Charity never did, never can, replace safety net

I've argued most of this before, (you can read some here, here and here), but Mr. Konczal lays out the exhaustive historical case that the U.S. never did manage to take care of its poor through private charity.

Contrary to what Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich, Rand Paul, et al tell us, there never was a golden era in American history when private people and charities provided a safety net, or even anything close to one.

So the burden really is on far-right conservatives who want to tear down the safety net that was built to fix all these historical problems, to explain how they are going to invent something totally novel to American history, and guarantee that it will work when such patchworks or networks of charity have always failed in the past.

There's just no valid study, history or facts to back up their false claim.

The Conservative Myth of a Social Safety Net Built on Charity

By Mike Konczlar

March 24, 2014 | The Atlantic

URL: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/the-conservative-myth-of-a-social-safety-net-built-on-charity/284552/

Gingrich: Neocons may now be non-interventionist

Gee, whaddya know?  Maybe old neocons can learn new tricks!

I wonder though if Newt's change of mind could have anything to do with shifting political winds on the Far Right -- Newt's political provenance and final refuge -- towards libertarian isolationism?   

I do have a bone to pick with Gingrich's aside that, "[W]e really need a discussion on what is an effective policy against radical Islam, since it’s hard to argue that our policies of the last 12 years have [sic] effective."

How does one measure our effectiveness?  No more 9/11s?  Number of Americans killed?  Number of attacks by Islamists, period?  Number of Islamist terrorists killed?  What's the metric?  Whatever it is, I'd argue we've been doing pretty well.  (You can find a data base of 40 years of terror attacks against the U.S. here.)

One could certainly argue that America's means of fighting terrorism -- drone strikes, domestic spying, sanctioned murders, renditions and torture in secret prisons, etc. -- exceed the scale of the threat we face, and do more harm than good.

But more important, we non-interventionist liberals must part ways with the Gingrichs, Pauls and Cruzes when they continue to state, all too casually, that the U.S. is at war with Islam.  We are not even "at war" with radical Islam.  We're not at war with anybody, constitutionally or operationally speaking.  It's possible to argue we're not even fighting al Qaeda anymore.  Needless to say, we must continue to seek out, thwart and kill or arrest those who threaten to attack, or attempt to attack and kill us.  Period.  

Declaring war on a whole religion or a religious sect is stupid and self-defeating.  Four hundred years of Christian Crusades against Muslims followed by 120 years of war between Catholics and Protestants should have taught the West as much.  

Radical Islam, whether home-grown or foreign, is not a threat to America, a priori or sine exceptione.  And terrorism is not an enemy that we can fight a war against.  

We Democrats and liberals must not sanction stupid bumper-sticker generalizations about the world that lead America into trouble.  

UPDATE (08.12.2013): The American Prospect ran an article on August 9 on the same topic, making many of the same points I did: "Neocons vs. Non-Interventionists: Let the Games Begin!"  If the GOP is going to have a debate on foreign policy, I predict it will be quiet and internal.

Newt Gingrich rethinks neoconservative views on U.S. military interventions

By Ralph Z. Hallow

August 4, 2013 | Washington Times

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a leading neoconservative hawk and staunch supporter of Israel, says the U.S. military interventions he has long supported to promote democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere have backfired and need to be re-evaluated.

“I am a neoconservative. But at some point, even if you are a neoconservative, you need to take a deep breath to ask if our strategies in the Middle East have succeeded,” the 2012 Republican presidential hopeful said in an interview.

Mr. Gingrich supported the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, but he said he has increasingly doubted the strategy of attempting to export democracy by force to countries where the religion and culture are not hospitable to Western values.

“It may be that our capacity to export democracy is a lot more limited than we thought,” he said.

Mr. Gingrich at times has expressed doubts about the U.S. capacity for nation-building, but he said he now has formed his own conclusions about their failures in light of the experiences of the past decade.

“My worry about all this is not new,” Mr. Gingrich said. “But my willingness to reach a conclusion is new.”

Mr. Gingrich said it is time for Republicans to heed some of the anti-interventionist ideas offered by the libertarian-minded Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, and Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, tea party favorite and foreign policy skeptic.

“I think it would be healthy to go back and war-game what alternative strategies would have been better, and I like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul because they are talking about this,” Mr. Gingrich said.

Mr. Paul, a longtime critic of neoconservatives on foreign policy, argues that war must be a last resort and never should be used for nation-building.

In a June 24 column in The Washington Times, Mr. Paul wrote that Americans were told for many years that the radical Taliban would return to power quickly unless U.S. forces remained in Afghanistan.

“Well, guess what, after 12 years, trillions of dollars, more than 2,200 Americans killed, and perhaps more than 50,000 dead Afghan civilians and fighters, the Taliban is coming back anyway!” Mr. Paul wrote.

He noted a similar pattern of radical resurgence in Iraq after American forces withdrew.

As far back as December 2003, Mr. Gingrich was questioning the follow-up for the successful U.S. invasion.

“I am very proud of what [Operation Iraqi Freedom commander Gen.] Tommy Franks did — up to the moment of deciding how to transfer power to the Iraqis. Then we go off a cliff,” he told Newsweek magazine. He said the point should have been “not ‘How many enemy do I kill?’, [but] ‘How many allies do I grow?’”

He also noted his past wariness about U.S. military interventions, often telling audiences that “we could directly guarantee democracy in Iraq and not stay a day longer than needed in Korea.” “Korea has been a 63-year engagement,” he added with a laugh.

Mr. Gingrich argued less than two years ago that President Obama should have “quietly tried to push” Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak out of office.

But he now questions whether even U.S. indirect intervention in Egypt to back the overthrow of the longtime Egyptian leader and U.S. ally might have been a mistake. “Here’s a simple question: ‘Is Egypt really better off than going back to Mubarak since it’s hard to argue that the Muslim Brotherhood’s dictatorship is better than Mubarak?’” Mr. Gingrich said.

The former speaker added that U.S. military action in Syria would risk a repeat of interventionist foreign policy mistakes.

“I explicitly would not go into Syria,” he said. “I would look at the whole question of how we think of the governments in other countries,” he said.

He said the result may be another military dictatorship in Egypt and that would be better than rule by the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood.

“It’s hard to argue the chaos in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Lebanon make for a better future,” Mr. Gingrich said.

The fear of many in the United States and Israel is that the Arab Spring is bringing not Western-style democracy but simply replacing secular authoritarians with militantly Islamic religious governments that are hostile to Israel and the U.S., he said.

