Reading through the news today, I cam across the following quotes from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, “slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.” If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said “slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.” When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn’t quite right. When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.”

There are four points that I want to cover with this: slavery, women, civil rights, and rush to action.

Slavery:  It is interesting that Reid starts his argument by saying “there were those who dug in their heels” in regards to recognizing the wrongs of slavery. He is trying to imply that it was the Republican’s who favored slavery and attempted to bar the abolishment of the practice. However, truth be told, it was the Democratic Party that supported the practice leading up to the Civil War. Democratic President James Buchanan sided with the Supreme Court on the Dred Scott Decision and the pro-slavery Southern Democrat movement pushed to expand slavery into the Kansas Territory. The anti-slavery camp, known as the newly-formed Republican Party, was bolstered by the support of Northern Democrats who were afraid of the surge of the Southern Democratic power, resulting in the sweeping victory of Abraham Lincoln in the Northern states in 1860.

Women:  This is another interesting reference point. In 1918, President Woodrow Wilson endorsed the 19th Amendment on January 8th. On January 9th, the Republican-lead House of Representatives passed the Amendment, though the Democrat-led Senate delayed the vote until October, and then voted against it. It wasn’t until June 1919 that the Senate finally passed the Amendment, with the now Republican-led Senate passing the Amendment 56 to 25, with 75% of Republicans and 42% of Democrats voting in favor. So far, Reid is two-for-two with endorsements of the Republicans.

Civil Rights:  A century after the civil war, when the nation fought against itself over issues to include slavery, the nation found itself fighting over the equality of men, or in this case, blacks. While the North continued to be more favorable towards racial issues, the South continued the tradition of elevating one race over another. The tides were changing in the 1960s, however, and a strong movement was growing in Congress to outlaw segregation bring voting equality to all. In 1964, the Congress voted on the Civil Rights Act, passing with 70% or more in both Houses. The Southern Democrats fought against passage, but in the end 69% of Senate Democrats and 63% of House Democrats voted in favor of the Act. This was trumped by Republican support, with 82% of Senate Republicans and 80% of House Republicans voting in favor.

In the three examples cited by Reid, the Republicans are shown to be not only necessary for passing major legislation, but also led the cause. I doubt that Reid doesn’t know this history, so I can only guess that he was attempting to somehow cast their involvement in a negative light as to deflect the public attentions to this fact. But Reid makes one other error in his rant on the Senate floor. His constant repeating of “slow down, stop everything, let’s start over” mirrors the comments made by Congressional Democrats during the lead-up to the Iraq war. In fact, Senator John Kerry accused Bush of “rushing to war without a plan to win the peace.”

So, if Kerry was right that we should not rush into decisions, how can Reid be correct with his rush to a conclusion on the Health Care Reform debate? Maybe Reid is four-times wrong in one floor speech.

While I was writing the last article, the House was voting on their Health Care proposal. In a slim 220 to 215 vote, the House bill was passed and now waits to be joined with whatever version comes out of the Senate. The vote fell along party lines, with one Republican and 39 Democrats crossing over. The lone Republican, Joseph Cao from Louisiana, was projected to break ranks due to his vulnerability since he represents an overwhelmingly Democratic district.

Now we just have to wait to see what the Senate has to offer.

With the the election for the next Virginia Governor coming up next week, I have been spending time looking at campaign ads and the candidates make if they are elected.  One of the campaign ads that caught my attention was one named “Priority” by Creigh Deeds.  Take a moment and view the ad.

