No Straw MenEnlightened discourse proscribes arguments that are weak or imaginary, like straw, set up only to be confuted summarily.

Vote Yes on Amendment 39

Written for the American Conservative Union.

Conservatives in Colorado haven’t had much to cheer about recently. Amendment 39 changes that prospect.

For too long, the only demand of education funding has been more money. Indeed, owing to Amendment 23, Colorado taxpayers have seen their public education costs rise to record levels every year.

Amendment 39 reverses this trend to “more education for more money” by implementing what columnist George Will calls the 65% solution. Simply put, this program will ensure that 65% of K-12 public school funding reaches Colorado’s classrooms, teachers and students, rather than lining the coffers of bloated bureaucracies.

Like all good legislation, Amendment 39 reprioritizes expenditures instead of raising taxes. Amendment 39 is also flexible, phased-in and allows a governor to grant a waiver if a school district has a legitimate reason why 65% cannot be reached, such as rural transportation costs.

While this reform should be implemented nationally, it’s particularly important in Colorado. For only 58 cents of every education dollar currently reaches the state’s classrooms, making them the 47th least-funded in the country.

No wonder fellow conservatives from around the country are promoting the 65% solution for their states. Texas Governor Rick Perry of Texas and Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue have implemented it, while gubernatorial candidates Dick Devos (MI), Ken Blackwell (OH), Mark Green (WI), Charlie Crist (FL) and your own Bob Beauprez have all endorsed it.

So do your part for Colorado taxpayers, parents and students. Make classroom instruction Colorado’s first priority in education by voting yes on Amendment 39 in November.

Learn more here.

Unshackle America’s Energy Supplies

Written for the American Conservative Union.

Why are gas prices so high and unpredictable? Here’s one big but underreported reason: The federal government, which for the past 30 years has been sealing off millions of acres of oil- and gas-laden reserves across the country and offshore, thus decreasing domestic supply.

In other words, the scarcity is not physical but political.

For example, in early September, Chevron discovered a deep-water region in the Gulf of Mexico. As the Wall Street Journal reported, this discovery “could become the nation’s biggest new domestic source of oil since the discovery of Alaska’s North Slope more than a generation ago.” Yet encouraging as this news is, it invites the question, How many other troves are also untapped?

Consider the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), which according to the Department of the Interior contains enough natural gas (420 trillion cubic feet) to heat 100 million homes for 60 years or enough oil (86 billion barrels) to replace current Persian Gulf imports for 59 years. Regulations render 85% of the OCS off-limits. Similarly unavailable are Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Rocky Mountain basins, both of which house huge reserves.

The paradox is particularly destructive because America is rich in both energy sources and the technology necessary to develop them. The only thing standing in the way is an anti-development regulatory regime.

Fortunately, this can change—with your help. The Minerals Management Service (MMS), the government agency responsible for offshore oil and gas leasing, is now accepting comments on where and how often drilling and development should occur in the OCS. MMS designs its plans based on input from the public, so, in partnership with the Consumer Energy Alliance, ACU urges you to voice your opinion today! (The deadline is November 22, 2006.)

The path to an energy-full future liess in unshackling our resources and setting free our finest minds to explore and produce. The results promise abundant supplies, and would herald a renewed commitment to both American independence and to the economic freedom that sustains our strength.

Click here to submit a prepared e-mail to the Minerals Management Service.

Securing Our Ballot Boxes Is As Important As Securing Our Borders

Written for the American Conservative Union.

We all know the drill. In purchasing alcohol or tobacco, cashing a check or boarding a plane, you need a picture ID. No ID; no dice. The routine is uncontroversial and commonsensical.

But did you know that in order to vote in a national election—in order to exercise that most elemental aspect of democracy for which America’s founders waged a revolution—you need not show proof of identification?

And if you need not show proof of identification, you need not show proof of citizenship. Even Mexico recognizes the injustice, insecurity and fraud this system encourages, and so requires voters to—gasp!—present a picture of themselves when voting

Why, then, doesn’t the United States require the same?

As the editors of National Review have observed, as long as we rely on nothing more than the honor system, we are effectively inviting the 12 million illegals already here to influence the American political process. Does not the sanctity of the ballot box warrant as much protection as boarding a 747?

Thankfully, Congress has taken up this long-overdue cause, and earlier this week, the House of Representatives passed the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 (HR 4844).

