers who don’t see themselves as “victims” of recruiters or the Bush administration, but as defenders of a country worth fighting for.
While standing in line at the Post Office a couple of months ago, I heard someone on CNN read the results of a poll taken of citizens of Muslim countries. The report focused on the sinking popularity of Osama Bin Laden & Al Qaeda, but what I found most interesting was the same answer given to two different questions. The first question was, “Which country in the world is your greatest enemy?”, and the second was, “Which country in the world is your greatest friend?” The most popular answer (eliciting about the same percentage of respondents each time) to both questions was the United States. As with most polls, interpretations of the results are hampered by the rigidity of the format, but one possible conclusion to be taken from it is that other countries may talk about resolutions, sanctions, and aid programs (and the long term satisfactory results of all three of these types of solutions to crises are certainly debatable), but the US is the only one that can be counted on to take action. Sometimes, in the case of Afghanistan & Iraq, that means war. Sometimes, in the case of the HIV/AIDS crisis in sub-Saharan Africa, it means “the largest effort ever, by any nation, for an international health initiative dedicated to a single disease.” (WSJ, July 8, 2008). If someone holds that the first view about the U.S. (as a belligerent initiator of conflict) is the defining one, they’re much less likely, I’ve found, to even be aware of the second fact, much less keep it mind when arguing for punishing the Bush administration.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Ann Dunham's "Mistake"
Barack Obama has been magnanimous and compassionate in his repudiation of the vicious attacks on Sarah and Bristol Palin, but have any of his ardent pro-“choice” supporters given thanks for the decision of Barack’s own mother NOT to use contraception to prevent her son's conception, or NOT to abort him? Barack’s mother’s circumstances (teenaged and unwed) in 1961 were very similar to Bristol Palin’s, except that Ann Dunham lived in those “dark days” (as pro-“choice” supporters often refer to that time) prior to the Roe v. Wade decision.
Who knows what decision Ann would’ve made had more “choices” been easily available to her, but do Obama’s pro-“choice” supporters really wish that the “enlightened days” of Roe v. Wade had begun twelve years earlier? According to an April TIME article, Obama’s mother as a teenager was much more interested in college and a career than marriage and children. Had someone made the pitch then to her that the Planned Parenthood billboards now promote (“Take Care of Yourself”), who knows if she would’ve still chosen Barack's life over “taking care of herself”?
Obviously, neither Bristol's nor Ann's contraceptive methods, if employed at all, effectively prevented conception. Though perhaps Ann didn't have access to a Planned Parenthood clinic where she could obtain free contraceptive aids (and where the cost of abortions could be subsidized by government grants to Planned Parenthood for contraception distribution), Bristol did--there's an office in Wasilla. The fact that Bristol may not have heeded her elders' advice about contraception or pre-marital sex is less than astonishing to any parent of a teenager, to put it mildly. Are Bristol's critics equally anxious to lecture Ann Dunham/Obama/Soetoro's son and granddaughters about the "lessons" of teenage passion?
We’ll never know how many other bright, talented and compelling presidential candidates have been lost to us, but pro-“choice” advocates might take a moment to consider the continuing unintended consequences of their vigorous support for Roe v. Wade.
Who knows what decision Ann would’ve made had more “choices” been easily available to her, but do Obama’s pro-“choice” supporters really wish that the “enlightened days” of Roe v. Wade had begun twelve years earlier? According to an April TIME article, Obama’s mother as a teenager was much more interested in college and a career than marriage and children. Had someone made the pitch then to her that the Planned Parenthood billboards now promote (“Take Care of Yourself”), who knows if she would’ve still chosen Barack's life over “taking care of herself”?
Obviously, neither Bristol's nor Ann's contraceptive methods, if employed at all, effectively prevented conception. Though perhaps Ann didn't have access to a Planned Parenthood clinic where she could obtain free contraceptive aids (and where the cost of abortions could be subsidized by government grants to Planned Parenthood for contraception distribution), Bristol did--there's an office in Wasilla. The fact that Bristol may not have heeded her elders' advice about contraception or pre-marital sex is less than astonishing to any parent of a teenager, to put it mildly. Are Bristol's critics equally anxious to lecture Ann Dunham/Obama/Soetoro's son and granddaughters about the "lessons" of teenage passion?
