It's time for up-or-down vote
May 16, 2005
by Senator Bill Frist

All 100 members of the U.S. Senate will soon decide a basic question of fairness. Will we permit a fair, up-or-down vote on every judicial nominee? Or, will we create an unprecedented 60-vote requirement for the confirmation of President Bush's judges? I sincerely hope that it is the former.

Our Constitution grants the Senate the power to confirm or reject the president's judicial nominees. In exercising this duty, the Senate has always followed a careful and deliberate process of examining the nominees through hearings, discussing their merits in committee, debating them in the full Senate and then coming to an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. We investigate, we debate, and then we decide.

Beginning in 2003, however, the Senate stopped deciding. Until then, every judicial nominee who cleared the Senate's committee process received the courtesy of that vote. Some nominees were rejected on the floor, but they always received that vote. A few years ago, however, Senate Democrats began blocking final votes on judicial nominations. They began to filibuster.

These filibusters of judicial nominations injure the administration of justice and our nation's political culture. Some courthouses have sat empty for many years, even though a bipartisan majority of senators stands ready to fill the vacancies by confirming the president's nominees. And as every American knows, the political wrangling over this issue has become less and less civil with every passing day.

It is time to vote. As Senate majority leader, I have tried for more than two years to find common ground with my Democrat colleagues. I have offered to guarantee as many as 100 hours of debate for every judicial nominee, far more than has ever been necessary for any nominee in the past. I have offered to guarantee that no nominee ever becomes unjustly stalled in the Judiciary Committee, as many Democrats believe happened in the late 1990s.

In other words, I have sought to address Democrats' grievances while holding true to the core principle of an up-or-down vote. So far, my Democrat colleagues have rejected all efforts at compromise, and continue to insist on a new, 60-vote standard.

Such a position is unacceptable. President Bill Clinton's nominees required only 51 votes to be confirmed. Why should George W. Bush be treated differently? Until this president took office, Democrats and Republicans alike were firmly opposed to all filibusters, and said so repeatedly. We had a tradition based on mutual respect and restraint.

It is my hope that, after the Senate has decided this question, we can return to a greater spirit of bipartisanship and meet other pressing priorities. At the same time, this is an issue that must be addressed, and soon.

Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is Senate majority leader.
The Constitutional Option:
Restoring Fairness to Senate Nominations

The constitutional option is grounded in Article I, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution that empowers the Senate to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”

Goal: Restore the 214-year Senate tradition of approving the President’s nominations by a simple majority vote.

Means: Use a simple majority vote to set a new precedent without changing Rule XXII of the standing rules. For instance, a Senator would raise a point of order to close debate on a nominee. The presiding officer would sustain the point of order, thereby setting a new, binding precedent. The minority’s appeal of the ruling could be tabled with a simple majority vote.

Historic Examples: The use of a simple majority vote to set precedents is as old as the Senate. In recent history, Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd (D-WV) generated four precedents that allowed a simple majority to change Senate procedures without altering the text of the standing rules. Two of Byrd’s precedents overturned precedents then standing, and two reinterpreted the language of an existing standing rule. The precedents were made by a point of order and sustained with a simple majority vote:

1. Ending post-cloture filibusters (1977)
2. Limiting amendments to appropriations bills (1979)
3. Governing consideration of nominations (1980)
4. Governing voting procedures (1987)

Will the constitutional option lead to the elimination of the legislative filibuster?
No. The legislative filibuster is an important feature of our bicameral legislature that will be preserved. Restoring simple-majority approval of nominations will not lead to the elimination of the minority’s rights or the filibuster of legislation. The constitutional option will apply only to the filibuster of nominations. In fact, when Democrats spearheaded an effort to eliminate ALL filibusters in 1995, 19 Democrat Senators voted for it (including Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman, And Sarbanes), but not one Republican.

Will the constitutional option undermine the ability of a future Republican minority to defend its rights?
No. Never has a Republican minority stopped a judicial nominee with majority support from getting an up-or-down vote on the Senate Floor. Not until 2003 did that happen – under the Democratic minority of Tom Daschle and Harry Reid. The constitutional option simply restores the 214-year tradition of the U.S. Senate.


Does the constitutional option undermine the principle of the Senate as a continuing body?
No. The Senate has remained a continuing body even though precedents affecting Senate procedure are established throughout the year by simple majority vote.

Does the constitutional option erase the differences between the House and Senate?
No. The Senate will remain the “saucer that cools the hot cup of tea.” Holds, legislative filibusters, and unanimous consent agreements will continue to govern the day-to-day actions of the Senate, empowering the minority to stop the majority.

(CNSNews.com) -- At his Thursday night press conference, President Bush said the nation has a responsibility to reform Social Security -- "by directing extra help to those most in need and by making it a better deal for young workers."

He stressed three goals: (1)Future generations must receive benefits that are equal to or greater than they benefits seniors are getting today; (2) the system "should protect those who depend on Social Security the most"; and (3) any reform plan must provide younger workers with real assets, real money" -- personal accounts, in other words.

President Bush did not give details about his more-for-the-needy plan, but the White House later said the plan is modeled after one proposed by a Boston investment manager.

Sliding scale

Robert Pozen, chairman of MFS Investment Management, told the Boston Globe that his plan would leave Social Security benefits intact for people earning an average of $25,000 a year over their entire working careers.

Based on a "sliding scale," benefits would be progressively less for higher earners. Pozen told the Globe that people earning an average of $113,000 a year over their working careers would see the deepest cut in Social Security retirement benefits.

"By providing more generous benefits for low-income retirees, we'll make this commitment: If you work hard and pay into Social Security your entire life, you will not retire in poverty," President Bush said Thursday night.

At the same time, the president said younger workers must have the option of investing some of their payroll taxes in "voluntary personal retirement accounts."

President Bush said he knows some Americans are concerned about stock market fluctuations -- "so I propose that one investment option consist entirely of treasury bonds, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.

"Options like this will make voluntary personal retirement accounts a safer investment that will allow an American to build a nest egg that he or she can pass on to whomever he or she chooses," he said.

Politics

The president expressed eagerness to work with both the House and Senate "as they take the next steps in the legislative process." He said he's willing to listen to good ideas from either party, but so far, the only response is "no."

In a statement released after President Bush's speech, Democrats rejected his call for bipartisanship:

"All the president did tonight was confirm that he will pay for his risky privatization scheme by cutting the benefits of middle-class seniors," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a joint statement.

"'President Bush cannot escape the fact that privatization will weaken Social Security at a time we should be strengthening it."

President Bush apparently anticipated such a response.

In his Thursday night remarks, he said, "Too often the temptation in Washington is to look at a major issue only in terms of whether it gives one political party an advantage over the other. Social Security is too important for politics as usual.

"We have a shared responsibility to fix Social Security and make the system better, to keep seniors out of poverty and expand ownership for people of every background."

Obstructionism

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman issued a statement Thursday night, telling Democrats the time for "obstructionism" is over.

"Progressive indexing will make Social Security a better deal for all Americans, and it is now time for Democrats to propose their own strategies if they disagree with President Bush's common sense ideas. It's no longer acceptable for Democrats to play politics with the retirements of American workers by refusing to show up at the negotiating table," Mehlman said.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said President Bush is "showing strong leadership" by tackling a problem that Democrats can use against him.

"Our country is getting older," Hastert said. "And the reality is, in a pay-as-you-go system like Social Security, we just don't have enough people in the workforce to sustain the current benefit structure."

Hastert said he's committed to working with President Bush and the Senate to make Social Security a "financially sound program" for future generations.

"It amazes me that Leader Pelosi and the Democrats continue to criticize the President's proposals when they've offered no plan or ideas of their own.