In this ad, Deeds is proposing his “Virginia Forward Scholarship Plan.”  This plan is designed to pay half of the tuition for in-state students if they graduated high school with a “B” average or better.  While this sounds like a good deal, I questioned the campaign and asked them how it will be funded.  I was directed to their website where they discuss the plan.  The website states:

To pay for the program, Creigh will initiate a full, comprehensive review of all state surplus sales, including state land and personal property and equipment, and sell whatever is not needed to support essential state operations. Each year, Virginia sells in excess of $10 million in state owned land and buildings, plus millions more in surplus equipment. A full review will generate approximately $28 million in annual revenue from surplus property sales that will be deposited in the Virginia Forward Scholars Trust Fund. In addition, Creigh will revamp the state’s debt collection process and redirect enhanced state debt collection, currently valued at about $12.5 million per year, to the Virginia Forward Scholars Trust Fund. By streamlining the operations for debt collection and by more aggressively selling off state surplus property, Creigh will provide dedicated funding for the Virginia Forward Scholars Trust Fund without raising taxes.

The selling of surplus items is nothing new. In fact, California made news this Summer when Governor Schwarzenegger announced that he would post some of the state’s surplus items on eBay and Craigslist. So Deeds proposal to use the revenue generated for the surplus sales towards his plan is OK. Additionally, the redirecting of funds obtained through debt collection to the plan is also a decent proposal. But I do have a few problems with this proposal.

The selling of state land to fund a reoccurring education plan isn’t very smart. As the state’s population continues to grow, land will become more valuable (and scarce) to the state. Hawaii is a perfect example where land is a scare resource. This land should be retained where it can be used for future development projects, even if it is used as a land exchange when eminent domain transactions are necessary for key road projects or other service projects. Additionally, the quantity of land for sale will vary from year to year, so it is an unreliable source of income.

On the same note, the campaign projects that the plan will cost $40 Million. The campaign is assuming that the state will earn $28 Million from the sales of surplus land and supplies plus another $12 Million from debt collection on an annual basis. While they don’t state how many students they project for this to cover each year, it is fair to say that over time, the number of students qualifying for this plan will increase. According to their website, they cite a 4-year period – being the length of time it will take for four graduation classes to populate the university system. But what happens after four years?

If the cost of the plan rises due to increased tuition rates and eligible students, and the proposed revenue streams remain constant, there will be another source of funding required to offset the plans deficit. And if the “streamlining the operations for debt collection” becomes too efficient, then the proposed revenue from that streamlining will decrease, widening the revenue shortfall for the plan. This wouldn’t be an issue for Deeds though, since Virginia Governors are limited to a single term of four years. That means, he will be out of office when the fiscal problems begin.

Even if all of the financial models for this plan were to be true, there is one overwhelming problem that this plan doesn’t address. Virginia faces a significant bugetary shortfall in their transportation funding. Deeds has made a series of proposals to pay for this shortfall to include raising taxes to generate the needed income. According to the Deeds website, there will be a projected “$100 billion shortfall over the next two decades, or an average of $5 Billion per year. Why would you establish an open-ended “entitlement” program such as the Virginia Forward Scholarship Plan that the campaign anticipates to cost $40 Million a year when the state would need to generate an additional $5 Billion on top of that to pay for necessary road improvements?

Like most domestic proposals made during a campaign, the promises made are more about enticing people to vote the candidate. Many of these campaign promises never come to fruition, such as President Bush’s urban-recreational development projects that he cited during his 2004 campaign. But if the plans are enacted, the impacts the plans have well into the future are not a worry to the candidate since they will be out of the office when problems arise. This reckless practice leads to open-ended obligations that become bloated and a financial burden on the tax payers.

I think if Deeds were to win the election, he should get his priorities in order. A 50% educational subsidy is not an necessity to the state, especially if the transportation shortfall is the most important issue in the campaign (as stated by the Washington Post). Making campaign promises with disregard to the economic fallout associated with them is not the sign of an effective manager of the states’ budget.

I want to start this article with two important quotes:

The First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Thomas Jefferson stated:

No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions.

Two of the greatest gifts ever passed down to us by our Founding Fathers were the Constitution and a collection of letters written by them on the various concepts included within the Constitution itself. Over the past two centuries, these two gifts have been examined, challenged, and reexamined numerous times as we continue to grow, expand, and adapt to an ever-changing world. 2009 has been no exception.

