From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #199 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Thursday, November 12 1998 Volume 02 : Number 199 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 09:51:36 -0800 From: boyd@seanet.com Subject: Re: Laugh til you cry, or vice versa. But if you're in danger of diluting your beer with salt water, check out these headlines I just saw at excite.com: Politics News (Nov 9 9:28AM) Clear Path Now For Livingston To Speaker's Job U.S. High Court Denies White House Appeal On Lindsey U.S. High Court Allows Testimony By Clinton's Guards U.S. High Court Allows Religious School Vouchers Gingrich Resignation Backed By Most Americans - Poll Not all bad news. -Boyd Kneeland, Washington state Joe Sylvester wrote: > > <> > > 06:45 PM ET 11/08/98 > > Republicans vie for U.S. House leadership jobs > > > > By Eddie Evans > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Bob Livingston, the top contender to > replace Newt Gingrich as speaker of the House of , said Sunday > that Republicans must compromise with President Clinton and > other Democrats next year -- rather than try to dictate > legislation to them. > > <> > > Livingston said Republicans must acknowledge that voters > effectively rejected much of their conservative agenda in last > Tuesday's election when they cut their House majority by giving > Democrats a net gain of five seats. > ``With a margin of only 6 votes in the coming Congress, I'm > going to have to work with people who don't believe the same > (as) I do,'' Livingston told ABC-TV's ``This Week.'' > House Republicans are to meet Nov. 18 to elect their party > leaders for the new 106th Congress, which convenes in January. > Livingston is the front-runner to replace Gingrich, who last > Friday, in response to a Republican revolt, announced he would > not seek reelection as speaker, a post that is second in line, > behind the vice presidency, to the presidency. > Sunday TV talk shows took on the appearance of Republican > rallies as candidates for the speakership and other House > leadership posts campaigned for the jobs. > ``When you have slim margins ... you can't do everything > that you want,'' Livingston said. ``Our forefathers wrote a > constitution that gave us the opportunity to settle our > differences by compromise, not by dictate.'' > > < "budget", which included much that wasn't stricktly "budgetary", including > the gutting of the Smith Amendment, which would have made use of the Brady > II instant check as a de facto gun registration scheme at least a little > more difficult? King William I, seems to be able to dictate just fine, and > that when he *should* be the weekest of any lame duck>> > > Livingston reportedly has the backing of more than 100 > Republicans. He would need 112 of the 223 Republicans in the new > House to become speaker. > > <> > > Rep. James Talent of Missouri had considered running for the > job, but on Sunday announced he had decided instead to throw his > support behind Livingston. > House Ways and Committee Chairman Bill Archer, a Texas > Republican, withdrew from consideration as speaker on Saturday. > At this point, Livingston's only challenger as speaker is > Rep. Christopher Cox, 46, a California Republican. Cox insisted > Sunday that the race was wide open, saying 90 members told him > they would support him -- or at least consider supporting him. > ``What is at stake here is not just the future of the House > of Representatives but the future of Congress and the country,'' > Cox told ``Face the Nation'' on CBS. > > <> > > Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, scrambling to keep his leadership > job as head of the House Republican Conference, appealed for > party peace. > ``Most members of the conference believe that with Newt's > decision to leave, it's enough change,'' Boehner said on ABC. > Boehner is being challenged by Rep. J.C. Watts of Oklahoma, the > only black Republican in the House. > > <> > > In another political battle, Rep. Steve Largent of Oklahoma > said he had contacted more than 100 members to get support for > his bid to challenge Texas Rep. Dick Armey for the post of House > Republican leader, the number two position. > ``We have strong commitments from over half of the people we > called,'' Largent maintained. > An ABC poll said 70 percent of Americans favored Gingrich's > stepping down. And 90 percent said the Republicans should find a > speaker who tries harder than Gingrich did to work with > Democrats. > > < shudder to think what horrors will come from working more closely with the > Demcrats (read King William I) than Gingrich did when it really counted. I > can't even write my Congresscritter and urge him not to vote for the > "moderate" (read: more leftist) Livingston, as Ralph (my congresscritter) > is a Democrat>> > > The Second Amendment is the RESET button > of the United States Constitution. > ---Doug McKay" > > Joe Sylvester > Don't Tread On Me ! > > - - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 13:19:30 -0500 (EST) From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Laugh til you cry, or vice versa. > >But if you're in danger of diluting your beer with salt water, check out >these headlines I just saw at excite.com: > >Politics News (Nov 9 9:28AM) > Clear Path Now For Livingston To Speaker's Job > U.S. High Court Denies White House Appeal On Lindsey > U.S. High Court Allows Testimony By Clinton's Guards > U.S. High Court Allows Religious School Vouchers > Gingrich Resignation Backed By Most Americans - Poll > >Not all bad news. -Boyd Kneeland, Washington state > Well, my guess is that it is now time for the Republicans to decide who they are, what they stand for, and what sort of compromises they will and will not put up with. Are the Republicans: o a party of old-line aristocrats and would-be aristocrats? o a party of cultural conservatives who want to dictate what is taught in schools, stop people from having abortions, and generally see a lot more God and a lot less moral decay? o a party of economic conservatives who want a smaller government, with more laissez-faire capitalism and individual freedom to succeed or fail? o a party for status quo, country-club moderates? o a party that is representative of large corporations and business interests? Right now, the R's are a little bit of all five. So, what's it going to be? I think that the revolutionary laissez-faire capitalist faction made an uneasy peace with the social conservatives and has now suffered a major setback. ciao, jcurtis - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 12:15:16 -0600 (CST) From: Paul M Watson Subject: Re: Laugh til you cry, or vice versa. > Republicans vie for U.S. House leadership jobs > > Livingston said Republicans must acknowledge that voters > effectively rejected much of their conservative agenda in last > Tuesday's election when they cut their House majority by giving > Democrats a net gain of five seats. > ``With a margin of only 6 votes in the coming Congress, I'm > going to have to work with people who don't believe the same > (as) I do,'' Livingston told ABC-TV's ``This Week.'' He has a point, the Congress just became more "Liberal", Republicans got a kick for being such whimps. If you are in charge of a bunch of Moderates you might as well sound moderate, he still has to get elected you know. The Rockefeller Liberals under the leadership of Newt blew it. I hope all the Republican leaders get the pink slip even one of my favorite, Dick Armey. At least they will know what happens when you don't win. These guys are the coaches of congress, how many coaches make it 2 years of loosing the games by playing with the same plays, few if any.. These guys can sound like whimps all they want in public, its the bills and how they are written that counts. I like the sound bite Texas Gov. Bush is using "Compassionate Conservatism". So in Texas we reformed welfare, have strong basic testing of all grades in public schools "TAS", and we kill more death row slime than any other state, and have conceal carry laws. If Compassionate Moderate Conservativism wins elections then fine..I can't think of many "Liberal" laws Gov. Bush has pushed in Texas.. Winning is all that matters in politics and war. Regards, Paul Watson - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 12:40:32 -0600 From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: Laugh til you cry, or vice versa. At 09:51 AM 11/9/98 -0800, boyd@seanet.com wrote: >But if you're in danger of diluting your beer with salt water, check out >these headlines I just saw at excite.com: > >Politics News (Nov 9 9:28AM) > Clear Path Now For Livingston To Speaker's Job > U.S. High Court Denies White House Appeal On Lindsey > U.S. High Court Allows Testimony By Clinton's Guards > U.S. High Court Allows Religious School Vouchers > Gingrich Resignation Backed By Most Americans - Poll > >Not all bad news. -Boyd Kneeland, Washington state Looks like the time for a direct second amendment appeal to the Supreme Court is now. IMHO, the Brady II madness should be the vehicle. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 12:46:33 -0600 From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: Laugh til you cry, or vice versa. At 12:15 PM 11/9/98 -0600, Paul M Watson wrote: >Posted to texas-gun-owners by Paul M Watson > >He has a point, the Congress just became more "Liberal", Republicans got a >kick for being such whimps. If you are in charge of a bunch of Moderates But if they got kicked for being wimps, why annouce to the world that you are going to be even more wimpy? Doesn't sound like the way to rally the faithful, but rather the faithless. And given that is the "wining" strategy, it bodes ill for the future. For example, how is "working more closely with the Democrats, going to get the new version of the Smith amendment passed? The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 13:31:50 -0600 (CST) From: Paul M Watson Subject: Re: Laugh til you cry, or vice versa. > But if they got kicked for being wimps, why annouce to the world that you > are going to be even more wimpy? Doesn't sound like the way to rally the > faithful, but rather the faithless. And given that is the "wining" > strategy, it bodes ill for the future. For example, how is "working more > closely with the Democrats, going to get the new version of the Smith > amendment passed? Because, to beat Clinton at his own game you have to say what ABC will report to the soccer Moms to sound good. Then you support what ever you like in the