"Just yesterday, Hastert noted, Pelosi refused to let members of her party attend a bipartisan meeting with Republicans and the AARP to discuss reforming Social Security.

"The last time I checked, partisan games and rhetoric won't save Social Security and it won't secure the future for our children and grandchildren," Hastert said.

Copyright © 1998-2005 CNSNews.com - Cybercast News Service

Saint Hillary and Reverend Dean? Don't Believe It!

By Christopher G. Adamo (GOPUSA) February 17, 2005

Howard Dean, the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and Senator Hillary Clinton (D.-NY) may jointly hold the dubious distinction of being the only major public figures with less credibility than Mahmoud Abbas.

Abbas, the recently elected successor to the late Yassir Arafat, alternately advocates peace and brotherhood with Israel, along with its total annihilation, depending on the particular audience he happens to be addressing. Likewise, both Dean and Clinton are on record as being not only the sworn enemies of conservatism, but also its truest of champions.

Although they disagree on specific tactics in their respective quests for power, and they undoubtedly hold contrasting views as to who should be running the Democrat Party (and ultimately, the country), they are nevertheless inseparably bonded by a devotion to the philosophies of liberalism. It is a mistake to believe the commonly proffered notion that their relationship is purely adversarial.

Furthermore, each has attempted a major "makeover" during recent months, and each expects to benefit from the eager assistance of the mainstream media, where their inconsistencies will no doubt continue to be hidden from public scrutiny. Such jaded coverage would only be consistent with past media behavior.

Consider that, during the eight years of Bill Clinton's presidency, ABC heavy Ted Koppel could only muster the moral indignation to deride anyone as "an accomplished liar," when his target was Lt. Colonel Oliver North. Dan Rather, that bastion of objectivity, attempted a more imaginative cover for the Clintons, on one occasion asserting that an individual could at once be a prolific liar and still be "honest." Go figure.

So now Dean and Clinton are back in posturing mode, attempting to find common ground with the conservative and religious segment of American society, or at least a sufficient share of it to enable them to win elections.

Dean, it should be remembered, demonstrated the extent of his "faith" during last year's presidential race. Unwilling to become bogged down by such nuanced trivialities as the mass slaughter of the unborn or the time-honored characterization of marriage, he was courageously immovable when facing that morally defining issue of bicycle paths, and the heresy of his church's opposition to them.

Dean also voiced his "respect" for Jesus Christ, when attempting to court the votes of southern Christians. But this ploy met with no more success than his phony embrace of the Confederate flag. Perhaps his next foray into the South should include the circular outline of a can of chewing tobacco, prominently "faded" into the back pocket of his blue jeans.

Likewise Hillary's recent embrace of pro-family and pro-life thinking constitutes a fundamental change from those anti-Christian causes that she passionately advocated throughout her tenure as First Lady. And despite her apparent prophetic insight when playing the cattle futures, anyone who believes this to be evidence of true spirituality will no doubt also believe she really is a Jewish Yankees fan.

Seizing major policy-making roles during her husband's presidency, Hillary will now, in all likelihood, take partial credit for such traditionally conservative milestones as balancing of the federal budget during the '90s, along with the landmark implementation of welfare reform.

Yet in both cases, the reality is that the Clinton Administration was dragged, kicking and screaming, into compliance with an agenda set forth by the Republican Congress. Bill Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice, only grudgingly signing it as the '96 presidential campaign season heated up.

Ditto for the budget, which was briefly reigned in only as a result of Congressional spending restraints, coupled with an enormously expanding economy.

Undoubtedly, in this age of alternative media and with the up and coming army of "bloggers" nipping at their heels, Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean won't find it quite so easy to escape the contradictions between their recent "centrist" statements and the brazen liberalism that defined their past political activity.

Look for them to regularly complain of "being taken out of context" or, in Hillary's case, to revert to that insipid "I don't recall" excuse used so profusely throughout the innumerable scandals that mired down the Clinton Presidency.

Thus, Hillary's presidential aspirations and Dean's hopes for the resumption of political dominance by Democrats should be fairly easy to thwart. That is unless Republicans run a "moderate" candidate, in which Republicans will be desperately attempting their own last-minute makeover. And if such is the case, rest assured that the liberal media won't be nearly so supportive or cooperative.

Fact Sheet: The State of the Union

“Over the next several months, on issue after issue, let us do what Americans have always done, and build a better world for our children and grandchildren.” – President George W. Bush, February 2, 2005

In his State of the Union Address, President Bush described the state of our Union as confident and strong - the U.S. economy is growing steadily, more Americans are finding jobs, and our Nation is serving as an active force for good in the world. The President conveyed his gratitude to the American people for the privilege to serve once again, with a renewed commitment to the guiding ideal of liberty for all. He recognized that, over the last four years, Americans have come together to overcome great challenges, and he underscored his faith and confidence in the American people and our Nation's future.

President Bush laid out ambitious goals for the future, behind which all Americans can unite, and urged the Nation to move forward with the work that needs to be done this year:

Growing Our Economy and Renewing Great Institutions
Saving Social Security for America's Future Generations
Protecting America's Families and Promoting Compassion Across the Nation
Making America Safer with Decisive Action to Win the War on Terror and Spread Freedom
Growing Our Economy and Renewing Great Institutions

Over the past four years, we have provided tax relief to every taxpayer, overcome a recession, opened new markets abroad, prosecuted corporate criminals, raised homeownership to the highest level in history, and - in the last year alone -created 2.3 million jobs for Americans. The President believes we must add to those achievements to keep America the economic leader of the world.

To ensure prosperity for future generations, we must reform institutions - retirement plans, the tax code, our health care system, and worker training programs - that were created for the world of yesterday, not tomorrow. We must transform these systems so that all Americans are equipped and prepared to realize the American Dream.

Strengthening Spending Restraint While Meeting Our Nation's Priorities: The President's budget reflects the country's most important priorities of ensuring economic growth and fighting the War on Terror. The President will continue to provide whatever it takes to defend our country and protect our homeland. He will also continue to promote pro-growth economic policies and exercise responsible spending restraint to meet his goal of cutting the budget deficit in half by 2009.

Making Tax Relief Permanent: The tax relief enacted over the past four years, including the tax relief benefiting America's small businesses, is scheduled to expire over the next several years. This tax relief must be made permanent. Raising taxes on families and small businesses will hurt economic growth and job creation.

Strengthening High Schools: The No Child Left Behind Act is bringing important reforms to America's elementary schools by insisting on standards and accountability for results. The early grades are seeing progress across America, but we must improve America's high schools. The President wants high standards to be applied to America's high schools to ensure that every student graduates with the skills needed to succeed in college and a globally competitive workforce. His Fiscal Year 2006 budget will provide $1.5 billion in funding for a new High School Initiative to help states hold high schools accountable for teaching all students and to provide effective and timely intervention for those students who are not learning at grade level. This initiative includes requirements for state assessments in high school to ensure that diplomas are truly meaningful.

Providing Students with Assistance for Quality Higher Education: The current Federal student-aid system does not serve American students well, and is not the best use of taxpayer money. By reforming the student loan program, the President's Fiscal Year 2006 budget will increase the maximum Pell Grant award to $4,150 this year and $4,550 over five years to help more students pay for higher education and prepare for a lifetime of achievement. The President's budget request will increase resources for Pell Grants by more than $15 billion over the next 10 years to provide extra assistance for the Nation's low-income students.

Preparing Americans for Jobs of the 21st Century: America's growing and transitioning economy requires new skills and new technologies, and the President is committed to providing American workers with the skills they need to succeed. President Bush believes we must ensure that every adult, and especially low- and middle-income Americans, can access the training to close the skills gap in America, and he will work with Congress to reform workforce training and increase the number of people served.

