Conservative Solutions to Health Care: R. Emmett Tyrell, Jr.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
	R. Emmett Tyrell, Jr., founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator, has several conservative alternatives to the Democrats’ healthcare reform “monstrosity.” For starters, the expense of the American medical system, which has kept millions from accessing care, could be offset by allowing every citizen, except Medicare recipients and military personnel, to receive a refundable tax credit for opening Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).   With respect to HSAs, the government also should raise the cap on the amount of money that people can put into them. Another change advocated by Tyrell is allowing Americans who open HSAs to purchase health insurance in any state in the country.   Another way to bring down costs would involve implementing tort reform. “Reckless malpractice lawsuits account for at least half a trillion dollars in wasted healthcare expenses annually, through jackpot lawsuits and the unnecessary tests prescribed by doctors fearful of the reach of trial lawyers,” writes Tyrell.   The conservative publisher is even willing to support the government giving out vouchers to the poor for them to pay for their healthcare, “up to a certain amount annually.” -Noel Brinkerhoff   Healthcare: A Modest Proposal (by R. Emmett Tyrell, Jr., American Spectator)

5 Suggestions for Upgrading Airport Security: Clifford D. May
Sunday, January 17, 2010
	The United States should take advantage of the near-miss terrorist attack on Christmas Day and seriously consider large scale reforms to airport security, says Clifford D. May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. May offers up several changes for the Department of Homeland Security to ponder:   1. Adopt a Quasi-Israeli Model: When was the last time you heard about an Israeli airline dealing with a terrorist attack? There’s a reason why: Israel has developed one of the best methods of airport security. Instead of focusing on potential weapons, Israelis zero in on passengers by asking a special set of questions to determine who might be a threat.   2. Set Up a Travelers’ Registry: May insists this idea could be voluntary to avoid trouble from civil libertarians, and it would give screeners more info than they have now about passengers. 3. Fix the Visa System: Stop having young, inexperienced Foreign Service Officers in charge of issuing Visas overseas. Seasoned diplomatic officials should be doing such screening to keep the likes of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from getting into the U.S.   4. Use Advanced Technology: Time to upgrade scanners at airports and stop using equipment that can’t detect explosives such those used by Abdulmutallab and “shoe bomber” Richard Reid in 2001.   5. Fix What Else Is Broken; Stay on Offense: “Airport security is not the only feature of our national security architecture that was poorly designed,” writes May. “Intelligence is also among the areas where reform has not succeeded and needs to start again.” -Noel Brinkerhoff   Reinventing Airport Security (by Clifford May, Foundation for Defense of Democracies)

House of Representatives Would Function Better if It Worked from Home: Conor Friedersdorf
Saturday, January 02, 2010
	In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress began to make preparations for meeting remotely in the event of another threat to the nation’s capital. But even without a crisis, would having an e-Congress be so bad, asks Conor Friedersdorf at AOL’s Politics Daily.   Skeptics of an e-Congress claim “deliberative bodies require physical proximity” and argue “technology isn’t an adequate substitute for face-to-face interactions.”   But one powerful argument in favor of an e-Congress is that it would reduce the influence of lobbyists on the legislative wing of the federal government. With lawmakers stationed at home in their districts, they would spend more time with their constituents and away from influence peddlers.   Friedersdorf says it would be best to start by sending House members home, and leave the Senate in Washington so it is “removed from constituent passions and able to serve as a check against power in the White House.” -Noel Brinkerhoff   The Case for an e-Congress: Who Says Proximity Ensures Good Governance? (by Conor Friedersdorf, Politics Daily)

Federal Workers are Overpaid: Michael Medved
Saturday, December 19, 2009
	Sure, Wall Street is getting paid too much—but what about the bloated federal bureaucracy? Conservative columnist and radio host Michael Medved wonders where the outrage is over “the shocking salary increases” for government workers in charge of an operation with a $1.4 trillion deficit.   Medved says that since the recession began in December, 2007, federal employee salaries have gone up an average of 6.6%, while salaries in the private sector have increased only 3.9%. The average salary in the U.S. government, as of June, was $71,206—compared to only $40,331 for non-governmental jobs.   “Unlike private firms, the federal bureaucracy doesn’t attempt to make a profit, so there’s never a pressing drive to cut costs or to trim payroll; unlike state and local governments, Washington doesn’t even need to break even,” writes Medved. “The ability of the central government to print or borrow money means that all the new hires will remain at their posts, no matter how mediocre or inadequate their performance, or how questionable the value of the often meaningless tasks they perform.” -Noel Brinkerhoff   When It Comes to Rewarding Inefficiency, Washington Puts Wall Street to Shame (by Michael Medved, Townhall)