“I certainly would have allied myself in the 1970s and 1980s with the strategy of intervention and defeating the Soviet Union, but there is definitely a reflection point for conservatives and Republican Party leaders on how we have approached our major national security questions,” Mr. Gingrich said. “I am not alone in asking the question: ‘Are we making progress after the Arab Spring?’”

A top official in the George W. Bush administration, which oversaw the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns and occupations, offered partial agreement with Mr. Gingrich.

“People want to know if Gingrich has really changed his opinion — his point of view — because if he has it will make an impact,” said former Bush political director Matt Schlapp.

“There are plenty of conservatives and Republicans who think that those decisions to go into Afghanistan and Iraq were overly aggressive,” said Mr. Schlapp. “But I believe the vast majority of Republicans are hoping these life-and-death decisions we made in Afghanistan and Iraq were the right decisions to combat terrorism.”

Mr. Gingrich said the U.S. “should begin to focus narrowly on American interests” rather than on attempting to change systems of governance abroad to our liking.

“I think we really need a discussion on what is an effective policy against radical Islam, since it’s hard to argue that our policies of the last 12 years have effective,” he said.

Mr. Gingrich repeated comments he expressed in an interview on Laura Ingraham’s radio show supporting Mr. Paul in his extended contretemps with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a fellow Republican. Mr. Christie sharply criticized what he called the “esoteric, intellectual debates” he said Mr. Paul and his allies were staging in the face of the need for stronger security polices in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.

“I consistently have been on the side of having the courage that Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have, and I think it’s sad to watch the establishment grow hysterical, but, frankly, they’re hysterical because they have no answers,” Mr. Gingrich said on “The Laura Ingraham Show.”

Mr. Gingrich predicted that Mr. Christie’s attack was the “first sign” of more to come from the party’s foreign policy establishment.

“The establishment will grow more and more hysterical the more powerful Rand Paul and Ted Cruz become,” Mr. Gingrich said. “They will gain strength as it’s obvious that they are among the few people willing to raise the right questions.”

Obama owes liberals an explanation -- and an apology

A little grayer, but any wiser after 4 years of giving in to the GOP?

Conservatives dislike Obama for their own silly reasons, most of which relate to his non-traditional background: his mixed race; his peripatetic, multi-cultural, international upbringing (encapsulated in Birtherism); his "inexplicable" entrance into and completion of Columbia University and Harvard Law School; his "angry black" former pastor; his community organizing in Chicago; his proximity to ACORN and Saul Alinsky, etc.  

Indeed, it's quite telling how, even after four years in office, conservatives still primarily fixate on, and object to, Obama's origins, i.e. everything leading up to his term as Senator from Illinois.  It just goes to show that they were never going to accept him, never going to admit him into their country club, no matter what he did.  

Prime example: when Obama rolled out a health care bill after months of consultation with private insurance companies and Big Pharma -- a bill that was originally conceived by the conservative Heritage Foundation, passed into law by Republican Mitt Romney in 2006, and endorsed by Republican Newt Gingrich in 2006 and again 2008 -- because it came from Obama, Republicans called it Socialism and Big Government tyranny.  (And today, the aforementioned three feel not the slightest bit of shame in criticizing it as such!)

Unlike conservatives, we liberal-progressives have real gripes with Obama.  Unlike them, we are entitled to feel baffled and betrayed at Obama's first four years, because we voted for him with hope for change, and then watched as he let himself get beat up, again and again, by the Republican Congress, while he gave up key concessions for nothing, including: 

• the public option in Obamacare; 
• a stimulus bill in excess of $1.2 billion that was not one-third tax cuts; 
• real mortgage modifications with principal reduction for millions of underwater homeowners; 
• letting Bush's irresponsible tax cuts expire; and
• real banking-financial reform to end Too Big To Fail and speculation with taxpayers' guarantee.

This is not to mention Obama's erstwhile support for fast U.S. troops withdrawals from Afghanistan and Iraq, perhaps the most mobilizing issue among Obama's grassroots supporters.  (By the way, during Clint Eastwood's curious, rambling speech at the GOP convention when he called for immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, the conservative crowd erupted in cheers.  Gee, what a difference four years and a Democratic commander-in-chief makes!)

This past weekend, Sam Stein and Ryan Grim posted a very good synopsis of the disappointments of Obama's first term from a progressive's point of view.  It shows how Obama foolishly tried to play an "inside game" with Congressional Republicans who stated publicly that their #1 priority was to defeat him in 2012, and who sabotaged a deal with Obama on the deficit because it would have helped him get re-elected.

His pointless concessions were even more tragic and stupid, considering Obama's record 13 million e-mail addresses and 3 million individual online donors in 2008. Obama had this huge mass of active grassroots support with which he could have bludgeoned obstinate Republicans into submission, but instead Obama forswore his base, laying down his greatest weapon only to be barraged by Republican fusillades.

Maybe he's just too nice a guy.  Certainly he's too weak.  Maybe he had bad advice. (OK, he definitely had bad advice: Summers, Geithner, Emanuel, Axelrod, et al.)  Or maybe he was vain and bought into the hype that he was a "transformational" leader whom Republicans would have no choice but to bargain with, thanks to his irresistible post-partisan reasonableness.  Whatever the reason, it was such a wasted opportunity.

Obama Owes Us An Explanation

By Peter S. Goodman

September 3, 2012 | Huffington Post

URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-s-goodman/barack-obama-economy_b_1847149.html

Taibbi: GOP makes 'circular firing squad' for lack of targets

Here's Taibbi's take-away from the GOP presidential primaries so far, culminating in the Arizona debate:

"This is where the Republican Party is now. They've run out of foreign enemies to point fingers at. They've already maxed out the rhetoric against us orgiastic, anarchy-loving pansexual liberal terrorists. The only possible remaining explanation for their troubles is that their own leaders have failed them. There is a stranger in the house!

"This current race for the presidential nomination has therefore devolved into a kind of Freudian Agatha Christie story, in which the disturbed and highly paranoid voter base by turns tests the orthodoxy of each candidate, trying to figure out which one is the spy, which one is really Barack Obama bin Laden-Marx under the candidate mask!

[...]

"These people have run out of others to blame, run out of bystanders to suspect, run out of decent family people to dismiss as Godless, sex-crazed perverts. They're turning the gun on themselves now. It might be justice, or it might just be sad. Whatever it is, it's remarkable to watch."