Reducing Excessive Regulations: The President wants to streamline regulations and reduce paperwork to alleviate the burdens that unduly handicap America's entrepreneurs and job creators. Since the President took office, his Administration has slowed the growth of burdensome new rules by 75 percent, while still moving forward with crucial safeguards for homeland security, human health, and environmental protection.

Curbing Junk Lawsuits and Reforming Class Action: To help reduce the rising cost of health care while improving quality and safety, President Bush called on Congress to enact legal reform. Class action lawsuits are an important part of the U.S. legal system, but abusive class actions harm injured parties and undermine the American judicial system. Asbestos-related bankruptcies are hurting workers and delaying relief for truly sick claimants.

Making Health Care More Affordable: President Bush believes all Americans should have access to affordable, high-quality health care. Rising health-care costs impose a burden on families and small businesses and put coverage out of the reach of many Americans. Many businesses - particularly small firms - are struggling with these rising costs.

The President has proposed a comprehensive, consumer-driven plan to address the problems of rising health-care costs and uninsurance. His plan includes Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), Association Health Plans (AHPs) for small businesses, civic groups, and community organizations, tax credits for low-income families, medical liability reform, and a goal of electronic health records for most Americans within 10 years.
The President's plan will help reduce the rising cost of health care while improving quality and safety. It will provide new and affordable health coverage options for all Americans - targeted to those who need it most: low-income children and families and employees of small businesses and the self-employed.
Providing Affordable, Environmentally Responsible Energy: The President's comprehensive energy strategy will help America meet the energy needs of a growing economy in environmentally responsible ways. His plan encourages conservation; passage of Clear Skies legislation to cut power-plant pollution; alternative sources of energy, including hydrogen-fuel, clean coal, and ethanol; a modernized electricity grid; and more production here at home, including safe, clean, nuclear energy.

Reforming Immigration to Safeguard the Liberty of America:President Bush called on Congress to work with him to achieve significant immigration reform that protects the homeland by controlling the borders; serves America's economy by matching a willing worker with a willing employer when no American is willing to fill the job; promotes compassion and protects workers from abuse; provides incentives for temporary workers to return to their home countries and families; and rejects amnesty and protects the rights of legal immigrants while not unfairly rewarding those who came here unlawfully or hope to do so.

Reforming the Tax Code: The current tax code is a maze of special-interest loopholes that causes America's taxpayers to spend more than six billion hours every year on paperwork and other headaches. President Bush believes that America's taxpayers deserve - and our future economic prosperity demands - a simpler, fairer, more pro-growth system. Taxes should be applied fairly, and reform should recognize the importance of homeownership and charity in our society. As a first step in reforming the code, the President has created a bipartisan panel to advise the Secretary of the Treasury on options to reform the tax code.

Saving Social Security for America's Future Generations

Fixing the Current Social Security System: The President wants to strengthen Social Security for the 21st century. His fiscally responsible plan calls for reforms that would keep Social Security's promises for today's seniors and those near retirement; solve the financial problems of Social Security once and for all; and give younger workers a chance to save in personal accounts for their own retirement.
By 2018, Social Security will owe more in annual benefits than the revenues it takes in, and when today's young workers begin to retire in 2042, the system will be exhausted and bankrupt. As currently structured, Social Security cannot afford to pay promised benefits to young workers. President Bush has laid out basic principles to guide reform:
We must make Social Security permanently sound;
We must guarantee no change for those 55 years or older (born before 1950);
We must not jeopardize our economic strength by raising payroll taxes;
We must ensure that lower-income Americans get the help they need to have dignity and peace of mind in their retirement;
We must make sure any changes in the system are gradual, so that younger workers have years to prepare and plan for their future; and
We must make Social Security a better deal for younger workers through voluntary personal retirement accounts.
The President laid out his vision for voluntary personal retirement accounts. Under his plan, personal retirement accounts would start gradually. Yearly contribution limits would be raised over time, eventually permitting all workers to set aside 4 percentage points of their payroll taxes in their accounts.
There will be careful guidelines for personal accounts to provide greater security in retirement, including a conservative mix of bonds and stock funds similar to those offered under the Federal employee retirement plan; protection from hidden fees; protection from sudden market swings on the eve of retirement; and a requirement of pay-outs over time to prevent a person from emptying his or her account all at once.
Protecting America's Families and Promoting Compassion Across the Nation

Defending the Dignity of Human Life: The President is committed to medical research that does not violate the dignity of human life or exploit one human life for the benefit of another. President Bush will work with Congress to prohibit the creation of human life for research and other unethical practices.

Helping America's Youth: Statistics show that boys are at greater risk than girls for learning disabilities, dropping out of school, violence, juvenile arrest, and early death caused by violent behavior. Boys often begin to fall behind girls in elementary school, which leads to higher dropout rates and juvenile delinquency, and they often show signs of behavioral problems early in life. As boys grow older, risk behaviors such as alcohol and drug abuse become more prevalent, and gang involvement increases.

The President announced a new outreach effort, to be led by Mrs. Laura Bush, to focus on young Americans, especially young men, to help ensure a successful future. During the next year, the President and Mrs. Bush are committed to highlighting the importance of focusing on at-risk youth, especially boys; educating parents and communities on the importance of promoting positive youth development; and informing parents and communities of strong and successful prevention and intervention programs that work by drawing attention to initiatives from around the country.
The President's focus on young Americans will include support for programs that help youth overcome the specific risk of gang influence and involvement. The President proposed a three-year, $150-million initiative to help youth at risk of gang influence and involvement through grants to faith-based and community organizations. These organizations will provide a positive model for youth - one that respects women and rejects violence.
Extending and Improving the Lives of Those Living with HIV/AIDS: The President continues his commitment to combating HIV/AIDS internationally and domestically. President Bush called for the reauthorization of the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act based on the principles of focusing Federal resources on life-extending care; ensuring flexibility to target resources to address areas of greatest need; and ensuring results.

Ensuring Justice and Fairness for All Americans: An important part of the American character is our system of justice, and the principle that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. President Bush's new proposal will improve state criminal-justice systems through training for defense counsel, prosecutors, and judges to ensure they are adequately trained to handle state capital trials. Congress should fully fund the President's DNA Initiative to solve crime and protect the innocent from wrongful conviction through elimination of existing backlogs of DNA samples, strengthening lab capacity, expanding testing for convicted offenders, and training for law enforcement and attorneys on the use of DNA.

Making America Safer with Decisive Action to Win the War on Terror and Spread Freedom

Since September 11, 2001, President Bush has taken unprecedented actions to protect all Americans, including creating the Department of Homeland Security, focusing the FBI on preventing terrorism, reforming our intelligence agencies, expanding research on biological and chemical defense, and improving border security.

America's Heroes in Uniform: President Bush continues to honor the service of America's men and women in uniform serving at posts across the world. These volunteers make every American proud as they work to secure our Nation. Americans are grateful to the members of the armed forces, their family members and loved ones.

Fighting Terrorism and Promoting Democracy: The Coalition forces are succeeding in their mission to create a secure and peaceful environment in which democracy can thrive. Taking the fight to the enemy - with the essential help of our allies - has made America safer.

