Saturday, March 31, 2007

And You Thought Al Gore Was a Hypocrite



"It [global warming] is a very valid issue. I'm wondering if we need to think about other planets and dome cities. Everyone can do their bit. But I don't know if it's not too late already. We have to think about alternative methods of fuel. "

-- Actor John Travolta, 53, owner of five private planes – a customized Boeing 707, three Gulfstream jets and a Lear jet


John Travolta's home in Florida: Jet planes parked in the back and SUVs parked up front.

"Carbon credits" or "carbon offsets" are a hoot. They allow liberal hypocrites like Al Gore and John Travolta not to change their luxurious lifestyles and still claim to be "carbon-neutral." All they have to do is pay a monthly fee to any of a number of companies, including the one Gore owns, Generation Investment Management LLP, to buy "carbon offsets."


Carbon offsets work like the indulgences sold in the later middle ages. According to EcoBusiness Links (http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm ), "[c]arbon offsets enable individuals and businesses to reduce the CO2 emissions they are responsible for by offsetting, reducing or displacing the CO2 in another place, typically where it is more economical to do so."

They can pay as little as $3.56 or as much as $39.48 per metric ton of CO2. All they have to do is calculate their carbon footprint (available from a number of websites. Just google the term), contact the company of their choice depending on the type of offset they desire and write those monthly checks. Their carbon offset provider will take care of the rest for them.

It is really hassle- and guilt-free. As a bonus, they can go on living the way they are living - fuel-guzzling planes and energy inefficient mansions are ok -while safe in the knowledge that their CO2 emissions are being "offset" somewhere else. Hopefully.

Their now guilt-free consciences will allow them to self-righteously preach to others about the importance of public transportation, the need to live under domes or the urgency to move to other planets.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Payola II




Hil to Clear 400G Debt of Iowa Pol Who Backed Her

BY RICHARD SISK in Washington and HELEN KENNEDY in New York DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Wednesday, March 28th 2007, 4:00 AM

Sen. Hillary Clinton has agreed to help former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who endorsed her Monday, pay off his $400,000 campaign debt. Clinton (D-N.Y.) will put the arm on her donor network for Vilsack, who quit the presidential race Feb. 23 citing financial difficulties.



Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said it was a normal gesture to make and called suggestions of any endorsement quid pro quo "ridiculous."
"One thing's got absolutely nothing to do with the other," he said. "They've known each other for years. If she weren't running for President, she'd be doing whatever she can to help retire his debt."


Three weeks ago, Vilsack said his main focus was closing down his campaign debt and that he would not make an endorsement until the end of the year - if then. "I think the chances are good that I'll do that, but I don't know that for certain," he said.


Clinton has already run into problems with the appearance
of buying endorsements.Right after she scored the politically important backing of South Carolina pastor and state Sen. Darrell Jackson, it emerged she had also hired him as a $10,000-a-month consultant. Rival Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) had offered him half that.


It's an old political pitfall. In 2004, Democrat Howard Dean was accused of "buying" the endorsement of Carol Moseley Braun by giving her a $20,000-a-month travel budget.

Enough Said


Edwards Experiences Surge in Support


By MIKE BAKER, Associated Press Writer Wed Mar 28, 5:52 PM ET

RALEIGH, N.C. - Elizabeth Edwards' sobering diagnosis of incurable cancer has triggered an outpouring of support, with a surge of donations to her husband's presidential campaign and affirmation of his candidacy in opinion polls.
The amount of money given to Edwards' campaign via the Internet increased by about 50 percent since the couple announced last week that Elizabeth Edwards' cancer had returned. A CBS News poll released Wednesday found
that by a 2-to-1 margin, voters support Edwards' decision to continue his campaign.

Payola I


Bush Demands Clean War Funding Bill

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special
Correspondent Wed Mar 28, 8:31 PM ET



WASHINGTON - President Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress lurched toward a veto showdown over Iraq on Wednesday, the commander in chief demanding a replenishment of war funding with no strings and Speaker Nancy Pelosi counseling him, "Calm down with the threats."

Bush said imposition of a "specific and random date of withdrawal would be disastrous" for U.S. troops in Iraq and he predicted that lawmakers would take the blame if the money ran short."The clock is ticking for our troops in the field," he said. "If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible."

Bush spoke as the Senate moved toward passage of legislation that would require the beginning of a troop withdrawal within 120 days, and would set a goal of March 31, 2008, for its completion.

The House approved a more sweeping measure last week, including a mandatory withdrawal deadline for nearly all combat troops of Sept. 1, 2008. Both bills would provide more than $90 billion to sustain military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan
.

After passage, the next step would be a House-Senate compromise measure almost certain to include conditions that Bush has said he finds objectionable, and the president's remarks seemed designed to lay the political groundwork for a veto showdown with the new Democratic majority later this spring.

Confidently predicting his veto would be sustained in Congress, he said, "Funding for our forces in Iraq will begin to run out in mid-April. Members of Congress need to stop making political statements, and start providing vital funds for our troops. They need to get that bill to my desk so I can sign it into law."

One key Democrat with longtime ties to the Pentagon, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said Bush was exaggerating, and he estimated the real deadline for a fresh infusion of funds was June 1. Gordon Adams, a former Clinton administration official specializing in defense issues, said the Pentagon has authority to transfer existing funds between accounts. "So into June, while it's painful, it's possible" for the military to maintain operations, he said.

Democratic leaders, determined to force Bush to change course in Iraq, also disputed his contention that Congress would be to blame for any funding difficulties in a war they have vowed to end. "Why doesn't he get real with what's going on with the world?" said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We're not holding up funding in Iraq and he knows that. Why doesn't he deal with the real issues facing the American people?"