The bill proposes two modest requirements: (1) proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote, and (2) photo identification when voting. By the November 2008 election, states must check for such IDs, and by November 2010, the only valid IDs will be those issued on the basis of citizenship.

A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 81% of the American people favor an ID requirement for voting. In another poll by Rasmussen, 77% of likely voters agreed that a photo ID should be required to cast a vote. Indeed, 24 states already require voters to present some form of identification when voting, and seven require that ID to include a headshot.

Yet since the courts have overturned some of these regulations—in Georgia, for instance—the time has come for a uniform federal standard.

So, using the below form, please e-mail your senators and urge them to pass this eminently prudent, embarrassingly overdue, and admirably taut legislation.

Don’t let your vote be offset by someone who has no right to vote here in the first place. Tell your senators to pass HR 4844 today.

Cable Companies Should Compete for Consumers, Not Politicians

Written for the American Conservative Union.

E-mail Sent to Members

First they came for the Internet, which they wanted to smother with innovation-stifling regulations. Now they’re after your TV, which they want to keep in the clutch of a select few companies, rather than open the field to competition.

“They,” of course, are far-left groups like MoveOn.org, and their goal is as predictable as it is destructive: replace the American system of free enterprise with a Washington maze of congressional committees, federal agencies, and unaccountable bureaucrats.

So far, groups like ACU have prevented a government takeover of the Internet. But we need your help to ensure that freedom also prevails with respect to your television.

Here’s the rub. For too long, cable companies have lobbied for and then hid behind arcane red tape that makes it prohibitive for start-ups to enter the market. ACU, however, believes that companies should rise or fall on the basis of their goods and services, not their connections to politicians. We trust the judgment of consumers, not regulators.

If we succeed, consumers will benefit from more channels, lower bills, improved customer service, and superior technology.

To make these dreams a reality, please e-mail your senators—using the form below—and ask them to support the Advanced Communications Act (HR 5252). Tell them that TV shouldn’t can’t be held hostage by those who think the best way to harness the genius of the American people is by yoking us to a governmental chain. We must not let those who believe in Big Government panaceas dictate what our elected officials hear on this issue.

E-mail Prepared for Members

Dear Senator,

I am writing to urge you to support HR 5252, the Advanced Communications Act, and to defeat any amendments that would open the Pandora’s box of government regulation of the Internet.

The Internet has and continues to flourish because it has been allowed to grow free of government control. For the same reason, cable service progresses at a snail’s pace because of government control.

For years, cable companies have hid behind arcane regulations that make it prohibitive for competitors to enter the market. While some (like MoveOn.org) seek to sustain this undemocratic status quo, I believe we should introduce the cable services market to the American system of free enterprise. It is time that TV watchers enjoy the manifold benefits of competition.

For instance, cable competition will foster more channels (01 will become 001); lower bills (in communities where competition exists, prices have fallen by at least 20 percent); better customer service (who hasn’t spent hours waiting at home for the repairman or on the phone with an operator?); and superior technology (think digital is cutting-edge? just wait).

History shows that free and open markets have made America’s markets the envy of the world. Let’s keep it that way.

Repeal the Inflation Tax

Taxing capital gains amounts to double taxation

ALEXANDRIA, VA— The American Conservative Union, the nation’s oldest and largest grassroots conservative lobbying organization, announced its strong support for HR 6057, which would change the way the Treasury Department taxes capital gains, so that only real gains, not gains plus inflation, are subject to taxation.

Since 1913, the Treasury Department has ignored the effects of inflation in calculating the amount that the government collects when an investor sells an asset that has appreciated. For example, if you purchased a stock for $10 a share in 1952 and sold it for $20 a share in 2002, you would be forced to pay capital gains on the transaction—even though the investment was a loss once inflation is factored in.

“In other words, even if after selling an asset with a nominal gain, your investment is a loss in real terms, you still owe cap gains taxes,” said J. William Lauderback, ACU’s executive vice president.

“For this reason, the capital gains tax is actually two taxes,” continued Lauderback. “First, it is a tax on the increase in the value of your assets when sold—a disincentive to investing that is the bedrock of our capitalist economy. Second, it is a tax on the inflationary increase in the value of your assets. The latter—known as the inflation tax—amounts to double taxation, and is thus one of the most unfair and economically destructive taxes the federal government has concocted.”

Thankfully, H.R. 6057, sponsored by Congressmen Mike Pence (R-IN) and Eric Cantor (R-VA), would rectify this charade by repealing the inflation tax. Beginning in 2007, the bill would change the way capital gains are taxed by adjusting for inflation the cost basis of an asset one has owned for more than three years.