We’ll never know how many other bright, talented and compelling presidential candidates have been lost to us, but pro-“choice” advocates might take a moment to consider the continuing unintended consequences of their vigorous support for Roe v. Wade.
Monday, September 1, 2008
My Plea for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
I agree with John McCain on almost every issue, but it was his independent and courageous positions on both immigration reform and victory in Iraq that first earned him my loyalty and respect. His understanding of the situation in Iraq stems in large part from his military experiences, but his views on immigration are not as easily explained by his background. He usually addresses the need for reform from a spiritual standpoint in most of his speeches, which has the nifty effect of defusing confrontations with some opponents to his political right. I have a different perspective, that of a small business owner, which may be of interest to anyone having difficulty reconciling their support for McCain with his compassionate and pragmatic position on immigration.
We’re a small landscape design/build company, in business for 23 years. In 1996 or 1997, in need of more employees to serve our expanding customer base, we published ads in newspapers with regional circulation. We received over 80 responses, interviewed 40 and hired the10 best prospects. By the end of the busy season, 6 months later, all ten of these employees had left, for a variety of reasons (personal problems, including drugs or alcohol problems, traffic violations or other legal entanglements, or just because the work was too physically demanding—but not because the pay was too low, or the work unsafe). Not knowing where we could find a reliable source of future employees, we turned again to the placement director of the local college whose students had worked for us on a part-time basis. He suggested contacting a member of his church who might know some recent Hispanic immigrants looking for work. Thus we became “employers of a Hispanic workforce”.
I should stress that we do everything that we are legally required to do when hiring any employee--Caucasian, African-American or Hispanic. Everyone completes the same I-9 and W-4, is reported to the State as a new hire, takes a preplacement physical, and receives training and safety equipment appropriate for their job. I bristle when I hear generalizations accusing employers of “taking advantage of their employees” by paying low wages, paying in cash, or skimping on safety or benefits. We have been a Drug Free Workplace for 7 years, and that has helped our OSHA rating and safety record as well. We’ve held free regular ESL (English as a Second Language) classes for the past three off-seasons, which have been well-attended and enthusiastically received, because Hispanic employees are well aware that the greater their English skills, the greater their opportunity for advancement. We've been to weddings, Easter pageants (where one of our employees portrayed Christ carrying the cross) and many soccer games. Our Hispanic employees have been introduced to baseball, gender equity and merit raises, the last of which is the hardest sell.
I know landscaping is not an “essential” industry, but our small business does help support at least 40 tax-paying, health-insured, retirement-and-college-saving employees and their families, about half of whom are Hispanic. One “new” family consists of a Caucasian employee who has married a Mexican-born employee—a result of their meeting here. One Hispanic employee who was with us for nine years has just left, to start his own business. A little difficult to see that training and investment walk out the door, but not when we remember that that’s exactly how we started. Besides, far from being left bereft of talent, there are several folks waiting to advance into the position, or several positions opened up by his departure. That’s the great thing about this country—there’s seemingly always an opportunity for ambition, ambition that is easily squelched in other countries.
As for using the H2B program to supplement the scarcity of young and able workers, even if it would supply the number and type of employee we need (not likely, since the consular office in Mexico has the final say, after a lengthy application process, on who goes and who stays, and they’re very reluctant to let young single men leave Mexico, for fear they won’t return), the paternalistic elements and temporary nature of the program are in direct conflict with the type of permanent, trained and ambitious worker we need to help our company grow.
Besides, the number of H2B and H1B (for highly-skilled workers) visas granted annually by the U.S. government falls well below the demand by employers in this (at least until recently) bustling economy—because there were not enough American citizens born twenty years ago!!! Remember the fuss a few years ago over the Freakonomics guy (Steven Levitt) speculating that the precipitous drop in crime rates might be due to Roe v. Wade? In his eyes, abortion rights played a bigger role than a robust economy or police work in reducing crime. Maybe, just maybe, some of those unborn citizens could be working instead of illegal immigrants, but they were never born, so it’s not possible!!! In 1990, the year my youngest son was born, 25% of all pregnancies ended in abortion—1.6 million lives lost (healthfinder.gov) in all, just that year! They would’ve been a substantial addition to the workforce, but even if they were here, I would still want them to be living and working in the kind of America championed by Ronald Reagan:
“We have a statue in New York Harbor...of a woman holding a torch of welcome to those who enter our country to become Americans. She has greeted millions upon millions of immigrants to our country. She welcomes them still. She represents our open door. All of the immigrants who came to us brought their own music, literature, customs and ideas. And the marvelous thing, a thing of which we’re proud, is they did not have to relinquish these things in order to fit in. In fact, what they brought to America became American.”