Or, as somebody else noted, even Ronald Reagan wouldn't be considered Reaganeque enough by today's hardcore rightwing electorate.

Not that my opinion or Taibbi's matters to Republicans, nevertheless, I've been trying to keep silent about just how crazy the available GOP choices are, so as not to jinx anything. Too bad it looks like Gingrich is out of the running. My next best choice is Rick "Every Sperm is Sacred" Santorum. (Fifty percent of American voters are women, you dumbass.) Of course Romney, the nominee apparent, will be fun to watch squirming as he denies perhaps his best achievement as governor of Massachusetts, "Romneycare."

Nope, nobody can pass the GOP's Primary Purity Test; but it's fascinating to watch them all try. Then it will be even more fun to watch the eventual nominee try and take it all back as he runs to the middle: "No, no, America. That's not what I meant! I'm not that crazy!"

Arizona Debate: Conservative Chickens Come Home to Roost

By Matt Taibbi

February 23, 2012 | Rolling Stone

URL: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/arizona-debate-conservative-chickens-come-home-to-roost-20120223#ixzz1nQ3kFAdK

GOP plans would blow up national debt

Here's how much the tax & spend plans of "fiscally responsible" GOP candidates would grow the U.S. national debt over 10 years, according to non-partisan U.S. Budget Watch:

Gingrich: $7 trillion

Romney: $2.6 trillion

Santorum: $4.5 trillion

Report: Debt will swell under top GOP hopefuls' tax plans

By Lori Montgomery

February 23, 2012 | Washington Post

URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/report-debt-will-swell-under-top-gop-hopefuls-tax-plans/2012/02/22/gIQAzAJvUR_story.html?wpisrc=al_comboNP

Ohio class warfare case study has national implications

FOXNews opinionater turned Ohio Governor John Kasich and his GOP henchmen want to fire Ohio state employees and cut the salaries and benefits of those who remain. Taking Rahm Emanuel's advice never to let a good crisis go to waste, Kasich is using Ohio's projected $8 billion budget deficit as a pretext to fire teachers and cripple unions. Among the provisos which he supports are an end to collective bargaining and binding arbitration for public-sector employees, automatic 1-year continuation of outgoing contracts in the case of a dispute, and making it illegal for them to strike. This despite that fact that strikes in Ohio are extremely rare, and since 2008 binding arbitration has resolved fewer than 2 percent of public labor disputes.

Indeed, an irrefutable study on Ohio's labor force by Rutgers University professor Jeffrey H. Keefe shows that public-service workers are actually underpaid 3.3 percent compared to private-sector workers of similar education and hours worked.

Moreover, according to the 35,000-member Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, state workers have taken five pay cuts in the last nine years and saved Ohio $250 million in its current contract alone.

On February 9 at the first reading of SB5, more than 1,000 firefighters, police, corrections officers and other public workers stormed Ohio's Statehouse in opposition. Why so upset? Because the bill, proposed by GOP State Senator Shannon Jones – which Gov. Kasich said "of course" he supports – would eliminate: (1) collective bargaining for all state workers, including those at universities; (2) binding arbitration for local police officers and firefighters, who also could not strike; (3) health insurance as part of labor negotiations, and require government workers to pay at least 20 percent of the cost; and (4) automatic pay increases and mandatory sick days for teachers from state law.

The Ohio Tea Parties and the rest of the GOP state apparatus naturally support the bill, as they believe that all union members, especially public union members, are lazy and overpaid compared to lean, mean private-sector, non-union workers. And of course state employees and union members tend to vote Democrat precisely because they know Republicans have it in for them -- which makes the GOP hate them even more. Ohio's Tea Partiers are counter-mobilizing as this goes to post.

Yes, state workers' compensation makes up about 1/3 of most states' operating budgets, but in fact recent state budget shortfalls are due to the Great Recession with resulting lower tax receipts and higher demand for state services like Medicaid and unemployment benefits -- not any sudden increas in spending on state salaries. And the more ominous problem of unfunded state retirement benefits -- which Newt Gingrich and other Republicans lately argue calls for national legislation to allow states to declare bankruptcy and erase their liabilities to state workers, bond markets be damned -- has been building up for years. The Wall Street crash just made it worse. State workers are not actuaries, accountants, or elected legislators charged with a fiduciary duty to prudently set aside and invest these funds. Therefore, it is completely unfair to attribute the states' fiscal irresponsibility to everyday state workers. (Source: http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-states-in-crisis)

Republicans will cut public-sector jobs and wages and cripple public unions in the bad times in the name of balanced budgets -- but does anybody seriously think they're going to undo all that when the economy recovers? No, these "emergency" measures will be permanent. Conservative idealogues smell blood and they're going in for the kill. They are patient but ruthless hunters; now is their time to pounce.

This death struggle is being waged in other budget-strapped states, which show a similar picture as described above.

Ohioans, Americans, don't let them win!

Newt and the truth about USPS

Newt Gingrich (see excerpt from his e-newsletter below) is trying to fill our heads with more crap, till they're as bloated and puffy as his is. This time about the U.S. Postal Service, a government service mentioned in Newt's beloved U.S. Constitution.

First, let's remember that the USPS receives zero federal support. That's right. Zero. If you're worried about massive potential federal bailouts, turn your sights back onto the TBTF mega-banks on Wall Street. As usual, the Right is trying to distract you from the real villains.

Second, unlike any other public or private corporation in the U.S., it is mandated by Congress to fully fund its future pension obligations -- $5.5 billion a year for future retirees. The USPS reported a net loss of $8.5 billion for the fiscal year ending Sep. 30, 2010. The USPS's forecast "bankruptcy" is due mainly to its announcement that it cannot make its required $5.5 billion payment for future retiree health benefits due in September 2011. The USPS projects another $1.5 billion in costs it cannot cover in 2011.

Meanwhile, according to an audit conducted by the Postal Service Office of Inspector General, the Postal Service has been overcharged $75 billion to its Civil Service Retirement System pension fund. It already has $35 billion set aside in its retiree pension fund, enough to last decades.

Next, can "free-market" guy Newt really say that 44 cents is the market price to send a letter anywhere in the 50 states that has a mailbox within 2-5 days? What do you think the market price of sending a letter via FedEx, UPS, or DHL is? The answer is, "It depends," but for the USPS, which is mandated by Congress to provide universal delivery service across the USA, including on Saturdays, and at the same time requires Congressional approval to change its prices, the answer is, "It cannot depend." The USPS is allowed to raise the price of first-class stamps in line with inflation, so it could raise the price to 45 cents this year without Congressional approval. Congress declined a 2-cent increase in Fall 2010. Moreover, the USPS estimates that if it was allowed to make adjustable delivery schedules it could save $3.1 billion per year, but it needs Congressional approval to do so.