bills. Clinton is a master at this, what he says never matches what he does. We can say we are working with the Democrats and be nice and never support or pass a thing they support. I doubt thats what the current Republicans are doing but we will see.., If JC Watts is in there we have a chance.. This is not for the faithful its for the current moderates who just got control of Congress. The question is how have these new leaders voted and supported Liberty in the past? anyone know.. - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 14:47:18 -0600 From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: Laugh til you cry, or vice versa. At 01:31 PM 11/9/98 -0600, Paul M Watson wrote: >Posted to texas-gun-owners by Paul M Watson >> strategy, it bodes ill for the future. For example, how is "working more >> closely with the Democrats, going to get the new version of the Smith >> amendment passed? > >Because, to beat Clinton at his own game you have to say what ABC will >report to the soccer Moms to sound good. Then you support what ever you >like in the bills. Clinton is a master at this, what he says never matches >what he does. We can say we are working with the Democrats and be nice and >never support or pass a thing they support. I doubt thats what the current >Republicans are doing but we will see.., Clinton gets away with this because, for the most part, the major media, and the Washington based reporters of the others, *agree* with Clinton's agenda. Remember "its about issues", not perjury, subornation of perjury, and obstruction of justice, not to mention doing the hired help, which would get any CEO, principal, etc fired faster than you can say "agenda". The republicans would never get away with it. There is no way for the Republicans to proceed except by out in the open, strait up the middle, advocacy of their core agenda. They must dare Billy to veto bills and make sure the American people understand who did it, when they don't get a tax cut, or the marriage tax is not repealed, or a particularly odious bit of previous law is not repealed. Sorry to be a such a negative mood, but I call them as I see them. >If JC Watts is in there we have a >chance.. This is not for the faithful its for the current moderates who >just got control of Congress. The question is how have these new leaders >voted and supported Liberty in the past? anyone know.. Did the moderates *really* get control of Congress? I've read that many of the new Democrats were run by the party *because* they were not "moderate" or even leftist, but rather stood with the Republicans on many hot button issues. Of those Republicans ousted, how many were so called "moderates" ? I think what we are seeing is media "spin" that is really over the line into advocacy. Newt, however immoderate his speach might have been at times, was essentially a moderate, a compromiser, as Livingston proclaims himself to be. All I see is more of the same, only worse. Forget about repealing the Ugly Gun Ban or the Instant Registration scheme, we'll be on the defensive trying to prevent registration of currently owned firearms before Clinton's term is up. Billy Boy seems to be intent on regulating private party sales, within a state, by executive fiat. After all, how can they be assured that all sales are being run through the instant registration system, if they don't know who owns the guns now. Of course we all know what follows registration. Can't happen here? It is happening here, now, and all the "moderate" Republicans in the country won't stop it. I don't know if anything can stop it at this point. Perhaps through the courts, since that is really the only branch of "the system" left to "work through", and the record there is only slightly encouraging. Actually at the Supreme Court level, when we can get a hearing, its quite encouraging, but at levels below that, very discouraging. Where is the injunction, or even the suit to obtain one, against the patently illegal implementation of the instant check system? Of course the failure to pass the Smith Amendment bodes ill for such a suit, as it seems the "will of Congress", is to accept the executive branches "interpretation" of phase II of Brady. Does anyone recall understanding 5 years ago that phase II, the instant check, would apply to long guns? I don't, but since terms are not redefined in the phase II language to mean what they meant in the phase I language, BATF, FBI, and of course King William I, have decided that they mean what *they* want them to mean, rather than what they were defined to mean in the phase I language. I hold out little hope for a party who can't make charges of perjury, etc, stick, and won't even inquire into 'treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdomeaners", as part of the impeachment inquiry. BTW, does anyone on the list know about how many people turned out in Dallas and/or Houston for the anti-Brady II rallies. The numbers in Austin, only a couple of hundred or so I think, were extremely disappointing, considering the fair amount of advance publicity the rally got, and especially so considering the high quality of the speakers, including those of local, statewide and national prominence. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 15:22:52 -0600 (CST) From: Paul M Watson Subject: Re: Laugh til you cry, or vice versa. > Did the moderates *really* get control of Congress? I've read that many of > the new Democrats were run by the party *because* they were not "moderate" > or even leftist, but rather stood with the Republicans on many hot button > issues. Of those Republicans ousted, how many were so called "moderates" ? By the fact that we have more Democrats who tend in general to vote with their party yes, moderates got more power, because there are more Democrats to now vote with the 30% Liberal Republicans to block more Conservative or Libertarian bills. I have to agree with the just of what you said but I still have a different view. If we had real Libertarian bills that were supported instead of killed by the whimp Moderate Newt Rockefeller Republicans we could have kicked the Socialist butts. But the Moderates by nature are whimps and never won a war or battle only reduce bad bills to not as bad bills. But, they lost the last 2 elections first with Bob Dole the Liberal dull old insider and now the do nothing scared whimps, thank God they are now gone. The FBI files Clinton stole obviously had enough blackmail ability on the Republicans that he shut them down. We need a clear agenda, less federal government not better run government. Until we get a clear agenda of more freedom from less government, gun owners have no chance because big government is on the rise not freedom. Regards, Paul Watson - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 12:53:24 -0600 From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Marine officer probed for blasting Clinton <> Marine officer probed for blasting Clinton - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- A reserve Marine Corps officer is under investigation for advocating the impeachment of President Clinton in an article in The Washington Times on Monday. Maj. Gen. David Mize, commander of Marine Forces Reserve in New Orleans, has appointed a colonel to conduct a preliminary inquiry into reserve Maj. Daniel J. Rabil. In a Times op-ed column, Maj. Rabil called for the president's removal. He labeled Mr. Clinton a "lying draft dodger" and "moral coward" who has "always had contempt for the American military." Maj. Paula Buckley, Gen. Mize's spokeswoman, said the investigating officer will determine whether Maj. Rabil violated Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The code prohibits officers from making disparaging remarks about certain public officials, including their commander in chief. Maj. Rabil is the second Marine officer to come under investigation for criticizing Mr. Clinton's sexual misconduct. The Marines on Oct. 16 appointed an officer to investigate Maj. Shane Sellers, a 20-year veteran who referred to Mr. Clinton as an "adulterous liar" in a Navy Times article. Under the headline in The Washington Times, "Please Impeach My Commander in Chief," Maj. Rabil questioned whether officers should follow the orders of a president who had an affair with Monica Lewinsky and lied about it. "Should we be asked to follow a morally defective leader with a demonstrated disregard for his troops?" Maj. Rabil wrote. "The answer is no, for implicit in the voluntary oath that all servicemen take is the promise that they will receive honorable civilian leadership. Bill Clinton has violated that covenant. It is therefore Congress' duty to remove him from office." Maj. Rabil also accused Mr. Clinton of being "integrity impaired" and blamed his military social policies for the 1996 suicide of Adm. Jeremy Boorda, the chief of naval operations. "It is immoral to impose such untrustworthy leadership on a fighting force," said Maj. Rabil, who acknowledged his biting criticism could result in losing his commission. Maj. Buckley said that Maj. Rabil can only be punished under the UCMJ if he wrote the article while on a weekend drill, active duty or some other official Marine duty. However, even if Maj. Rabil penned the criticism while a civilian, he can be administratively punished, she said, with something as mild as counseling or as stiff as dismissal from the Corps. Maj. Rabil, who works for a Phoenix marketing firm, could not be reached for comment yesterday. Maj. Buckley said that Gen. Mize became aware of the article after someone faxed the command a copy of Monday's "Early Bird," a Pentagon reproduction of news stories that contained Maj. Rabil's commentary. "I don't know what the exact sequence of events were," she said. "The information was disseminated up to the general and he made the decision he needed to appoint an investigating officer." Mr. Clinton's sexual adventures have stirred intense debate inside the military. Adultery and fraternization -- the kind of behavior Mr. Clinton exhibited with Miss Lewinsky -- are not only frowned upon in the military, they are against the law. Officers and enlisted personnel can be imprisoned or dishonorably discharged for such misconduct. But the Pentagon and White House maintain that the strong opinions expressed by Maj. Sellers -- and now by Maj. Rabil -- are the exception. Lt. Col. Scott Campbell, a Marine spokesman at the Pentagon, said the Corps has an obligation to review such cases. "I can't speculate on how most Marines feel about their civilian