Have conservatives forgotten those words, or do they just believe that 9/11 made them irrelevant? If the 19 hijackers had been Mexican laborers, I could understand some of the vitriol directed towards people whose only agenda in America, for most, is to work hard and raise their children in a place where they have a far better chance to prosper than in the country of their birth. President Bush’s words in the 2004 campaign contrasted sharply with his opponent John Kerry’s, and were a deciding factor in my vote for him. Bush said, “A man’s got to try to support his family as best as he can”, while Kerry said, “We need to punish the employer”.
I’m concerned that if the Republican party platform is anti-immigration, I’m going to be torn between voting for a candidate who will make my life as a businessperson much more difficult by raising taxes on everything in sight (Obama), and a candidate (McCain) who might succumb to party pressure and make my life as a businessperson much more difficult by failing to enact the immigration reform I heard him promise he would do on January 21, 2009. I agree with Senator McCain that the borders must be more secure (especially the more-easily-compromised and much longer Canadian one) but I think that had his previous attempts at legislative reform become law--if more paths to citizenship, permanent residency and temporary work had been made available--there would be much less need for impenetrable physical barriers.
U.S. citizenship didn’t prevent Timothy McVeigh or the DC sniper from committing horrific acts of terror; conversely, lack of full citizenship does not make someone a terrorist. Among the first deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq in 2003 were two illegal immigrants, whom I believe were awarded citizenship posthumously. Is that the only path to citizenship acceptable to those of you who see anything short of mass deportation or in-country alienation as unpatriotic?
It is not a (false) guarantee of welfare benefits that draws immigrants here; it is the chance, as Alexander Hamilton (an immigrant before there was any designation as legal or illegal) said, “To elevate my station in life”. In the process of “elevating his station”, Hamilton raised, by extraordinary measure, the “station” of the entire nation. I oppose exclusionary immigration policies for the same reason I oppose abortion—because you never know what difference one life may make.
We’re a small landscape design/build company, in business for 23 years. In 1996 or 1997, in need of more employees to serve our expanding customer base, we published ads in newspapers with regional circulation. We received over 80 responses, interviewed 40 and hired the10 best prospects. By the end of the busy season, 6 months later, all ten of these employees had left, for a variety of reasons (personal problems, including drugs or alcohol problems, traffic violations or other legal entanglements, or just because the work was too physically demanding—but not because the pay was too low, or the work unsafe). Not knowing where we could find a reliable source of future employees, we turned again to the placement director of the local college whose students had worked for us on a part-time basis. He suggested contacting a member of his church who might know some recent Hispanic immigrants looking for work. Thus we became “employers of a Hispanic workforce”.
I should stress that we do everything that we are legally required to do when hiring any employee--Caucasian, African-American or Hispanic. Everyone completes the same I-9 and W-4, is reported to the State as a new hire, takes a preplacement physical, and receives training and safety equipment appropriate for their job. I bristle when I hear generalizations accusing employers of “taking advantage of their employees” by paying low wages, paying in cash, or skimping on safety or benefits. We have been a Drug Free Workplace for 7 years, and that has helped our OSHA rating and safety record as well. We’ve held free regular ESL (English as a Second Language) classes for the past three off-seasons, which have been well-attended and enthusiastically received, because Hispanic employees are well aware that the greater their English skills, the greater their opportunity for advancement. We've been to weddings, Easter pageants (where one of our employees portrayed Christ carrying the cross) and many soccer games. Our Hispanic employees have been introduced to baseball, gender equity and merit raises, the last of which is the hardest sell.