The USPS also had to request Congress's approval to innovate and expand its services into non-postal areas, but that hasn't been approved yet. In other countries the post office is allowed to process payments like a bank, for example. In Japan, the post office is the country's biggest deposit bank. This would be especially nice in the U.S., where 17 million adults are unbanked and 43 million adults are underbanked because they can't get an FDIC-insured bank account. You wouldn't have to build expensive new branches in poor and underserved areas: the post office is already there.

Gingrich conveniently failed to mention that postal workers are not allowed to strike when labor negotations are at an impasse, as private unions are. That's mandated by Congress.

Next, Gingrich failed to mention that the USPS cut back staff by 12 percent from 2008-2010. Yes, they had to pay out inducements to convince some staff to retire early, but it will realize more savings as time goes on. Labor costs have dropped about 6 percent since the 1970s, while the cost of postage has stayed below the inflation rate and taxpayer help has been totally phased out.

Next, Gingrich failed to mention that as the economy goes, so goes postal volume. Since the USPS is dependent on sales for all its revenue, it's having a revenue crisis. At the same time, yes, its "standby hours" rule has required it to pay employees who would otherwise be busy with normal mail volume: $50 million in 2010, which is still 40 percent less standby pay than in 2009.

Finally, Gingrich failed to mention that there are 4 different unions which represent different types of USPS workers, not one.

The bottom line is that Newt Gingrich is a political hack posing as a "big thinker" who loves nothing more than taking a complicated problem and boiling it down to one thing: a greedy union. People like Gingrich abhor complexity and have no patience for facts. Gingrich really does make you dumber.

----------------------------------------------------

This week, U.S. Postmaster General Patrick Donahue plans to announce that all future stamps sales will be so-called "forever stamps," which can still be used even if postage rates go up.

Anyone who has had to hunt around for 1 or 2 cent stamps to add to their old stamps after an increase may consider this good news.

However, consider the implications of this action. The Post Office is currently experiencing a severe budget deficit and has been unable to gain approval for a postal rate increase. In addition, they are threatening to stop delivering mail on Saturdays as a way to cut costs. As Peter Schiff astutely points out in this interview with The Daily Bell, the Post Office is trying to solve their short term revenue problems at the cost of even bigger problems down the road.

The Post Office will try to use any short term increase in sales from these forever stamps to solve their immediate fiscal problems. But if the Post Office is already having trouble operating at full capacity with current prices, imagine how difficult it will be to do so in five or ten years after inflation has pushed their costs up AND they are selling even fewer stamps because so many people already purchased them in the past.

In fact, this move is setting the stage for a future taxpayer bailout of the Post Office because it virtually guarantees its future bankruptcy.

The low price of stamps is not the reason why the Post Office is facing such huge deficits. The Post Office is seeking a 5.6% increase in the price of stamps despite an inflation rate of just 0.6%.

Instead, the Post Office is facing budget shortfalls because it is unwilling to engage in the necessary reform of its operations necessary in the modern economy.

As I discussed in To Save America, which is now out in an updated paperback version, the Post Office's union work rules require it to pay a large group of employees more than a million dollars a week to do nothing. Instead of being able to lay off redundant workers, the Post Office (and by extension, every American who uses the mail) keeps them on salary through a program called "standby time."

If the Post Office really wants to solve its fiscal challenges, it needs to engage in the difficult work of reforming its operating procedures, including its suffocating and costly union work rules like "standby time."

Congress should block the Post Office from implementing this genuinely dumb move and force it to confront the true cause of its budget woes and implement real reform.

Your friend [No, enemy! - J],
Newt

Another Repug begging for a bullet in Obama's head

Tancredo is a loser and a nobody but still a hero to many in the far-right GOP and Tea Parties because of his anti-immigrant stance.

Now he's getting into the act like other extremist losers Limbaugh and Gingrich, just begging some gun nut to draw the "obvious" conclusion about what needs to be done to neutralize

"The greatest threat to the United States today, the greatest threat to our liberty, the greatest threat to the Constitution of the United States, the greatest threat to our way of life; everything we believe in. The greatest threat to the country that was put together by our founding fathers is the man that's sitting in the White House today."

Think I'm exaggerating? Come on. Every red-blooded American knows what the USA does when faced with a threat: we kick its ass. And Obama is allegedly the greatest threat America has ever faced.

Tancredo: Obama Is A Bigger Threat To The U.S. Than Al Qaeda Or The Soviets

By Ethan Axelrod

July 8, 2010 | Huffington Post

URL: http://huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/08/tom-tancredo-obama-a-bigg_n_640142.html

Insurers, seniors, & Glenn Beck (?!) fighting BaucusCare cuts to 'private Medicare'

Thus concludes the article from conservative Forbes: "Yet the irony here is that ObamaCare opponents [correction: BaucusCare opponents - J] are now casting their lot with a government program [Medicare Advantage] that has been a giveaway of taxpayer money for years. Does that make any sense?"

Yes, it make perfect sense, when you realize that: (1) old people are as selfish as everybody else, and don't mind getting more for less at taxpayer's expense; and (2) every time Congress "reforms" Medicare or health care, the insurance companies somehow end up more profitable than ever thanks to their aggressive, dirty lobbying for subsidies and giveaways.

(The same will happen under BaucusCare with mandates, because private insurers will be guaranteed more customers, and they won't have to compete with a cheaper public option, i.e. "socialism.")

In this case, Medicare Advantage was supposed to be "privatized" Medicare, which means, as it usually does with outsourced government services, that private businesses are released from their usual requirement to cut costs and work efficiently because taxpayers are footing the bill no mater what.

Disgustingly, Humana and other private insurers aren't one bit ashamed to march columns of silver-haired geezers to DC to preserve their $12 billion annual subsidy; meanwhile these welfare queens have got sobbing nutjob Glenn Beck and GOP "thought leader" Newt Gingrich shilling for them to teabagging cognitive-dissonance sufferers.