leadership, nor why two Marines felt compelled to write publicly about their feelings," Col. Campbell said. "I believe most Marines understand the intent and implications of Article 88, that ours is a system based on civilian authority over the military and that we were sworn to an oath to support and defend the Constitution, underscored by the Uniform Code of Military Justice." Tod Lindberg, the Times editorial page editor who decided to publish the article, said: "I had no trouble reaching the conclusion that somebody with the determination to come forward and speak his mind about President Clinton, despite the known risks to career, certainly deserved to be heard. We expect to have robust debates in The Times on this subject." The House Judiciary Committee opened hearings this week into whether Mr. Clinton should be impeached for lying about his affair with Miss Lewinsky. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:09:53 -0500 (EST) From: Chris Ferris Subject: "Thanks, But No Thanks", Mr. President November 11, 1998 The Honorable William J. Clinton The White House Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear Mr. President: It is my birthday today, Mr. President. That is no big deal. But, far more importantly, today is the hallowed day when our great nation remembers the noble sacrifice of many generations of American veterans who answered freedom's call, who donned military uniforms and who took up arms to defend our Constitution in times of peril. I was a peacetime soldier who served proudly on active duty during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Due to the grace of God, I never had to fire a shot to safeguard our liberty. However, Sir, I do not have enough fingers on both hands to count the number of my family members who served with valor during the War between the States, World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam. Duty, honor and love of Country run deep in my family, Mr. President. We always responded when our Country called us, and two of us, over the years, were returned to our native soil in flag-draped coffins. We remember well their courage, and we will celebrate forever their selfless devotion to the United States of America. Mr. President, you will understand why I have to say, "Thanks, but no thanks", as you skulk over to Arlington National Cemetery later today to open your mouth and let pour forth hollow words which have no meaning, as you attempt in vain to curry favor with a unique constituency, that Cemetery's Caucus of Honor, a special interest group of very special men and women who surely see through your emptiness and who know a dishonorable rogue, an amoral charlatan and an abject coward when they see one. So, "Thanks, but no thanks", Mr. President. I, as only one veteran, would prefer that you remain silent on this day of celebration and that you hide beneath your desk in the Oval Office. There is no need for you to sully the memory of veterans' service and sacrifice with your presence and your yellow-tinged shadow. Allow grateful American citizens of character and living veterans who realize that freedom isn't free to express sincere thanks to the hundreds of thousands of heroic veterans who have made the ultimate sacrifice to solidify the U.S.A.'s status as the land of the free and the home of the brave. Do veterans a favor, Mr. President, and just stay home today. Loathe America's veterans in private, while the rest of us in the U.S.A. honor and thank our veterans with unabashed pride, with wide smiles, with hearty waves, with rousing cheers, with silent prayers and with tears of remembrance. Respectfully, Christopher C. Ferris 186 Coburn Woods Nashua NH 03063-2860 ferriscc@mainstream.net - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:34:39 -0700 From: sabutigo@teleport.com Subject: Re: "Thanks, But No Thanks", Mr. President Thanks, Chris. Blessings to you and your family. I hope you are aware, though, that you have now been added to "the list" of our cowardly Liar-in-Chief. At 10:09 AM 11/11/98 -0500, you wrote: >November 11, 1998 > >The Honorable William J. Clinton >The White House >Washington, D.C. 20500 > >Dear Mr. President: > >It is my birthday today, Mr. President. That is no big deal. But, far more >importantly, today is the hallowed day when our great nation remembers the >noble sacrifice of many generations of American veterans who answered >freedom's call, who donned military uniforms and who took up arms to >defend our Constitution in times of peril. I was a peacetime soldier who >served proudly on active duty during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Due >to the grace of God, I never had to fire a shot to safeguard our liberty. > >However, Sir, I do not have enough fingers on both hands to count the >number of my family members who served with valor during the War between >the States, World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam. Duty, honor and >love of Country run deep in my family, Mr. President. We always responded >when our Country called us, and two of us, over the years, were returned >to our native soil in flag-draped coffins. We remember well their courage, >and we will celebrate forever their selfless devotion to the United States >of America. > >Mr. President, you