I know landscaping is not an “essential” industry, but our small business does help support at least 40 tax-paying, health-insured, retirement-and-college-saving employees and their families, about half of whom are Hispanic. One “new” family consists of a Caucasian employee who has married a Mexican-born employee—a result of their meeting here. One Hispanic employee who was with us for nine years has just left, to start his own business. A little difficult to see that training and investment walk out the door, but not when we remember that that’s exactly how we started. Besides, far from being left bereft of talent, there are several folks waiting to advance into the position, or several positions opened up by his departure. That’s the great thing about this country—there’s seemingly always an opportunity for ambition, ambition that is easily squelched in other countries.
As for using the H2B program to supplement the scarcity of young and able workers, even if it would supply the number and type of employee we need (not likely, since the consular office in Mexico has the final say, after a lengthy application process, on who goes and who stays, and they’re very reluctant to let young single men leave Mexico, for fear they won’t return), the paternalistic elements and temporary nature of the program are in direct conflict with the type of permanent, trained and ambitious worker we need to help our company grow.
Besides, the number of H2B and H1B (for highly-skilled workers) visas granted annually by the U.S. government falls well below the demand by employers in this (at least until recently) bustling economy—because there were not enough American citizens born twenty years ago!!! Remember the fuss a few years ago over the Freakonomics guy (Steven Levitt) speculating that the precipitous drop in crime rates might be due to Roe v. Wade? In his eyes, abortion rights played a bigger role than a robust economy or police work in reducing crime. Maybe, just maybe, some of those unborn citizens could be working instead of illegal immigrants, but they were never born, so it’s not possible!!! In 1990, the year my youngest son was born, 25% of all pregnancies ended in abortion—1.6 million lives lost (healthfinder.gov) in all, just that year! They would’ve been a substantial addition to the workforce, but even if they were here, I would still want them to be living and working in the kind of America championed by Ronald Reagan:
“We have a statue in New York Harbor...of a woman holding a torch of welcome to those who enter our country to become Americans. She has greeted millions upon millions of immigrants to our country. She welcomes them still. She represents our open door. All of the immigrants who came to us brought their own music, literature, customs and ideas. And the marvelous thing, a thing of which we’re proud, is they did not have to relinquish these things in order to fit in. In fact, what they brought to America became American.”
Have conservatives forgotten those words, or do they just believe that 9/11 made them irrelevant? If the 19 hijackers had been Mexican laborers, I could understand some of the vitriol directed towards people whose only agenda in America, for most, is to work hard and raise their children in a place where they have a far better chance to prosper than in the country of their birth. President Bush’s words in the 2004 campaign contrasted sharply with his opponent John Kerry’s, and were a deciding factor in my vote for him. Bush said, “A man’s got to try to support his family as best as he can”, while Kerry said, “We need to punish the employer”.
I’m concerned that if the Republican party platform is anti-immigration, I’m going to be torn between voting for a candidate who will make my life as a businessperson much more difficult by raising taxes on everything in sight (Obama), and a candidate (McCain) who might succumb to party pressure and make my life as a businessperson much more difficult by failing to enact the immigration reform I heard him promise he would do on January 21, 2009. I agree with Senator McCain that the borders must be more secure (especially the more-easily-compromised and much longer Canadian one) but I think that had his previous attempts at legislative reform become law--if more paths to citizenship, permanent residency and temporary work had been made available--there would be much less need for impenetrable physical barriers.
U.S. citizenship didn’t prevent Timothy McVeigh or the DC sniper from committing horrific acts of terror; conversely, lack of full citizenship does not make someone a terrorist. Among the first deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq in 2003 were two illegal immigrants, whom I believe were awarded citizenship posthumously. Is that the only path to citizenship acceptable to those of you who see anything short of mass deportation or in-country alienation as unpatriotic?
It is not a (false) guarantee of welfare benefits that draws immigrants here; it is the chance, as Alexander Hamilton (an immigrant before there was any designation as legal or illegal) said, “To elevate my station in life”. In the process of “elevating his station”, Hamilton raised, by extraordinary measure, the “station” of the entire nation. I oppose exclusionary immigration policies for the same reason I oppose abortion—because you never know what difference one life may make.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