Strange Bedfellows In the Baucus Brawl
By David Whelan
September 23, 2009 | Forbes
"It sounds like Joe McCarthy," said top-rated radio host Glenn Beck on his talk show this morning.
The provocative commentator was referring to, of all things, a dispute over the Medicare Advantage program. Before this week, Medicare HMOs were a favorite topic of nobody but health policy wonks.
Medicare Advantage, whereby the elderly can opt for an HMO instead of the government-run fee-for-service plan, has attracted one in four Medicare members since its creation in 2003, mostly because the government lavishly subsidizes the private plans. These subsidies, which average 14% more money per member than what's spent on the conventional government plan, allow the Medicare HMOs to waive or reduce the $96 monthly premium that members must pay to enroll in ordinary Medicare while also collecting goodies like "silver sneakers" gym memberships.
The growth of Medicare Advantage has been a windfall for the big managed care plans like Humana, UnitedHealth, and Wellpoint, which now cover a total of 10.5 million old people. From 2003 to 2007, during the Bush-years expansion, the Morgan Stanley HMO stock index rose five-fold, mostly attributed to Medicare.
Yet fiscal watchdogs have always viewed the program with suspicion. It costs about $12 billion a year extra to cover Medicare HMO members. There's an irony here since privatization was supposed to save Medicare and taxpayers money. (See "Unfilled Prescription.")
Medicare Advantage plans have also been accused of bad behavior. They cherry-pick the healthiest members (See "How Cherry Picking Could Hurt Obama's Health Care Plan.")
And they've regularly been accused of deceptive marketing practices to get seniors to sign up. During the Bush years, Medicare HMOs collected generous rate increases across the board, by exploiting a formula that favored rural counties packed with seniors. Medicare Advantage plans went nuts signing these folks up, often without doing the hard work of building a provider network of doctors and hospitals.
To make a long story short, Medicare Advantage has always been a ripe target for cuts that would pay for health reform.
But cutting the plans was never going to be easy politically, a situation akin to shutting a military base or closing a tax loophole.
["Keep the guvmint out of my Medicare" indeed! - J]
When threatened with cuts in the past, the plans had orchestrated massive publicity campaigns that involved nudging--some would say scaring--their members into calling their congressmen to complain. During budget debates in the Senate in 2007, Americas Health Insurance Plans, the HMO lobby, flew in hundreds of elderly Medicare Advantage members to act as citizen lobbyists. In an even more cynical move, the health insurance industry cast Medicare Advantage as a plan designed to serve poor blacks and other minorities. Whatever they did worked because attempts at cutting the plan after Democrats took over both sides of the Hill always failed. The Bush White House last year threatened to veto any Medicare bill that cut the HMO reimbursement rates. (See "An Even Earlier Demise?")
Nevertheless, President Obama, starting during the campaign, has promised to cut Medicare Advantage.
Humana, the most Medicare Advantage-heavy company, with 1.5 million Medicare members and $1.1 billion in annual Medicare-related profits, has been a question mark on Wall Street since Obama's election because of fears that its golden goose may be cooked.
Those industry fears are getting closer to reality. According to the more moderate version of the bill, released last week by Sen. Max Baucus who chairs the Senate Finance committee, Medicare Advantage will face $123 billion in cuts over the next 10 years.
In anticipation, earlier this month Humana sent a letter to its Medicare members, asking them to join a "Partners" program that would help lobby lawmakers to keep funding intact. The letter included the warning that health reform "could mean higher costs and benefit reductions." See an example of the letter here.
Baucus, a target of earlier rounds of Medicare Advantage lobbying, struck back, asking Medicare to tell Humana to cease making such communications with its members. "It is wholly unacceptable for an insurance company to mislead seniors," said Baucus in a statement. Medicare complied. (Read the letter.)
Humana backed down and closed its Partners program. But in a statement, spokesman Jim Turner said that Humana believed it did nothing wrong by sending out the mailer and that: "Medicare Advantage members deserve to know the impact that funding cuts of the magnitude being discussed would have on benefits and premiums."
Which brings us back to Glenn Beck. Since the Baucus-Humana brouhaha transpired earlier in the week, Beck and other ideological opponents of ObamaCare have been rallying around Humana and the Medicare Advantage program. On Beck's show he said that the president and his allies are targeting free speech--and thus the McCarthy reference. Yet the irony here is that free-market ObamaCare opponents are now casting their lot with a government program that has been a giveaway of taxpayer money for years. Does that make any sense?

Gingrich, Bunning break ranks...others to follow?

Gingrinch aint the only Republican jumping ship.  My nutty Senator, Hall of Fame pitcher Jim Bunning, who is as conservative as they come, and who famously said he gets all his info from FOXNews, actually put this statement on his web site:

Bunning Declares Free Market Dead

Washington, DC

Friday, September 19, 2008

 

U.S. Senator Jim Bunning today issued the following statement regarding the Treasury Department's bailout of Wall Street.

 

"Instead of celebrating the Fourth of July next year Americans will be celebrating Bastille Day; the free market for all intents and purposes is dead in America," said Bunning. "The action proposed today by the Treasury Department will take away the free market and institute socialism in America. The American taxpayer has been mislead throughout this economic crisis. The government on all fronts has failed the American people miserably.

 

"My great grandchildren will be saddled with the estimated $1 trillion debt left in the wake of this proposal. We have gotten to this point because nobody has been minding the store. Both Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke should be held accountable for their inaction – and now because of that inaction – the American taxpayer is left with bill.

 

"We must take care of Main Street. Small businesses in Ashland, Bowling Green, and Paducah are hurting because of high taxes, and energy costs. Those small businesses are the economic engines that fuel our economy. I hope in the closing days of this Congress we can pass legislation to help those good people on Main Street rather than helping the power brokers on Wall Street."  [My God, is this desperate ass-covering populist pandering in the midst of a crisis, or has Bunning actually seen the light? -- J]

Gingrich: W's war on terror is 'phony'

Obviously, biased ideologue and stealth GOP 2008 presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has zero credibility, so don't read the following article, don't listen to him.

Seriously though, Newt is a savvy guy – he knows it's in vogue to criticize Bush, and that's what he seems to be doing here.

But in fact Newt believes "World War III" against Islamic extremists "has already begun." Even Bush doesn't go that far with his "War on Terra." Although Newt doesn't elaborate it here, his main criticism of Bush is that W. hasn't gone far enough in confronting militarily Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinians.

So no, any criticism of Bush is not good criticism. Newt criticizes Bush for the wrong reasons and with ulterior motives. I agree with Newt about needing energy independence (not just for security reasons, but for the environment's sake), as do a majority of most Americans, who even support higher gasoline taxes for alternative energy research – poll numbers which Newt surely reads. But Newt has his own very scary agenda here.