Historic Days in Iraq: In cooperation with the Iraqi government and Iraqi security forces, Coalition forces are conducting an effective counter-insurgency campaign, while, at the same time, training more Iraqi recruits and broadening the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces moving toward self-sustainable security. Coalition forces are also working with Iraqi government ministries to protect essential infrastructure such as electrical transmission lines.
On January 30, 2005, the Iraqi people demonstrated their commitment to democracy by holding the first free and fair elections in generations. Now begins the process of organizing the Transitional National Assembly, forming a government, and drafting and ratifying a permanent constitution that will be the basis of a fully democratic Iraq.
Historic Days in Afghanistan: On October 9, 2004, the Afghan people made history by holding their first direct presidential election, with both men and women voting. They also adopted a constitution that protects the rights of all, while honoring their nation's most cherished traditions. The Afghan people have proven to the world that there is a yearning among people everywhere for democracy and freedom.
Working Cooperatively with Nations Around the World: America continues to work tirelessly with our many counterterrorism partners overseas to deny al-Qaida any safe harbor and to disrupt their terrorist plots. The President also continues to strengthen America's defenses in the War on Terror.
Building the Institutions of Peace and Freedom: America's actions will result in the spread of democracy in the broader Middle East - an important step that will provide an alternative to terror and violence. To promote peace in the Middle East, the President believes we must continue to confront those who are still harboring terrorists.

In partnership with nations of the broader Middle East, the President is advancing political, social, and economic reforms in the region.
Already underway are specific initiatives on strengthening civil society and business groups, better targeting democracy assistance, modernizing education and training systems, expanding the private sector to create jobs, and providing microcredit opportunities for entrepreneurs.
President Bush seeks justice and dignity and a viable, independent, and democratic state for the Palestinian people. The President announced that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will travel to Israel and the West Bank to work with our partners to build the institutions of a peaceful, independent, democratic state. President Bush asked Congress for $350 million to support needed Palestinian reforms.

President Bush described the state of our Union as confident and strong and urged all Americans to move forward and complete the important work ahead.

For Immediate Release
February 2, 2005

Fact Sheet: Ensuring Justice and Fairness for All Americans

Presidential Action

An important part of the American character is our system of justice, and we have a solemn obligation to make sure that cases involving the death penalty have been handled in full accordance with all the guarantees of our Constitution. The foundations of America's democracy depend on the assurance of fairness in our legal system.

The President is committed to ensuring justice and fairness in America's legal system by providing full funding for the use of DNA evidence to solve crime and prevent wrongful convictions, and additional training for defense counsel to help ensure people on trial for their lives have competent attorneys at their side. Additional training will also help ensure prosecutors and judges have skills they need to ensure a fair trial.

Background on Presidential Action

American unity is strengthened by our confident belief in a fair and accurate legal system.

DNA technology can be vital in ensuring accuracy and fairness in the criminal justice system. DNA can be used to identify criminals with incredible accuracy when biological evidence exists, and DNA can be used to clear suspects and exonerate persons mistakenly accused or convicted of crimes.
DNA backlogs overwhelm many public crime labs, and these labs need help automating equipment to handle the increasing influx of DNA samples and evidence and to prevent future backlogs. The problems of backlogs and the lack of up-to-date technology can result in significant delays in the administration of justice.
More research is needed to develop faster, less expensive methods for analyzing DNA evidence; and
More training is needed for professionals in the criminal justice system to ensure the optimal use of DNA evidence to solve crimes and assist victims.
Individuals on trial for their lives deserve competent attorneys. In addition to the Federal government, 38 states have death penalty laws. In 2003, 144 offenders received the death sentence in the United States. The integrity of the legal system requires that defendants have competent representation.
The President is committed to ensuring fairness and justice for all Americans in our legal system.

President Bush urged Congress to fully fund his DNA Initiative to solve crime and protect the innocent from wrongful conviction through elimination of existing backlogs of DNA samples, strengthening lab capacity, expanding testing for convicted offenders, training for law enforcement and attorneys on the use of DNA, and using DNA to identify missing persons and bring closure to victims. As part of the President's five-year, $1 billion DNA Initiative, the President's FY 2006 budget supports $236 million in Federal funding. These reforms benefit victims and the accused by identifying the guilty and exonerating the innocent.
President Bush's new proposal will provide additional training for defense counsel, prosecutors, and judges for state capital cases to help ensure they are adequately trained to handle capital trials. The President proposed $50 million over three years, including $20 million in FY 2006, for training private defense counsel and public defenders, state and local prosecutors, and state judges to help ensure the competence and effectiveness of all participants connected with the trial of state capital cases. In addition, once trained, the lawyers who have undergone the training can serve as advisors to other lawyers in particular cases.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050202-13.html

From The Wall Street Journal
By John W. Snow
Op-Ed
January 20, 2005

The late Patrick Moynihan reportedly began the meeting of a commission he chaired … by saying: "Some of us are Republicans and some are Democrats; some are liberals and some are conservatives. We all have our own political views. Before we proceed, can we agree to get the facts first and only after we have the facts bring our political views into play?" It is my hope that all of us engaged in the discussion on Social Security would abide by the Moynihan rule.
The debate on Social Security reform promises to be both passionate and historic. But its appropriate starting place is an honest recognition of the facts. …
The facts are plain and clear -- the Social Security Trustees report has said the system is not financially sustainable and every year we fail to act the problem gets more severe. … Each year we wait to fix the problem will cost an estimated $600 billion … If we maintain the status quo, that shortfall will need to be paid out of general federal-tax revenues, requiring either significant tax increases, benefit cuts or cutting other federal spending. …
Before discussing any possible solutions, we should agree upon the problem. A point on which we can all agree: Social Security is a critically important part of American life. … Furthermore, we can agree that the fundamental problem is basic arithmetic, not ideology. …
In the 1950s, when the program was young, we had 16 workers paying into the system for every one person collecting benefits. That has dropped to only 3.3 workers for every beneficiary today. By the time today's young workers retire, that ratio will dip to 2:1. The indisputable result: The Social Security system simply won't have enough money coming into the program to pay for the benefits that have been promised. …
People who are now retired or near retirement will receive their full benefits, but in order to pay the scheduled benefits for future generations, the government would need to find massive amounts of additional money. …
Let us also agree that delay would be a mistake. The repercussions that denial and delayed action would have on both domestic and global financial markets … are serious … A bipartisan effort in the 109th Congress can achieve the goal of reform this year. … and we believe that the establishment of personal retirement accounts should be part of a comprehensive plan …
By giving younger workers the opportunity to receive higher benefits than the current system can afford to pay, they enhance young workers' retirement security. …
It is clear that a serious debate has already begun, and differences on how to fix Social Security must be worked out through public discourse and bipartisan discussions. … acting today is the responsible thing to do. …

A few of Frist’s conservative allies are interpreting his Jan. 4 comments to mean that Rule 22, which establishes the ground rules for filibusters, is not in effect for the new session of Congress. The uncertainty leaves it unclear whether all filibusters, including filibusters of legislation, could be dispensed with by a mere majority vote or the agreement of all senators present in the chamber — unanimous consent — would be needed to move forward on even the most controversial business.

Other conservatives and those close to Frist have advanced narrower interpretations of Frist’s statements.

During a floor speech, addressing the Democratic filibusters of controversial judicial nominees, Frist said: “Right now, we cannot be certain judicial filibusters will cease, so I reserve the right to propose changes to Senate Rule 22 and do not acquiesce to carrying over all the rules from the last Congress.”

Rule 22, adopted by the Senate in 1917 and later modified, enables senators to limit extended debate, the polite term for filibusters, by a vote of three-fifths of the entire chamber, or 60 senators. The rule is routinely invoked by the majority leader when a senator or a group of senators attempts to stall a vote.

“I think the best reading is all of Rule 22 doesn’t apply,” said Todd Gaziano, the director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. “I know you’ll get many Republicans and Democrats who disagree.”

Gaziano said that Democrats lost their chance to rebut Frist’s refusal to accept the rules of the previous Congress by not objecting to his statement on the floor. He said that Democrats now have a strong incentive to negotiate with Frist on crafting a new filibuster rule that exempts judicial nominees from stalling. Otherwise, Democrats would not have the right to filibuster legislation they oppose, such as Bush’s energy bill, he said.