will understand why I have to say, "Thanks, but no >thanks", as you skulk over to Arlington National Cemetery later today to >open your mouth and let pour forth hollow words which have no meaning, as >you attempt in vain to curry favor with a unique constituency, that >Cemetery's Caucus of Honor, a special interest group of very special men >and women who surely see through your emptiness and who know a >dishonorable rogue, an amoral charlatan and an abject coward when they see >one. > >So, "Thanks, but no thanks", Mr. President. I, as only one veteran, would >prefer that you remain silent on this day of celebration and that you hide >beneath your desk in the Oval Office. There is no need for you to sully >the memory of veterans' service and sacrifice with your presence and your >yellow-tinged shadow. Allow grateful American citizens of character and >living veterans who realize that freedom isn't free to express sincere >thanks to the hundreds of thousands of heroic veterans who have made the >ultimate sacrifice to solidify the U.S.A.'s status as the land of the free >and the home of the brave. Do veterans a favor, Mr. President, and just >stay home today. Loathe America's veterans in private, while the rest of >us in the U.S.A. honor and thank our veterans with unabashed pride, with >wide smiles, with hearty waves, with rousing cheers, with silent prayers >and with tears of remembrance. > >Respectfully, > >Christopher C. Ferris >186 Coburn Woods >Nashua NH 03063-2860 >ferriscc@mainstream.net > > > >- > > S. Just because I have a short attention span doesn't mean - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 22:33:45 -0600 From: linzellr@datastar.net (Robert Linzell) Subject: Term Limits & Republicans - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Excerpted from: Cato Online Update Vol. 3 No. 10 November 9, 1998 http://www.cato.org - - --------------------------- Welcome to the latest issue of the Cato Online Update, your guide to what's new on the Cato Web site. For instructions on how to unsubscribe from the Update, see the end of this message. Under the description of each item you will find a URL address. To access that document, enter the address into your web browser, or visit the main site at http://www.cato.org and browse around. In this issue: - - - Washington vs. Silicon Valley, Annual Cato Institute/Forbes ASAP Conference on Technology and Society - - - The Moral Case for Social Security Privatization - - - Dismal Science Fictions: Network Effects, Microsoft, and Antitrust Speculation - - - Term Limits and the Republican Congress: The Case Strengthens - - - The Government's War on Mergers: The Fatal Conceit of Antitrust Policy - - - Common Cents, Common Dreams - - - A Life of One's Own: Individual Rights and the Welfare State - - - The Case for a Russian Currency Board System - - -------------------------------------------- [snip....] - - -------------------------------------------- October 28, 1998 STUDY OF CONGRESSIONAL VOTING CONFIRMS PUBLIC BELIEF ABOUT NEED FOR TERM LIMITS Longer-serving Republicans are reason for GOP's failure to honor campaign promises "One of the most significant reasons for the GOP's failure to tame the budget is that senior Republicans have not lived up to the party's campaign promises," according to a new Cato Institute study that examined voting behavior of members of Congress on 31 of the most significant budget, tax and regulatory issues since 1995. The findings "suggest that if the public wants Congress to reduce the size and scope of government, term limits may be imperative." In "Term Limits and the Republican Congress: The Case Strengthens," author Aaron Steelman notes that in nearly every one of the 31 votes, "junior Republicans (members who had served 6 years or less in the House and 12 years or less in the Senate) favored fiscal discipline in far greater numbers than did senior Republicans. Indeed, in some cases junior Republicans were more than twice as likely to vote for spending or tax cuts as were senior Republicans." Steelman notes that "many people on the right of the political spectrum who are skeptical about term limits have argued that, with Republicans in control of Congress, term limits are no longer necessary." But, he adds, "all lawmakers - Republicans, Democrats and Independents - are subject to the same pressures." And so it is not surprising that "the federal government, by almost every measure, is bigger today than it was on election day in 1994." Over time, Steelman points out, "lawmakers become more susceptible to the pro-spending arguments they are constantly exposed to and thus become more sympathetic to governmental activism. Typically, this shift in a pro-tax-and-spend direction is more dramatic for Republicans than for Democrats." Thus, "term limits may have a more profound impact on legislative outcomes when the GOP controls Congress." "Term limits are no panacea," the author concludes. "There always will be big spenders in Congress. But if Congress were term limited, there probably would be fewer big spenders -- particularly big-spending Republicans." Briefing Paper no. 41 http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-041es.html - - -------------------------------------------- [snip....] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The Cato Institute welcomes ideas and feedback. Please send us E-mail at cato@cato.org. - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.0 for non-commercial use Comment: Get public key from iQA/AwUBNkplG+0M/FuXc0xJEQJ3ygCfZWlNNktX0kMHL5nroCpkypbF/awAn3Dz fjVeZu6jcsaksE1AHd7b99C+ =1MPE - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 00:41:22 -0600 From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Your tax dollars at work Read it and weep http://www2.whitehouse.gov/WH/New/99Budget/index.html Blantent partismship posturing, with your tax dollars. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 12:30:19 -0600 (CST) From: Paul M Watson Subject: The 3ed way, Clinton Socialism (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 17:27:48 -0800 From: Ken Chafin Subject: CAS: IBD: (O/T) Third Way A Hard Left Turn E D I T O R I A L S Third Way A Hard Left Turn Date: 11/11/98 Buried beneath last week's elections headlines lurks a threat. It will be masked as a fresh approach to policy - a new ''Third Way'' to solve problems. But it's a tired system that's left too many Western economies in shackles. Among its top patrons is President Clinton. Emboldened by Democrats' good showing and a feeling that voters absolved him of his ''private'' failings, he's convinced they want more of his policies. It's a perfect chance for him to revive his campaign for a presidential legacy. His vehicle: the Third Way. The elections may have provided him with an ally. Poor GOP results chased Speaker Newt Gingrich from office, leaving Louisiana Rep. Bob Livingston to take his post. Livingston has pledged to work with Democrats, which might amount to being a partner to Clinton's agenda. While it's being pitched as ''The Big Idea'' by the left, the Third Way is nothing more than warmed-over European socialism. ''They have just found a new language for their old way, the way of high taxes and state control,'' said British Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary John Redwood, a Conservative. It won't work. The welfare states and social democracies of Europe - - -especially Germany, France and Sweden - have shown clear examples of the potholes along the Third Way. In Germany, the cumulative effects of the welfare state have stifled the economy. It's been slumping for nearly six years. More than 4 million citizens - nearly 11% of the labor force - are unemployed. But that's not so bad for them. They get two-thirds of their salaries for 30 months in one of the world's most generous unemployment benefits schemes. After that, they get 57% - forever. Wealth transfers cut deeply. The top income tax rate of 53% begins at only $53,000 in annual earnings. Consumers are savaged by a 15% value- added tax. The corporate income tax rate is an investor-hostile 45%. ''At some point, this uber-Ponzi scheme will grind to a halt,'' writes Deroy Murdock, a fellow at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. France is also famous for its problems. Unemployment is nearly 12%. Protests by students and farmers succeed in extorting more money from the endangered private sector. Government eats up almost 60% of the country's economy. High income and corporate tax rates and a 20.6% value-added tax are crippling enough. Add a business activity tax of 20% and a social contributions tax of up to 45%, and French citizens and businesses are in thrall to Paris' social planners. Sweden, long held up as the model for a successful social democracy, is a similar victim. Tax rates - to pay for the welfare state - were sharply hiked in the '70s. It was an economic bludgeon. Growth slowed by two-thirds. A doubling of the payroll tax at the same time - to 22% from 11% - - -increased labor costs by 60% over three years. Closed plants and massive layoffs sent workers into the streets. ''Even the strongest companies ran losses,'' Nils-Eric Sandberg, an editorial writer at the Daily News in Stockholm and author of ''What Went Wrong in Sweden,'' told IBD. The unemployed were gathered into the rapidly expanding public sector. It became the country's largest employer. The trend was unsustainable. The public sector had to be trimmed. The result: unemployment, once as low as 2% before taxes were increased, ran at 10% in '90. By '97, what had been the third-richest nation in the world in '70 had fallen to 20th. All across Europe, governments have cut health-care benefits, hallmarks of their social democracies. A few years ago Britain, France and Germany had no choice but to limit access to health care because the system of free care was overwhelmed. For all its rhetoric about ''social justice,'' the Third Way offers nothing new. Socialist planning and authoritarian control will certainly temper the ''excesses'' of the free market. They will also leave citizens less free. Thankfully, Americans value their freedom more than do the people in the security-blanket countries of Europe. No matter how the Clintonites reads the results of elections here and abroad, there is no great call here for more government. More than 200 years of experience shows that the American way is the best way. (C) Copyright 1998 Investors Business Daily, Inc. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #199 *************************