Good thing Newt is even less popular among voters than Hillary!....

Gingrich says war on terror 'phony'
Former speaker says energy independence is key
By BOB DEANS
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution | 08/03/07

Washington — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday the Bush administration is waging a "phony war" on terrorism, warning that the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept. 11, 2001.

A more effective approach, said Gingrich, would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil and some of the regimes that petro-dollars support.

"None of you should believe we are winning this war. There is no evidence that we are winning this war," the ex-Georgian told a group of about 300 students attending a conference for collegiate conservatives.

Gingrich, who led the so-called Republican Revolution that won the GOP control of both houses of Congress in 1994 midterm elections, said more must be done to marshal national resources to combat Islamic militants at home and abroad and to prepare the country for future attack. He was unstinting in his criticism of his fellow Republicans, in the White House and on Capitol Hill.

"We were in charge for six years," he said, referring to the period between 2001 and early 2007, when the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. "I don't think you can look and say that was a great success."

Thursday's National Conservative Student Conference was sponsored by the Young America's Foundation, a Herndon, Va.-based group founded in the 1960s as a political counterpoint to the left-leaning activists who coalesced around the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War.

Gingrich retains strong support among conservatives and ranked fifth among possible Republican nominees behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, with the backing of 7 percent of those queried in a ABC News/Washington Post poll taken last week. The poll surveyed 403 Republicans and Republican-leaning adults nationwide and has a 5 percentage-point margin of error.

"I believe we need to find leaders who are prepared to tell the truth ... about the failures of the performance of Republicans ... failed bureaucracies ... about how dangerous the world is," he said when asked what kind of Republican he would back for president.

Gingrich has been promoting a weekly political newsletter he calls "Winning the Future." It's available free to those who leave their e-mail addresses at www.winningthefuture.net, one of several Web sites he is connected with or operating. Gingrich began writing the newsletter in April 2006, and it now goes out to 311,000 readers each week, said Gingrich spokesman Rick Tyler.

Political salon

At another Web site — www.americansolutions.com — Gingrich is running a virtual political salon, with video clips, organizational information and contacts revolving around his conservative vision for the country's future. It asks supporters to join in an Internet "Solutions Day" on Sept. 27, the anniversary of Gingrich's so-called Contract With America, a slate of conservative policies he led through Congress as speaker of the House a decade and a half ago.

"What I'm trying to start is a new dialogue that is evidence-based," Gingrich said Thursday. "It doesn't start from the right wing, it doesn't start from the left wing," he said, but is an effort to get politicians and voters to "look honestly at the evidence of what isn't working and tell us how to change it."

Gingrich was interrupted with applause once, when he called for an end to the biting partisanship critics say has polarized national politics and paralyzed the workings of government.

"We have got to get past this partisan baloney, where I'm not allowed to say anything good about Hillary Clinton because 'I'm not a loyal Republican,' and she's not allowed to say anything good about me, or she's not a 'loyal' Democrat. What a stupid way to run a country."

He reserved his most pointed criticism for the administration's handling of the global campaign against terrorist groups.

"We've been engaged in a phony war," said Gingrich. "The only people who have been taking this seriously are the combat military."

His remarks seemed to reflect, in part, the findings of a National Intelligence Estimate made public last month.

In the estimate, the U.S. intelligence community concluded that six years of U.S. efforts to degrade the al-Qaida terrorist group had left the organization constrained but still potent, having "protected or regenerated" the capability to attack the United States in ways that have left the country "in a heightened threat environment."

"We have to take this seriously," said Gingrich.

"We used to be a serious country. When we got attacked at Pearl Harbor, we took on Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany," he said, referring to World War II.

"We beat all three in less than four years. We're about to enter the seventh year of this phony war against ... [terrorist groups], and we're losing."

Successful approach

Gingrich said he would lay out in a Sept. 10 speech what a successful U.S. approach to this threat would have looked like over the past six years.

"First of all, we have to have a national energy strategy, which basically says to the Saudis, 'We're not going to rely on you,' " he said.

The United States imports about 14 million barrels of oil a day, making up two-thirds of its total consumption.

Gingrich Op-Ed: 'Victory or Death' in Iraq

My critique (from Nov. 27) of Gingrich's op-ed was not entirely serious, but then, his essay was so awfully ridiculous that it didn't merit serious thought, only laughter. Read and enjoy!

Searching for Victory in Iraq: Why the Baker-Hamilton Commission Ought to Visit Mount Vernon

by Newt Gingrich

Posted Nov 27, 2006

The Sunday before Thanksgiving, Callista and I took some friends to Mount Vernon to see the new education center. It is an amazing tribute to George Washington and the creation of America.

We watched a movie about George Washington's crossing the Delaware on Christmas Eve and surprising the Hessians (German mercenaries) on Christmas Day in Trenton. As I watched, I was struck by the amazing difference between the attitude of the Father of our Country and the current attitudes in the city that bears his name.

Gen. Washington had a long and painful summer and autumn of defeat in 1776. His American Army had been defeated across New York -- in Brooklyn, Manhattan and White Plains -- and then driven across New Jersey and forced to flee across the Delaware River into Pennsylvania.

Washington's Night Crossing: 'Victory or Death'

Washington's forces had dwindled until he had only about 4,000 effective soldiers left. There were another 6,000 men present, but they were so sick they were unable to go into battle.

Faced with declining morale, rising desertions, the collapse of political will in the country at large and a sense of despair, Washington decided to gamble everything on a surprise attack. It would require a night crossing of an icy river against a formidable professional opponent.

But the most telling sign of Washington's mood as he embarked on the mission was his choice of a password. His men said "victory or death" to identify themselves.

What if There Had Been a Baker-Hamilton Commission Advising Gen. Washington?

That night crossing, immortalized in paintings of Washington's standing in the boat as Marblehead Fishermen rowed him across the ice-strewn river, led to an amazing victory on Christmas Day. That victory led to a surge in American morale and a doubling in the size of the American forces under Washington within two weeks. And that gave Washington the strength to win a second surprise victory at Princeton.

In two weeks, Washington had gone from defeated, hopeless bungler to victorious American hero and personification of the American Cause.

Imagine there had been a Baker-Hamilton Commission -- the group charged with assessing our options in Iraq -- advising Washington that cold Christmas Eve. What "practical, realistic" advice would they have given him?