“By their silence they have acquiesced in a way to Frist’s non-acquiescence,” he said. “I think that every senator wants a legislative filibuster. … I think both sides should come together to craft an acceptable legislative filibuster.”

A more narrow interpretation of Frist’s statement is that he declined to acquiesce on the section of Rule 22 that governs ending debate on an amendment to the rules. In the last Congress, most Senate experts interpreted Rule 22 to require a vote of two-thirds of the Senate to end debate on a proposed rules change. By declining to accept that reading, Frist could make a rules change with a simple majority vote. That tactic is known as the “nuclear option” because it would likely melt relations between Republicans and Democrats.

This interpretation is seemingly supported by Frist’s statement in his Jan. 4 remarks that “some, I know, have suggested that the filibusters of the last Congress are reason enough to offer a procedural change today, right here and right now, but at this moment I do not choose that path.”

Senior Democratic Senate aides, however, dismiss this interpretation as absurd. One aide said Frist’s statement is “definitely meaningless as far as a parliamentary standpoint.”

The Democratic aide argued that the Senate, unlike the House, is a continuing body and that the rules of the previous session carry over unless “action is taken otherwise.” The aide said that two-thirds of the Senate would need to vote to end a filibuster on a proposed rules change and that Republicans could be sure to expect a filibuster from Democrats if they attempted to change the rules to bar extended debate on judicial nominees,

Frist’s office has allowed the controversy to grow by not clarifying the floor comments, letting them stand on their own.

In the last Congress, Democrats used filibusters to prevent floor votes on 10 of President Bush’s judicial nominees. Bush has resubmitted most his blocked nominees.

Manuel Miranda, who served as Frist’s top aide in charge of strategy on Bush’s judicial nominees, agreed with Gaziano’s interpretation.

“In my opinion, Rule 22 has not been acquiesced to and is not in effect,” Miranda said. “Frist specifically reserves on Rule 22, and we do not know what he is challenging or proposing until he further objects or does not. So in theory he has challenged all of Rule 22, but in context he clearly is objecting to its use regarding judicial nominations.”

But Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel to the American Center for Law in Justice, said that he believed that Rule 22, also known as the cloture rule, remained in effect.

However, most conservatives agree that Frist will likely settle the controversy next month.

They point to Frist’s statement in his Jan. 4 remarks: “Next month, we will have the opportunity to restore Senate tradition. I will bring one of the president’s very capable, qualified, and experienced judicial nominees to the floor. … And we must offer the president advice and consent by giving this and future judicial nominees who are brought to the floor up-or-down votes.”

Connie Mackey, a lobbyist for the Family Research Council, said, “I think it’s going to be right out of the box.”

THE ORIGIN OF LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES

The division of the human family into its two distinct branches occurred some 10,000 years ago, a few hundred years after the flood, when human beings coexisted as members of small bands of nomadic hunter/gatherers.

In the pivotal event of societal evolution, beer was invented. This epochal innovation was both the foundation of modern civilization and the occasion of the great bifurcation of humanity into its two distinct subgroups: Liberals and Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required a reliable source of grain, and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle or aluminum can had yet been invented, so it was necessary to stick pretty close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days killing animals to barbecue at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of the Conservative movement.

Other men, who were weaker and less skilled at hunting, learned how to live off Conservatives by showing up for the BBQs every night and doing women's work like sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement. Later, some of the Liberals actually became women.

Liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, invention of group therapy, and democratic voting to see how to divide up the beer and meat that the Conservatives provided. Women were not interested in democracy at that time because most of them were still women back then, and the Conservatives fed them.

The largest, most powerful land animal on earth symbolizes Conservatives. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern Liberals like imported beer (they add lime), but most prefer white wine or foreign water in a bottle. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are on Liberal menus. Their women have more testosterone than the men. Liberals like deviant sex and want others to like it too. Their first successful city governments were Sodom and Gomorrah.

Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, college professors, journalists, and group therapists are Liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule in baseball because it wasn't "fair" to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat, and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, soldiers, athletes, and generally anyone who works productively outside government. Conservatives who own companies hire other Conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals do not produce anything. They prefer to "govern" the producers and decide what is to be done with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the Liberals just stayed in Europe when Conservatives were coming to America.

Conservatives have principles, believe in a Creator, and the rule of law. They practice charity and give to the poor, normally through their churches. When in doubt on an issue, they check both the Bible and the Constitution, which they use as a constant reference in a changing world. They believe in the concept of truth.

Liberals do not have principles, except for their dedication to stealing the production of Conservatives and undermining principled references such as the Bible and Constitution. They are never in doubt on an issue because they always do whatever is best for them at the time without regard to others. They have no standard of reference and are never consistent. Liberals do not give to charity. They cultivate the poor like a cat cultivates a field of mice. They use the poor as voters and give them a portion of stolen tax money, which they tax away from Conservatives.

Conservatives believe in self-defense, both at home and abroad. They own guns and use them to discourage Liberals and other common criminals. They provide guns to the armed forces to discourage foreign Liberals and other foreign criminals.

Liberals do not believe in Conservative self-defense. They disarm Conservatives, and then attack them with impunity by Liberal armies with guns. King George III, Stalin and Pol Pot were all Liberals who abandoned the rule of Law, had no principles except their own self-indulgence, and attempted to tax and govern Conservatives. Liberals believe in BIG government. They think the United Nations is the ultimate answer because it's the ultimate big government.

Conservatives believe in the rule of law and when sitting on juries, convict common criminals and acquit fellow Conservatives who have been charged by Liberals. When serving in the armed forces, they shoot Liberals from other countries who want to govern our country. Conservatives know the difference between a common-sense law and a bone-headed statute passed by some Liberal from Massachusetts. When sitting on juries, they do not enforce bone-headed statutes, and don't explain their reasons.

Liberals only believe in whatever laws appeal to them at the moment, such as the privilege of making a living by taxing Conservatives. When sitting on juries, Liberals convict producers and acquit Liberals and other common criminals. Liberal judges do not produce anything except chaos, and are paid by fellow Liberals with confiscated tax money. They consider it illegal to reference any source of law such as the Bible or Constitution. Like other Liberals, they just make it up as they go and do what is best for them. Judge Roy Bean is their model.

The American cowboy, of course, is your basic, full-bore Conservative. A hundred years ago, an Englishman visiting Texas was attempting to find the owner of a huge cattle ranch. He rode up to one of the ranch hands, and inquired, "Pardon me, but could you perhaps tell me where I might locate your master?" To which the cowboy replied, "That sumbitch ain't been born yet."

So, what'll it be? Steak or tofu? Wine or Beer? Domestic or imported?

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

--Thomas Jefferson

(Article submitted by LeRoy Frazier, Molina, Oregon)

Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:45:13 -0400
Subject: GOP-Sarasota News
From: GOP Sarasota <news@rpos.org>
To: <barbarasteve2@yahoo.com>

---------------------------------
GOP-Sarasota News

Dear Fellow Republicans,

A message from RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman follows:

Hypocrite - noun, one who pretends to be what he is not or to have principles or beliefs that he does not have.

The Democrats' efforts to block President Bush's qualified judicialnominees are not only hypocritical but are examples of partisanpoliticking at its worst.

Republicans in the Senate are working to ensure that all of PresidentBush's judicial nominees receive a fair and final up-or-down vote.Despite Senate history and tradition, Democratsare aggressively trying to prevent qualified judges from receivingwhat's been afforded every judicial nominee for over 200 years.

During the Clinton Administration, Democrats demanded up-or-downmajority votes on judicial nominations, but, now that they are in theminority, they have become the partyof obstructionism and double standards.