Just 8 months ago, we were discussing how the Obama Administration was squaring off head-to-head against Rush Limbaugh. If you don’t remember, Limbaugh was challenging the Obama agenda by stating he wished he would fail. This initiated a PR war between the White House and conservative talk show hosts, with people such as Glenn Beck seeing his ratings skyrocket on his new show on the FOX News network.

Knowing that his criticism of Obama would continue to propel his ratings, Beck quickly began running a series of investigations into various aspects of the Obama Administration. While most of his discussions dealt with policy and the fear of socialism, it was his series on the Czars that Beck hit a home run. Through investigations, he latched on the controversy surrounding “Green Czar” Van Jones and his associations with socialist groups.

FOX News, the leading cable news channel and home of the Glenn Beck program, covered the information uncovered by Beck, and was later picked up by other media outlets. This growing coverage and allegations led to Van Jones resigning from the Obama Administration. In retaliation, the White House expanded their criticism to the FOX News network itself. Anita Dunn, White House communications direction, stated during an interview that FOX News “is not a news network.”

As the feud between the White House and FOX News continued, the other news networks started discussing the debate, questioning the position of the Administration. Looking to strengthen their argument against FOX News, members of the Administration went on to the other news channels explaining their criticism. Rahm Emanuel stated on CNN, “More importantly, is to not have the CNNs and the others in the world basically be led in following Fox, as if what they’re trying to do is a legitimate news organization.”

But what is a legitimate news organization? Is it an organization that has dull anchors sitting behind a desk, repeating the same news all day long? Is it an organization that reports only what is positive and supportive of the government? Is it an organization that is devoid of commentary or character?

I think the fact that FOX News carries the largest number of views that the other cable news networks has to attest to the interest viewers have with the outlets presentation. And the fact that it brings in a near-equal portion of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents shows that it isn’t just the “communications arm of the Republican Party.” FOX News, however, does have a problem. While their news reporting is straight forward, most of their non-commentary programming does include commentary asides. These asides make the channel interesting to watch, but generates part of the complaints against the organization as well.

Even with the commentary, however, it doesn’t justify the Presidents desire to either isolate the news organization. As Thomas Jefferson stated, “I am… for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents.” As he points out, even when the criticism is unjust, the press must be allowed to operate without the presence of undue influence by the Government. The actions by the White House against FOX News this past month has only emboldened the news outfit to continue to press the issues, and in some small part, created a martyr that the other news outfits have started to look towards. Not that CNN or MSNBC wants to stand side-by-side with FOX News every day of the week, but they have started questioning “Who’s next?”

What happens in 2012 when Obama is defeated and a Republican is elected? If the new President has issues with the press, he or she could take a similar action as Obama, especially if no one stood up to Obama and question his practices. The press is a key defender of our public because of their role in investigating and reporting on the actions of our politicians. If they were to go unchecked, we could lose individual freedoms, and on an extreme scale, we could lose the form of government that Jefferson and all of our other Founding Fathers worked so hard to create.

This is a no-win situation for the President.  Not just because this is FOX News, but any President that thinks he can successfully fight with the media and win is only deluding himself.  It is  just asking for more critical reporting as well as sowing the seeds of doubt in the public as a whole.  I feel that the President should just abandon this PR campaign without making mention of their change in plan, and allow the uproar to die in the middle of the newspapers somewhere.

Related articles:
Politico – “White House: Media shouldn’t follow FOX”
NewsBusters – “White House Says Fox Is Not A News Network”
Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government – “Freedom of the Press”
The Huffington Post – “Fox Should Pay Obama for Pitching It”
Washington Examiner – “Fox News lies but so do the others”
American Thinker – “It’s Time for Obama to Get a Clue”
The Los Angeles Times – “Obama’s misguided Fox hunt”
CBS – “President Obama’s Feud with FOX News”
Midwest Voices – “Obama vs. Fox News enters dangerous phase”
NPR – “Weighing In On White House Vs. Fox News: An Apology”