Eleven Key Tests for the Baker-Hamilton Report

Will the Baker-Hamilton Commission make a real contribution in helping us win the war against the Fanatic wing of Islam? [What's the name of Baker's commission? That's right: "The Iraq Study Group." It's not the "Fanatic Islam Study Group," or the "Islamofascism Study Group," or the "Let's Go to War With Everybody Just to Feel Safe Group." It's about the war we're physically involved in in Iraq. Gingrich is already trying to blur the lines; he's actively promoting 'mission creep.' Don't be fooled! -- J] Or will it be simply one more establishment effort to hide defeat so the American political system can resume its comfortable insider games without having to solve real problems in the larger world? Here are 11 key things to look for in the commission's report:

1. Does the Commission Have a Vision for Success in the Larger War Against the Dictatorships and Fanatics Who Want to Destroy Us?

If Iraq were only a one-step process, the answer might be to leave. But the reality is that Iraq is a single campaign within a much bigger war and within a power struggle over both the evolution of Islam and the rise of dictatorships seeking nuclear and biological weapons to enable them to destroy America and her allies. [No, no, and no. Iraq is an easily accessible battleground against us for al Qaeda only because we were stupid enough to park ourselves there as sitting ducks. If we leave, we take the bullseyes on our backs with us. -- J] If the Baker-Hamilton Commission does not take this into account, it is a dangerously misleading report.

2. Does the Commission Recognize That the Second Campaign in Iraq Has Been a Failure?

This is the hardest thing for Washington-centric bureaucracies to accept. [Hilarious! Who in the world is he talking about here? Is Bush some kind of big gubument bureaucrat now? Or, could Gingrich possibly be criticizing the Pentagon, whose big gubument budget never, ever gets cut by a good conservative? -- J] There was a very successful 23-day campaign to drive Saddam out of power. It used America's strengths, and it worked. The second campaign has been an abject failure. We and our Iraqi allies do not have control of Iraq. We cannot guarantee security. There is not enough economic activity to keep young males employed. If the Baker-Hamilton Commission cannot bring itself to recognize a defeat as a defeat, then it cannot recommend the scale of change that is needed to develop a potentially successful third campaign.

3. Does the Commission Recognize the Scale of Change We Will Need to Adopt to Be Effective in a World of Enemies Willing to Kill Themselves in Order to Kill Us?

We need fundamental change in our military doctrine, training and structures, our intelligence capabilities and our integration of civilian and military activities. The instruments of American power simply do not work at the speed and detail needed to defeat the kind of enemies we are encountering. The American bureaucracies would rather claim the problem is too hard and leave, because being forced to change this deeply will be very painful and very controversial. Yet we have to learn to win.

Learning to win requires much more than changes in the military. It requires changes in how our intelligence, diplomatic, information and economic institutions work. It requires the development of an integrated approach in which all aspects of American power can be brought to bear to achieve victory. Furthermore, this strategy for victory has to be doubly powerful. For three years, we have failed to build an effective Iraqi government, and we now have a shattered local system with many players using violence in desperate bids to maximize their positions. The plan has to be powerful enough to succeed despite Iraqi weaknesses and not by relying on a clearly uncertain and unstable Iraqi political system. [Care to share the details of your brilliant military reform plan, Newt? -- J]

4. Does the Commission Describe the Consequences of Defeat in Iraq?

What would the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq look like? Frederick Kagan [infamous neocon -- J] of the American Enterprise Institute recently offered this chilling picture:

"The pullback of U.S. forces to their bases will not reduce the sectarian conflict, which their presence did not generate -- it will increase it. Death squads on both sides will become more active. Large-scale ethnic and sectarian cleansing will begin as each side attempts to establish homogeneous enclaves where there are now mixed communities. Atrocities will mount, as they always do in ethnic cleansing operations. Iraqis who have cooperated with the Americans will be targeted by radicals on both sides. Some of them will try to flee with the American units. American troops will watch helplessly as death squads execute women and children. Pictures of this will play constantly on Al Jazeera. Prominent 'collaborators,' with whom our soldiers and leaders worked, will be publicly executed. Crowds of refugees could overwhelm not merely Iraq's neighbors but also the [Forward Operating Bases] themselves. Soldiers will have to hold off fearful, tearful, and dangerous mobs."

[This may be a real possibility, but again, Gingrich (quoting neocon Kagan) is blurring his mission objectives. Is the point of the Iraq occupation to protect Iraqis, or to promote U.S. interests and safety? If it's all about the former, then I would suggest that U.S. troops would save more lives by going to Darfur to stop the ethnic cleansing there. No, I'm not changing the subject. I'm asking, "What are acceptable reasons to deploy U.S. troops?" Neither Bush nor Gingrich chooses to answer that question. They want every excuse in the book available to them to put our troops in harm's way, and the freedom to keep changing excuses. But only if we let 'em! -- J]

5. Does the Commission Understand the Importance of Victory?

Winning is key. We are in a power struggle on a worldwide basis with dictators who want to defeat us (Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea) and with fanatic organizations that want to kill us (al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc) [Gingrich has just described the makings of the biggest, longest, most scatterbrained goddamn war in human history. He is literally insane. Think about what he just wrote. We'd have to start drafting grandparents to fight such a war. It's insane. -- J] In a struggle like this, the goal has to be to win. Anything less than victory is very dangerous, because it allows our enemies to gather more capabilities and prepare for more dangerous campaigns. Time is not on our side. Time is on the side of those seeking nuclear and biological weapons to use against the civilized world.

6. Does the Commission Define What It Means to Win, or Simply Find a Face-Saving Way to Lose?

Winning is very definable. Can we protect our friends [Israel, Israel and, um, Israel -- J] and hurt our enemies [everybody else -- J] ? Are they more afraid of us, or are we more afraid of them? [Are we talking about American foreign policy, or a Don Knotts movie?! -- J] The recent Syrian assassination of a Lebanese Christian leader who was pro-Western is a signal that they are not afraid of us. [Here's a crazy thought: Maybe they weren't thinking about us at all! But that's just too depressing to consider. I mean, hating us is one thing, we're used to that; but ignoring us would be intolerable. -- J] The North Korean decisions to launch seven missiles on our Independence Day and to set off a nuclear weapon were signs they have contempt for our warnings. The statements of Ahmadinejad (the Iranian dictator) [who was democratically elected] and Hugo Chavez (the Venezuelan dictator) [also elected] indicate how confident they are.