The Constitution guarantees an up or down vote, but the Democrats don'twant to perform their duty. You canmake a difference! Call Senator Bill Nelson at 202-224-5274 andtell them to do their job - give these
judges an up or down vote.

On July 25, 2003, President Bush made history by nominating JaniceRogers Brown to the federal bench. Brown is the first African Americanelected to the
California Supreme Court and was reelected by Californiavoters with 76% of the vote.

The daughter of Alabama sharecroppers who grew up in segregated schoolsin the midst of Jim Crow policies in the South, Brown is a singlemother who worked her way through college and law school.

Despite her sterling personal and legal credentials, during the 108thCongress, Senate Democrats used a hypocritical double standard to blockher nomination. Judge Brown is not alone. Senate Democrats
obstructedan up-or-down vote on 9 other well-qualified judges. Some of thesejudges have been waiting for a vote for four years.

It seems Democrats have changed their tune on giving all judicialnominees a fair up-or-down vote. They now claim the filibuster is asacred tool of the Senate. But in 1995, Democrats, including nine whostill serve,
voted to rid the Senate of this tool.

That's right, nine current Democratic Senators voted to get rid of thefilibuster. Now that it suits their needs, they praise it. What's worsethan this hypocrisy is these same Senators now lead the obstruction andthreaten to shut down the Senate. Their claims of loyalty to, andreverence for, Senate traditions are just another sham designed to hidetheir hypocrisy.

To learn more about how the Party ofNine has become the obstructionist party of no, click here! See howthese members used to demand fair up-or-down votes on judicialnominees, but now want to block nominees and hold the Senate hostage.

Call Senator Bill Nelson today andtell them you're tired of the hypocrisy and double standards. Call andtell them these judges deserve and up-or-down vote.

Sincerely,

Ken Mehlman
Chairman, RNC

People are illogical, unreasonable, and self-centered.

Love them anyway.
If you do good, people will accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives.

Do good anyway.
If you are successful, you win false friends and true enemies.

Succeed anyway.
The good you do today may be forgotten tomorrow.

Do good anyway.
Honesty and frankness can make you vulnerable.

Be honest anyway.
The biggest people with the biggest ideas can be shot down by the smallest people with the smallest ideas.

Think big anyway.
People favour underdogs but follow top dogs.

Fight for the underdogs anyway.
What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight.

Build anyway.
People who need help may attack you if you help them.

Help them anyway.
Give the world the best you have and you may get kicked in the teeth.

Give your best anyway.
Author Unknown

WASHINGTON, Feb. 25, 2005 -- Dan Hartman's "Free Ride" could be the theme song to the Anheuser-Busch Company's latest offer to the military.

This month, the brewery announced that once again it will open the gates to its SeaWorld, Busch Gardens and Sesame Place theme parks for free as a way of saying thanks to service members and their families.

The company's latest promotion, dubbed "Here's to the Heroes," offers a free single-day admission to servicemembers, including Guardsmen and Reservists, and as many as three "direct dependents," according to Fred Jacobs, senior director for communications at Busch Entertainment Corp. The offer runs through Dec. 31.

The company has held four similar free-admission programs since the first Gulf War: Yellow Ribbon Summer, Salute to America's Heroes, Operation Salute, and last year's Operation Homecoming. Jacobs said, "These programs were conceived to acknowledge the men and women who serve our country and preserve freedom and security for every American." "We benefit only from the sense of satisfaction that our employees across the country get from saying, "Thank you" to our soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen and Coast Guardsmen." Jacobs said the company decided on the name "Here's to the Heroes" because, "That is exactly how we view those Americans who have chosen to serve in the armed forces."

Eligible service members can register for free admission online at http://www.herosalute.com/ or in the entrance plaza of participating parks, Jacobs said. A Department of Defense photo ID must be presented at the gate before entrance, he added. Military family members also can take advantage of the offer without their military sponsor; however, an adult must accompany minor children.

Jacobs said the company estimates that more than 1 million service members and their families will visit its parks during the offer, and that nearly 100,000 people have registered already. The Busch Gardens theme park in Williamsburg, Va.; SeaWorld in San Antonio; and Sesame Place in Langhorne, Pa.; are seasonal operations that open in the spring. The company's SeaWorld Orlando and Busch Gardens Tampa Bay, both in Florida, and SeaWorld San Diego, are open year-round.

The company has received "thousands of e-mails, phone calls and letters thanking us for recognizing the service and sacrifice of our armed forces," Jacobs said. "I have had the privilege of responding to many of those notes, and I can tell you from personal experience how gratifying it is," he added.

Anheuser-Busch has a long tradition of supporting the military. In 1921, Lilly Busch, the widow of company founder Adolphus Busch, opened the Busch family garden to the public, donating admission fees to disabled veterans. And over the years the company has supported veterans memorials in Washington, such as the Korean War Veterans Memorial and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. The company has also provided scholarship funds for United Service Organizations members and Desert Storm survivors. In 2003, the company created the Intrepid/Anheuser-Busch Fallen Heroes Fund, donating $1 million in scholarships for spouses and children of service members and coalition personnel killed during the war in Iraq.

(Submitted by Carol Miles, RCOGL Recording Secretary)

NewsMax broke the story on the Web of Rush Limbaugh's plan to travel to Afghanistan with Mary Matalin.

Rush told NewsMax on Friday that seeing the troops is his "main reason for going."

But another important reason may be to highlight to the American public just what a success Afghanistan has been.

Rush has complained that the "mainstream" media have ignored what has taken place in Afghanistan.

We quote Rush from the January 2005 "Limbaugh Letter" -- Rush's must-read monthly newsletter:

"Have you ever noticed how the left -- including the partisan press -- simply does not mention Afghanistan. That is because is a remarkable success. This is the same country the New York Times labeled a 'quagmire' three weeks after we went to war on the Taliban Oct. 7, 2001. Three years later, after this infant democratic nation adopted its constitution, [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai said, 'I pray to God the Almighty that this constitution will lead to building a civil society and achievement of economic, political and cultural prosperity for all and ensure peace, equity and brotherhood within the Afghan nation.' This was reported not by the New York Times, or by any American journalist, but by Xinhuanet, the China news service.

"Now between 3.5 million and 4 million Afghan refugees have returned to their country, its economy is growing, and Afghanistan is taking its place among the community of nations. ... But you will not hear Ted Kennedy or John Kerry breathe a word this. The Democrats, the left in this country, cannot possibly admit progress in the spread of democracy. They cannot do so because lately such progress has come about over their ferocious objections."

Amen to that.

Feb. 13, 2005
Insider Report from NewsMax.com

Democrats' Civil War: Clintons vs. Kennedy

The apparent selection of Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic Party indicates the party does not want to learn from its ways. That's good news for Republicans.
The Dean ascension also indicates that when it comes to grassroots Democrats, it's the liberalism of Dean, Kerry and Ted Kennedy that still holds sway among party cadres.
For some time, NewsMax has reported that Hillary Clinton has long had her guns set on Dean. During the bitter primary campaign last year, we noted that a source close to Dean's mother blamed Hillary and Bill for all of her son's campaign woes.
Now it is no longer an open secret that Hillary dislikes Dean.
But it is clear that a larger civil war has long been under way in the Democratic Party that ironically has pitted Hillary and Bill as the "moderates" against Dean and his faction -- which is still controlled by the Kennedy-Kerry circle.
Kennedy's recent bellicose speech to the National Press Club spit in the face of moderation and said the party should stick to its core positions: pacifism, higher taxes, more abortion rights, more gay rights, etc.
The reasoning for this positioning is that the Kennedy faction does not believe the Democrats have lost elections because of their liberal views.
They believe that the 2004 election was lost solely on national security and the "war on terror."
An associate of Kennedy recently told NewsMax the view is simple: "Stand firm, and the Iraq war will turn into such a disaster, the Democrats will win big in 2006." The source added, "The Democrats won't have to do a thing but remain opposed to the war."
The war and growing body count will feed angst, the source said, among the right wing, who will soon demand an end to the war.
Perhaps so. But the recent relatively calm elections in Iraq suggest the insurgency may be abating rather than increasing.