Don’t Joke About Obama Dying: David R. Stokes
Monday, November 23, 2009
	David Stokes is no fan of President Barack Obama. The only way the conservative Virginia pastor would vote for Obama is if his opponent was “Harry Reid, or Boss Tweed.” Stokes is convinced that “the president and his advisors have a socialist bent” and that their health care reform and global warming agendas are not what the American people want. But don’t joke about Obama being assassinated because there’s nothing funny about that.   As was the case during the Clinton and Bush years, opponents of the president like to “pray” for an untimely end to the commander-and-chief’s term by quoting from the Book of Psalms 109:8: “let his days be few; and let another take his office.” But such partisan cracks are tasteless, Stokes insists. “…A president can be opposed and criticized—even in an animated way—without resorting to the kind of meanness that crosses the line of civility,” he writes.   “I have no problem with partisanship—even a little fiery rhetoric here and there. America is better when our politics are feisty. But, come on—using the Bible to make a joke about the man dying before his term is up?”   Stokes adds, “the use of Psalm 109:8 as a joke applied to President Obama is not only a beneath-contempt expression of ugliness, it is also a profoundly ignorant use of the Bible.” And he urges people to “fervently pray for President Obama and all those in authority—and not in tongue-in-cheek petitions.” -Noel Brinkerhoff   A Joke Too Far (by David Stokes, The New Nixon)

No More Consecutive Terms: Roger Schlesinger
Saturday, November 21, 2009
	Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers had no idea that modern elections would devolve into the multi-million dollar monstrosities they are today, requiring lawmakers to spend inordinate amounts of their time campaigning and raising cash. So home financing and conservative commentator Roger Schlesinger has offered this solution: No consecutive terms for politicians. One election, then you’re out.   Under Schlesinger’s plan, politicians could return to office, but only after they take a hiatus equivalent to their elected term. Then, sit out again, and run again, etc.   “One of the benefits of this arrangement would be that only private citizens would be running for office,” writes Schlesinger. “No one would have the ‘incumbent’s advantage’ that makes re-election almost a sure thing for many, if not most, elected officials.” -Noel Brinkerhoff   Consecutive Term? I Think Not! (by Roger Schlesinger, Townhall)

Get Rid of Gun-Free Zones: Jacob Sullum
Thursday, November 12, 2009
	“Gun-free zones” do more to harm than protect people, according to Reason magazine’s Jacob Sullum. The shooting at Fort Hood, where soldiers are prevented by law from having access to weapons except when training, demonstrated the “folly” of preventing Americans from being able to defend themselves from crazed, and armed, threats.   “If someone else at the processing center had a gun when Hasan started shooting, it seems likely that fewer people would have been killed or injured,” writes Sullum.   He also mentions an earlier mass shooting in Killeen, Texas, near Fort Hood. In 1991 George Jo Hennard opened fire inside Luby’s cafeteria, killing 23 people. “One customer, Suzanna Hupp,” says Sullum, “saw Hennard gun down her parents. Hupp later testified that she had brought a handgun with her that day but, to her bitter regret, left it in her car, as required by state law. The massacre led the Texas legislature to approve a ‘shall issue’ law that allows any resident who meets certain objective criteria to obtain a concealed carry permit.” -Noel Brinkerhoff, David Wallechinsky   The Folly of Unilateral Disarmament (by Jacob Sullum, Reason Magazine)

Police Seizing Property Equals Guilty Until Proven Innocent: Paul Jacob
Monday, October 26, 2009
	For too long police have been allowed to impose a “profitable tyranny” over those accused of owning property purchased illegally, says Paul Jacob, president of Citizens in Charge, a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to protecting and expanding voter initiative rights. While the doctrine of “innocent until proven guilty” applies to most aspects of our legal system, it does not with asset forfeiture. Police across the U.S. “seize more than $1 billion worth of property each year—cash, cars, boats, etc.—that is alleged to have been used in the furtherance of a crime,” writes Jacob.   “The problem is that police don’t have to prove a crime has actually been committed in order to seize someone’s property,” he notes. “Or that the owner of the property committed said crime.”   This “guilty until proven innocent” reversal is now being challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court in Alvarez v. Smith. Six people whose money or cars were seized by Chicago police are insisting they were denied their right to due process.   “You might think we were talking about a tin-pot dictatorship, but this is life, today, in these United States,” says Jacob. “Unless the Court overturns this practice, we might as well stop referring to our republic as a “democracy” and call it what it is: a kleptocracy.” -Noel Brinkerhoff   Proven Guilty (by Paul Jacob, Townhall)

Americans Don’t Need Health Care Reform: Janice Shaw Crouse
Monday, September 28, 2009
	There’s a reason why the United States doesn’t need health care reform—Americans don’t want it. According to conservative activist Janice Shaw Crouse, polls show that 90% of people in the United States are satisfied with their health care coverage, and for plenty of good reasons.   America’s health care is first-rate, with a hospital system that is the envy of the world, causing half a million foreign residents to come to the U.S. each year for medical care.   The United States is a leader in medical technology, developing many of the latest innovations in medical devices and pharmaceutical drugs. Whereas Canada and Britain have six MRI machines per million, the U.S. has 27 MRI machines per million. America also has 34 CT scanners per million, compared to only 12 for Canada and eight for Britain, per million.   And health care costs are lower in the U.S., with better results, than in Germany, Japan, Canada, and most countries in the European Union. -Noel Brinkerhoff   Does America Need Health Care Reform? (by Janice Shaw Crouse, Concerned Women for America)