As many analysts have noted, the passage of this legislation would significantly strengthen the U.S. economy: by eliminating taxation on inflation-generated gains, the bill would promote long-term investment, a vital part of a robust economy; taxpayers would finally be able to realize their true gains and build wealth for their families; and the heavy burden of taxation would be relaxed.

“ACU strongly supports the full repeal of the economically stifling capital gains tax. In the absence of the votes necessary to accomplish this goal, we applaud the 80-plus congressmen who have cosponsored HR 6057,” said Lauderback.

U.S. Should Stop Bankrolling the U.N.

The Honorable Cliff Stearns
United States House of Representatives
2370 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Stearns:

On behalf of the nearly one million members and supporters of the American Conservative Union, I write to express our support for your legislation, H.R. 5476, to withhold United States funding from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).

In March, the U.N. General Assembly voted to replace its Commission on Human Rights with the Human Rights Council. But a name change cannot mask the underlying reality that any group is only as good as its membership. Thus, in granting dictatorships such as Cuba, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Russia the same legitimacy as democracies like Brazil, the Netherlands, Canada and the United Kingdom, the council remains an abhorrent affront to the very things it is supposed to uphold.

As Victor Davis Hanson, of the Hoover Institution, has observed, “Many delegates vote only when they come to the U.N. [Their home countries] would never offer their own people the same rights that their spokesmen take for granted in New York.” Indeed, like the organization of which it is part, the UNHRC is too often a shield behind which autocrats both elude and issue criticism. And if odious double standards, flagrant waste and pervasive corruption characterize the U.N., they plague the UNHRC.

Moreover, sending the hard-earned money of American taxpayers to bankroll this swamp pit abuses the trust we have placed in our elected officials. By contrast, the suspension of funds would send a clear signal that the American people will not pander to or perpetuate a costly charade.

Thank you for your leadership in this regard. ACU looks forward to working closely with you to pass this important bill.

Sincerely,

J. William Lauderback
Executive Vice President

Confirm John Bolton Now

United States Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations

Dear Senator:

On behalf of the nearly one million members of the American Conservative Union, I write to express strong support for the speedy re-nomination of John Bolton as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

We start from the premise that the U.N. desperately needs reform—and not just incremental improvements, but fundamental change. If anyone can push this corrupt, sluggish bureaucracy toward this end, it is an honest critic, someone who recognizes the difference between what the U.N. should be and what the U.N is. In John Bolton President Bush has found the perfect man.

Indeed, Ambassador Bolton has forcefully, yet diplomatically, engineered much-delayed progress on everything from the U.N. oil-for-food scandal to the U.N.’s appalling Human Rights Commission, from condemning North Korea’s recent missile launches to imposing sanctions concerning the genocide in Darfur. In just a year, John Bolton has proven himself a truly American representative to the world: tough yet fair.

Moreover, when American soldiers are fighting to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, when Israel is fending off Hezbollah in Lebanon, when North Korea unabashedly tests missiles and Iran brags about the holocaust to come when it acquires the nuclear kind—this is no time to go wobbly. The world must know that America speaks with one voice, and that voice, at the most important international forum, should continue to be that of John Bolton. Failure to confirm him, at this critical juncture, would only sow doubt about our resolve and send a terrible signal to our enemies.

On a personal note, John has impressed me enormously since we first met 35 years ago. He’s succeeded in every job he’s ever held and has done so without sacrificing either his principles or the interests of those he has served. He is, above all, a truth teller—which is exactly what we need right now in New York.

Sincerely,

David A. Keene
Chairman

ACU Urges Vote on 16-Year-Stalled Judicial Nomination of Terrence Boyle

Free the judge from congressional purgatory

ALEXANDRIA, VA— The American Conservative Union, the nation’s oldest and largest grassroots conservative lobbying organization, today urged Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to schedule a vote on Judge Terrence Boyle, a decision that has been disgracefully delayed for more than a decade.

In 1991, President George H.W. Bush nominated Judge Boyle for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Democrats and their liberal allies forcefully opposed the nomination, which consequently languished for 10 years. In 2001, President George W. Bush re-nominated Judge Boyle. But, again, the left kicked into hysterical overdrive and, for another four years, prevented the senate from simply voting on the nominee.