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- In his first State of the Union address of his second term, President Bush laid out a bold agenda which, as expected, contained an equal mix of domestic and foreign policy initiatives, and which focused heavily on reforming Social Security and promoting freedom throughout the world.

In his opening remarks (read full text), the president pointed out that since his first inauguration, the franchise of free and fair elections has been extended to the people of Afghanistan, the Palestinian territories, Ukraine, and a free and sovereign Iraq. He pledged to continue to spread freedom abroad with policies that offer a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideologies that breed terrorism.

He declared, "In the long term, the peace we seek will only be achieved by eliminating the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder. ... The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom."

Bush spent a good portion of his address talking about the commitment to the Iraqi people to help provide security and reiterated that American forces would remain in the fledgling democracy until Iraq was capable of defending itself. He pointed out that a strong coalition continues to assist both Afghanistan and Iraq as they develop into peaceful and democratic nations.

On the war on terror, the President said, "In the next four years, my administration will continue to build the coalitions that will defeat the dangers of our time."

Bush noted that on Thursday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would depart for Israel and the West Bank for meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Sharon and Palestinian President Abbas. Bush will ask Congress for $350 million to support Palestinian political, economic, and security reforms.

The president said, "The goal of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace is within reach -- and America will help them achieve that goal."

Bush hopes that the freedom that is taking hold in the Middle East would "inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran." He gently urged other countries in the region to continue on the path of greater liberty for their people.

One of two emotional moments came when Bush introduced Safia Taleb al-Suhail, an Iraqi woman who had voted in Baghdad last Sunday.

He quoted her _expression of gratitude for America's liberation of Iraq, saying, "'We were occupied for 35 years by Saddam Hussein. That was the real occupation. ... Thank you to the American people who paid the cost ... but most of all to the soldiers.'"

Safia's father was assassinated by Saddam's intelligence service 11 years ago. She rose from her seat beside First Lady Laura Bush to give the sign of a raised finger, evidence that she cast a ballot for the first time. Many Republican lawmakers raised purple-inked fingers to show solidarity with her and her countrymen.

Bush refused Democrats' demand that he establish a timetable for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. He said that doing so would "embolden the terrorists and make them believe they can wait us out." He reiterated that when the mission is complete, 'our men and women serving in Iraq will return home with the honor they have earned."

The president paid tribute to the soldiers who are on the front line in the war on terror. To those who have been injured, he promised assistance, to those who have died in the struggle he pledged that America would always remember and honor.

One of those so honored was Marine Corps Sergeant Byron Norwood of Pflugerville, Texas, who was killed during the assault on Fallujah. He was represented at the speech by his parents, who sat with Mrs. Bush. Another emotional scene came when Byron's mother embraced Safia Taleb al-Suhail.

The domestic part of the speech was dominated by the president's plan for reforming Social Security. He renewed his call for a bipartisan plan for salvaging a system that cannot sustain itself in the future, but Democrats loudly booed when Bush said that the current retirement program was headed toward bankruptcy.

Bush spoke directly to the more than 45 million Americans already receiving Social Security benefits and millions more who are nearing retirement, saying that for them the system is strong and fiscally sound.

He said, "I have a message for every American who is 55 or older: Do not let anyone mislead you. For you, the Social Security system will not change in any way."

The president discussed how the system needed to be updated to reflect America's changing demographics. Longer life spans, increased benefits, and a shifting beneficiary-contributor ratio will result in the program beginning to pay out more than it takes in beginning in 13 years.

Bush pitched his voluntary program, the centerpiece of which is personal retirement accounts where younger workers could put a portion of their payroll taxes into investment accounts that would provide a higher rate of return. He listed other possibilities for reform, but insisted that Congress had a duty to take up the issue now instead of passing it to future generations.

The president announced that the budget he would submit to Congress next week would hold the growth of discretionary spending below inflation, make tax relief permanent, and stay on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009. It would also substantially reduce or eliminate more than 150 government programs that are not producing results or are duplicative.

Bush also wants to expand the No Child Left Behind Act, provide more job training, and increase the size of Pell Grants. Additional items on the domestic initiatives list include legal reform, an energy program, and increasing the number of community health centers. The president is also looking to reform the federal tax code and immigration policy.

He renewed his support for a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage from the whims of "activist judges." Bush also chastised Senate Democrats for obstruction his judicial nominees.

He said, "As president, I have a constitutional responsibility to nominate men and women who understand the role of courts in our democracy, and are well qualified to serve on the bench -- and I have done so. The Constitution also gives the Senate a responsibility: Every judicial nominee deserves an up-or-down vote."

Relating to the President's Council on Service and Civic Participation

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to modify the mission and functions of the President's Council on Service and Civic Participation (Council) and to extend the Council, it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 13285 of January 29, 2003, is amended as follows:

Section 1. (a) Sections 2(a) and 2(b) of Executive Order 13285 are revised to read as follows: "(a) The mission and functions of the Council shall be to:

(i) promote volunteer service and civic participation in American society;

(ii) encourage the recognition of outstanding volunteer service through the presentation of the President's Volunteer Service Award by Council members and Certifying Organizations, thereby encouraging more such activity;

(iii) promote the efforts and needs of local non-profits and volunteer organizations, including volunteer centers;

(iv) promote greater public access to information about existing volunteer opportunities, including via the Internet;

(v) assist with the promotion of Federally administered volunteer programs and the link that they have to increasing and strengthening community volunteer service; and

(vi) promote increased and sustained private sector sponsorship of and engagement in volunteer service.

(b) In carrying out its mission, the Council shall:

(i) encourage broad participation in the President's Volunteer Service Award program by qualified individuals and groups, especially students in primary schools, secondary schools, and institutions of higher learning;

(ii) exchange information and ideas with interested individuals and organizations on ways to expand and improve volunteer service and civic participation;

(iii) advise the Chief Executive Officer of the CNCS on broad dissemination, especially among schools and youth organizations, of information regarding recommended practices for the promotion of volunteer service and civic participation, and other relevant educational and promotional materials;

(iv) monitor and advise the Chief Executive Officer of the CNCS on the need for the enhancement of materials disseminated pursuant to subsection 2(b)(iii) of this order; and

(v) make recommendations from time to time to the President, through the Director of the USA Freedom Corps, on ways to encourage greater levels of volunteer service and civic participation by individuals, schools, and organizations."

Sec. 2. Section 4(b) of Executive Order 13285 is revised to read as follows: "(b) Unless further extended by the President, this order shall expire on January 29, 2007."

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 27, 2005.

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE IRAQI ELECTION

(January 30, 2005)

THE PRESIDENT: Today the people of Iraq have spoken to the world, and the world is hearing the voice of freedom from the center of the Middle East.

In great numbers, and under great risk, Iraqis have shown their commitment to democracy. By participating in free elections, the Iraqi people have firmly rejected the anti-democratic ideology of the terrorists. They have refused to be intimidated by thugs and assassins. And they have demonstrated the kind of courage that is always the foundation of self-government.

The Iraqi people, themselves, made this election a resounding success. Brave patriots stepped forward as candidates. Many citizens volunteered as poll workers. More than 100,000 Iraqi security force personnel guarded polling places and conducted operations against terrorist groups. One news account told of a voter who had lost a leg in a terror attack last year, and went to the polls today, despite threats of violence. He said, "I would have crawled here if I had to. I don't want terrorists to kill other Iraqis like they tried to kill me. Today I am voting for peace."