Today, the enemy [Remind me who they all are again? Maybe we can catch them all in their secret hideout, like in a James Bond movie, and blow them up all at once, then we wouldn't have to invade and occupy their countries! Whaddya think, Newt? -- J] thinks they are winning, and our elites seem to be seeking face-saving cover behind which to accept defeat. Does the Baker-Hamilton Commission have a proposal for victory or a proposal for accepting defeat gracefully? Will it offer a diplomatic deal allowing us to pretend we are okay while our enemies gather strength? [Wait, now I'm confused. Are we fighting an "enemy" or several "enemies," and how exactly do they all get together and make their decisions? I guess it must really be like S.P.E.C.T.R.E. from the Bond films. Quick, do satellite imaging scans of every remote, scary-looking anthropomorphic volcano, that's where SPECTRE always hides! -- J]

7. Does the Commission Acknowledge That Winning Requires Thinking Regionally and Even Globally?

In Afghanistan, we are engaged in an Afghanistan-Waziristan war in which our enemies retreat into Waziristan in Northwest Pakistan and re-arm, re-equip, retrain and rest before coming back into Afghanistan. We will never win that war by engaging only in Afghanistan. [Finish your thought, Newt! Ooh, stop teasing us! Where else should we engage? Whom else should we kill? What else should we f- up? Just tell us, oh Newt, and we shall obey! ... That's what kills me about these neocons: outside their think tanks and their obscure treatises which nobody reads, they're scared to say what they really want, i.e. kill everybody. -- J] In Iraq, the problems may require much more direct confrontation with Iran and Syria. [Mission creep again, watch out! -- J] In Lebanon, it is impossible to create a stable democratic government and disarm Hezbollah as long as Syria and Iran are deeply involved in killing Lebanese leaders and supplying Hezbollah.

8. Any Proposal to Ask Iran and Syria to Help Is a Sign of Defeat. Does the Commission Suggest This?

Iran and Syria are the wolves in the region. They are the primary trouble makers. You don't invite wolves into the kitchen to help with dinner or you become dinner. The State Department Report on Terrorism in April 2006 said: "Iran and Syria routinely provide unique safe haven, substantial resources and guidance to terrorist organizations." It went on to say: "Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism." It noted that in Iraq the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (an arm of the Iranian dictatorship) "was increasingly involved in supplying lethal assistance to Iraqi militant groups which destabilize Iraq."

How can the Baker Hamilton Commission seriously suggest that two dictatorships described like this are going to be "helpers" in achieving American goals in the Middle East? [Because Iran and Syria have more influence in the region than we do, that's why! Uncomfortable truths kind of stick in your craw, don't they, Newt? -- J]

9. Does the Commission Believe We Can 'Do a Deal' With Iran?

The clear effort by the Iranians to acquire nuclear weapons and Ahmadinejad's assertion that it is easy to imagine a time in the near future when the United States and Israel have both disappeared should be adequate proof that the Iranian dictatorship is the active enemy of America. [Newt, I heard some kid sprayed anti-American graffitti on an overpass in Venezeula. Should we nuke his village, or just torture his parents? ... Sticks and stones, sticks and stones! -- J] Couple that with the fact that the Iranians lied to the International Atomic Energy Agency for 18 years while trying to develop a nuclear weapon. Either this is a dangerous regime we need to fundamentally change, or it is a reasonable regime with which we can deal. [He forgot option C: a potentially dangerous regime that we can contain, together with our allies. India and Pakistan both have nukes, and I'd say are more likely to use them than Iran, but we don't seem to care about 'bygones.' -- J]

Presidential speeches and State Department documents clearly indicate it is a dangerous regime, yet there is a permanent Washington establishment desire to avoid conflict and confrontation by "doing a deal." In the 1930s, that model was called appeasement, not realism, and it led to a disaster. [It's appeasement when you coddle or ignore a regime with expansionist aims. There's zero indication that Iran is planning to invade or conquer anybody. Big difference. -- J] We need a Churchill not a Chamberlain policy for the Middle East.

10. Does the Commission Believe We Are More Clever Than Our Enemies?

The al-Assad family has run Syria since 1971. [Not as long as the Saudi royal family (70+ years consecutive), the Jordanian royal family (50+ years), or Egypt's dictator Mubarak (25 years) -- all of them supposed U.S. allies! -- J] Hafiz Assad arranged for his son Bashar to succeed him. This family and its Alewite supporters represent a small minority of the Syrian people, but they maintain a relentlessly tough internal dictatorship that keeps power in their hands. In some ways, there are parallels between Bashar Assad and Kim Jong Il -- they both maintain family dictatorships with the support of a brutal system of internal controls. After 35 years of defying the United States, there is no reason to believe our diplomats are more clever than their ruthlessly survivor-oriented systems. Negotiating with them is an invitation to be taken to the cleaners and to extend the power, prestige and influence of our mortal enemies in the region.

Recent talk of reaching out to Syria has been met by the assassination of a Lebanese Minister and the intensifying of the Hezbollah blackmail tactics in Lebanon. Weakness from America leads to greater aggression from our enemies. The Baker-Hamilton Commission should focus on how to contain or defeat Syria, not on how to rely on them for help.

11. Does the Commission Recognize the Importance of Working With the Democratic Majorities on a Strategy for Victory?

The Democratic victory in the 2006 election should not be used as an excuse to do the wrong thing. The Democrats are now confronting the responsibility and burden of power. Given the right information about Iran, Syria and Iraq, there is every reason to believe a bipartisan majority can be formed in both the House and Senate for a rational strategy for victory. Opposition to continuing the failed second campaign should not be translated into opposition to an American victory.

The Bush Administration should reach out to moderate Democrats and forge a bipartisan agenda for victory and, by March 2007, pass a bipartisan resolution for victory in Iraq and for stopping Iranian efforts to get nuclear weapons. That will set the basis for appropriations to continue the effort. The passage of a solid bipartisan bill in March would send a signal to the world that Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of defeating terrorism and defending America. That will dramatically lower the morale and confidence of our enemies.

These 11 steps would be a powerful basis on which to move forward in Iraq and in the world. What's more, they reflect the spirit of Gen. Washington when he chose "victory or death" as the motto of the campaign that led to the founding of America despite overwhelming odds.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich

P.S. - I will be in the "Live Free of Die" state of New Hampshire today and tomorrow talking about, among other things, my new book, Rediscovering God in America. At a time when the speech of terrorists and fanatics threatens our very survival, our national elites [who are?... Bill Gates?... -- J] are most concerned with suppressing our religious expression. My book shows how our history and traditions put God at the center of our freedom. It's a powerful set of talking points to countermand the secular left's unending effort to remove God from the public square.