“Today—16 years later—Judge Terrence Boyle remains in congressional purgatory, wedged between those, like Senator John Edwards, who oppose cloture for unrelated personal reasons, and those, like Senator Frist, who repeatedly postpone cloture,” said ACU executive vice president J. William Lauderback.

“What makes this delay even more offensive,” Lauderback continued, “is that of the 11 people President Bush nominated to the federal bench in 2001, Judge Boyle is the only one who remains unvoted on. He has handled this quagmire with patience and professionalism, as befits a man of his sterling judgment and unimpeachable credentials. Indeed, those who disagree with Judge Boyle, like those with whom he disagreed from the bench, nevertheless respect his reasoning and fairness.”

“To perpetuate this charade signals weakness and resignation,” said Lauderback. “After all, justice delayed is justice denied.”

Since the senate unanimously confirmed him in 1984, Judge Boyle has sat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. For seven of these years, from 1997 to 2004, he served as the chief judge of this court; for five of these years, as appointed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, he served on the Judicial Resources Committee; and since 1999, again appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist, he has served on the Judicial Branch Committee.

Conservatives Outraged at Abiding Eminent Domain Abuse

In New London, CT, a man’s home is the city’s castle

ALEXANDRIA, VA— The American Conservative Union, the nation’s oldest and largest grassroots conservative lobbying organization, today expressed outrage at the inconceivable decision by the city council of New London, CT, to evict and impose back fees and rent on homeowners Susette Kelo and the Cristofaro family.

One year ago, in a stunning interpretation of the Constitution’s eminent domain clause, the Supreme Court ruled that the government can seize the homes of law-abiding citizens if some bureaucrat believes that other tenants (namely, wealthy developers) can generate more tax revenue. Despite the backlash the case prompted—scores of states have created legislation restricting the use of eminent domain; the House overwhelmingly passed the Private Property Rights Protection Act; even Ralph Nader condemned the verdict—the New London city council continues to defy both common sense and common decency.

“This is a flagrant abuse of eminent domain, morally and politically,” said ACU chairman David A. Keene. “The right to private property—to keep the fruits of one’s labor—is an essential part of the human experience and an essential ingredient for prosperity. Our homes are more than just wood and bricks to be condemned, commandeered and sold to the most politically connected bidder.”

Keene continued: “Susette Kelo and the Cristofaros are the heroic victims of seven people in the so-called Constitution State who do not understand that the constitution limits government power, not expands it. Today, a man’s home is no longer his castle. Today, a man’s home is the city’s castle.”

In February, Susette Kelo received the 2006 Ronald Reagan Award from the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), a project of the American Conservative Union Foundation. Her acceptance speech is available here.

Emergencies Are Not Pork-Barrel Buffets

No emergency left behind

ALEXANDRIA, VA— The American Conservative Union, the nation’s oldest and largest grassroots conservative lobbying organization, today joined with five sister groups—the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens against Government Waste, the Club for Growth, the Heritage Foundation and Americans for Tax Reform—to urge Congress to purge all pork and unrelated spending from the 2006 supplemental appropriations bill.

Last week, President Bush asked Congress for $92 billion for HR 4939, the 2006 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery. Whereas the House complied with this budget, the Senate is demanding an additional $14 billion.

“Senate appropriators are using tragedy to blackmail the president into signing off on tens of billions of dollars above and irrelevant to his request,” explained David A. Keene, chairman of ACU. “In the Senate Appropriations Committee, wars and hurricanes are apparently golden opportunities to rationalize pet projects. Need a highway in Kauai, Hawaii? Then deem it ‘urgent,’ concoct a connection to the Gulf reconstruction, and stuff its funding into a $100 billion bill. Call it the No Emergency Left Behind Act.”

In recent years, Congress has increasingly abused the supplemental appropriations process to ram through pork-barrel spending that cannot stand on its own merits, financially or politically. Today, the congressional definition of an “emergency” encompasses such dire needs as subsidizing profitable agribusinesses, to the tune of an additional $4 billion, on top of an annual $25 billion; rerouting a recently repaired and completely functional railroad in Mississippi, at a cost of $700 million, to benefit coastal developers and the casino industry; and a $1.5 million grant to the Vermont Center for Emerging Technologies.

“How large does the Republican majority need to be before Republicans start acting like the responsible stewards of taxpayers’ money we thought we were electing?” asked Keene. “Indeed, it’s an open question whether Republicans today would exercise greater fiscal responsibility as the minority rather than the majority.”