Across Iraq today, men and women have taken rightful control of their country's destiny, and they have chosen a future of freedom and peace. In this process, Iraqis have had many friends at their side. The European Union and the United Nations gave important assistance in the election process. The American military and our diplomats, working with our coalition partners, have been skilled and relentless, and their sacrifices have helped to bring Iraqis to this day. The people of the United States have been patient and resolute, even in difficult days.

The commitment to a free Iraq now goes forward. This historic election begins the process of drafting and ratifying a new constitution, which will be the basis of a fully democratic Iraqi government. Terrorists and insurgents will continue to wage their war against democracy, and we will support the Iraqi people in their fight against them. We will continue training Iraqi security forces so this rising democracy can eventually take responsibility for its own security.

There's more distance to travel on the road to democracy. Yet Iraqis are proving they're equal to the challenge. On behalf of the American people, I congratulate the people of Iraq on this great and historic achievement.

By Jeff Gannon
Talon News
January 27, 2005

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- President Bush announced Wednesday that he would take his case for Social Security reform directly to the American people following his State of the Union address on February 2. At a press conference, the president reiterated his intention to save the retirement system from its eventual bankruptcy if changes aren't made in the short term.

In an opening statement, Bush said that in asking the Congress to act, he would be open to a vigorous discussion but that any solution "must confront the problem fully and directly by making the system permanently solvent and providing the option of personal accounts."

He pressed his case to the press corps, pointing out that it is a matter of math that the system will go "into the red" in 13 years, paying out more in benefits that it collects beginning in 2018. Without changes, the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted in 2042.

Despite the political difficulties, Bush adamantly said, "Now is the time to act."

He pointed out that for several decades Social Security was the 'third rail' of American politics. But he also pointed out that his reelection gave him a mandate to deal with the issue since it was a central part of his campaign.

The president acknowledged opposition from Democrats and resistance within his own party, but he pronounced himself ready to lead the Congress and take the case to the American people. He noted that his predecessor, Democrat Bill Clinton, made a similar tour of the United States talking about saving Social Security.

Bush expressed an understanding of the power of those wanting to derail a Social Security agenda by "scaring people." He recognized that it has been a tactic employed by those who believe the status quo is acceptable.

The president was clear about reassuring seniors at or near retirement age that they would see no changes in their benefits. He promised that he would remind today's seniors, "we have a duty to act on behalf of their children and grandchildren."

While he welcomed a broad discussion of options for reform, he flatly ruled out an increase in the payroll tax. He also rejected a rollback of the historic income tax cuts achieved during his first term.

Opponents of reform cite estimates of $1 to $2 trillion in transition costs to include personal savings accounts. The president refused to comment on how those costs would be covered, but indicated that the unfunded liability is over $10 trillion and grows larger with inactivity.

In speaking about personal accounts he stressed they are part of the "ownership society" that he is promoting. People will be able to own and manage their assets and pass earnings to beneficiaries.

The president met with members of the Senate on Tuesday to open discussions and followed that up with a similar conference Wednesday with House members. He pledged to work with Republicans as well as Democrats to find the solution.

Senate Democrats are fiercely opposed to Social Security reform as well as the balance of the Bush agenda. Republicans had been hoping that the obstructionist tactics in the Senate would have been diminished with the ouster in November of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD). But his successor, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), presides over what many see as a smaller and more radicalized caucus.

On Monday, when Reid and other leaders of the Democratic minority laid out their agenda, they painted a bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Comparisons to the Great Depression were a theme of the Kerry campaign, despite significant evidence to the contrary. Last weekend, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) said that the U.S. economy was on the "brink of collapse." But both claim that Social Security is "rock solid."

Talon News asked President Bush how he would deal with those leaders who hold such disparate views from his own. His simple answer indicated an approach that he attributed to President Clinton, but was done most effectively by Ronald Reagan. The 40th president achieved significant legislative victories by appealing directly to the citizenry.

Moreover, the president's strategy will bypass the Washington media that he once accused of "filtering" his message. Bush said that he would travel to four or five states on his tour and will probably grant interviews to regional news organizations as he has in the past.

He also rejected the pessimism of Senate Democrats when he told Talon News, "I think most people are optimistic about the economy next year. It's very important that we continue to put pro-growth policies in place."

Bush continued, "In terms of whether the economy is growing or not, the jobs are increasing, the forecast looks strong. Obviously, there are some things we need to do to make sure that America is a good place to continue to risk capital and invest. That's why I'm urging the Congress to pass legal reform."

He reiterated that his agenda included legal reform, asbestos reform, class-action reform, and medical liability reform. Bush pointed out that the country was still without an energy bill, the last attempt dying in the Senate last year after Democrats filibustered the legislation.

He explained his philosophy in tackling difficult issues, saying, "You know, we're all here to serve the people. And as I say, I'm going to go out and explain why I think it's important for us to address big issues, like Social Security reform; and take my case to the people and let them hear the rationale about why even address big issues, much less the reason why I think, for example, in Social Security there is an issue."

Participants get 100% of Their Personal Retirement Accounts, Both Principal and Interest

Myth: Jonathan Weisman's Washington Post Story today (p A13), includes the headline that "Participants would Forfeit Part of Accounts' Profits," which is flat wrong. The article says workers who opt for personal accounts "would ultimately get to keep only the investment returns that exceed the rate of return that the money would have accrued in the traditional system." This statement, unfortunately, is also flat wrong. Both the headline and this assertion are completely inaccurate. The White House is seeking a correction from the Washington Post.

Reality: Under President Bush's plan, participants would get EVERY SINGLE PENNY OF THEIR RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS -- BOTH the PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST.

Myth: The WP story suggests that President Bush's proposed personal retirement accounts actually benefits the Federal Government more than the account holder, by providing a "claw back." A "claw back" is typically a feature of a plan where the government guarantees a certain combined benefit from the traditional system and the personal account. Under such a plan, the better your account does, the less you get from the government. Therefore, the gains in the accounts are "clawed back."

Reality: The President's plan for personal retirement accounts does not have a "claw back." Under the President's plan, you, not the government, get all the gains in your personal retirement account. The amount you receive from the government is NOT reduced if your personal account does well. The better your account does, the better off you are.

Here are the facts:

President Bush's plan allows you to make a decision to put your money in a different kind of prudent investment, with the potential for receiving higher pay-outs.

For example, a worker who decides against taking a personal account might, in the future, get $15,000 annually in benefits from the traditional system, reformed to be permanently sustainable.

Another young worker could choose to invest in a personal retirement account. In exchange for the right to get the account, he gives up benefits from the traditional system. For example, he might give up one-third of those future government benefits, and be entitled to receive $10,000 annually from the traditional system.

A personal retirement account would belong entirely to the worker. If the account earns a 3% real rate of return - the worker would be right back where he started - at $15,000 of combined benefits per year.

A worker could earn a higher return through his personal account investments. The Social Security Actuary assumes he will invest in a conservative mix of stocks, corporate bonds, and government securities that would result in a 4.6% real rate of return. In this case, the account would be large enough to provide about $7,000 per year of benefits, so he would have a combined future benefit of $17,000. His combined benefit would be $2,000 per year higher than had he not chosen the account.

A worker's traditional benefit would be affected by the amount of investment in a personal account because some of his payroll taxes are flowing into the account, rather than into the traditional Social Security system. His government benefit would not, however, be affected by the investment performance of the personal account, as was suggested in today's Washington Post.

Note that if he puts all of his account into safe government securities, he can expect an average 3% real rate of return (the break-even rate). In addition, the worker will own all the funds in the account. Even if the worker