Pelosi responded to Bush with a blend of conciliation and challenge. "On this very important matter, I would extend a hand of friendship to the president, just to say to him, 'Calm down with the threats," she said. "There's a new Congress in town. We accept your constitutional role. We want you to accept ours."

Democrats took control of Congress in January after elections framed by voter dissatisfaction over a war that has now claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops and cost more than $350 billion. "This war must end. The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of the war. Let's see how we can work together," added Pelosi, D-Calif. She and Reid also sent Bush a letter during the day that said they "stand ready to work with you, but your threats to veto a bill that has not even been presented to you indicate that you may not be ready to work with us."

Whatever the outcome, the confrontation bore similarities to a veto fight of a dozen years ago. At the time, a new, Republican-controlled Congress promised steep spending cutbacks to balance the budget, and a politically weakened president of the other party refused to go along. A pair of government shutdowns ensued — including one that lasted 21 days — and Republicans bore the brunt of the public's unhappiness. In the end, the new GOP majority surrendered, and Bill Clinton exploited the episode to help rehabilitate his standing with the voters.

Apart from the Iraq provisions, the Senate legislation includes about $20 billion in domestic spending that Bush did not ask for. Republicans readied an attempt to strip out much of it, and Bush listed it as among the bill's objectionable features. "Here's the bottom line: The House and Senate bills have too much pork," he said. He got a laugh at lawmakers' expense when he said $3.5 million was included "for visitors to tour the Capitol and see for themselves how Congress works." The funds are for a new underground Capitol visitor center, over-budget and still incomplete years after its initial target date.


The Surrender to Al-Qaida bill the Democrats passed had to be laden with pork. Bribery is their way of "rewarding" those who vote to cut, run and surrender in Iraq.

Pelosi and Reid are quaking in their boots. If they were serious about the issue, they would have presented a clean bill for an up or down vote.

Truth be told, this bill is about presidential politics. Dems want to campaign for the presidency without Iraq on the background and by taking credit for surrendering to terrorism.








Wednesday, March 21, 2007

1984/2008?

Hllary's Amerika



(03/20/2007) CODEPINK's Desiree Fairooz interrupts Hillary Clinton Fundraiser with the "Why, Why, Hillary Why?" song to the tune of "American Pie" as another CODEPINK protester Jodie Evans gets dragged out by 3-4 secret service officers.



CODEPINK: Women for Peace is a vibrant women-led grassroots peace and social justice movement that strives for positive social change through creative protest, non-violent direct action, and community involvement. Rejecting the Bush administration's fear-based security alerts, CODEPINK is a spirited call to "wage peace."
-- Code Pink: Women for Peace on the site of Global Exchange. Accessed 21 March 2007.



Aren't these people supposed to be on Hillary's side? Has she so alienated the rabid, fringe left in her blind quest for power that they are now resorting to heckling her? Besides, how does one "wage peace?" How would the liberal CODEPINK gals make nice with Osama bin Laden?

By the way, is Hillary standing on a catwalk?


Monday, March 19, 2007

Clueless or Disingenuous?

From tonight's Rochester Post-Bulletin:


Lawmakers discuss education, taxes
3/19/2007 11:08:11 AM
By Jeff Kiger
The Post-Bulletin
Education was the topic on the table, but money and taxes often overshadowed it
during a legislative forum Saturday. Alice Seagren, commissioner of the state Department of Education, spoke at the Rochester Area Chmber of Commerce's
Eggs and Issues breakfast with area legislators. State Reps. Kim Norton, Randy Demmer and Andy Welti and state Sen. Dave Senjem participated. Rep. Tina
Liebling had to leave before the dicussion began, and Sen. Ann Lynch was absent
for family reasons.

"The T-Word," as Senjem called it, came up during discussion of the tax plans announced Friday by House and Senate leaders. Lawmakers have proposed using additional state revenue to offset increased classroom spending and property tax buydowns for homeowners. A new 9 percent tax bracket would apply to married people with incomes of more than $400,000, $226,000 for single filers, after deductions. House analysts estimate the proposal would affect about 50,000 people and generate $433 million over two years.

And how did our area legislators respond to the DFL's confiscatory tax plan?

Not surprinsingly, Republicans are unequivocal in their opposition to the Minnesota DFL's abusive tax increases.






"I have not supported this in the past, and I won't now. I think moderation will prevail."



-- Dave Senjem, (R) Senate District 30
















"Yes, the people with high wages can afford it, ... and they can afford to move to Florida, too."

-- Randy Demmer, (R) House District 29A






DFL legislators were harder to pin down, however.



"It is very targeted. I have not yet decided if I will support. I'll be doing a lot of thinking. Right now I have not made up my mind."

-- Kim Norton, (D) House District 29B




"I've advocated moderation. I have not decided if I support this."

-- Andy Welti, (D) House District 30B






Leave it to democrat legislators to say nothing when asked directly if they will support the abusive taxes proposed by the DFL. At the end of the day, both will vote as their party leaders tell them to vote not in the best economic interest of Olmsted County taxpayers who elected them. I have said it before and I will say it again: Olmsted County DFLers are Dr. Jekyll while in town but quickly turn into Mr. Hyde when in St. Paul.

Norton's non-answer is particularly telling. At first she appears to defend her party's repulsive tax increases by saying they are "very targeted." But quickly, in true doublespeak, says she has not yet made up her mind. Translation: "I have not yet received my marching orders." In her defense, I must say that she probably didn't anticipate the question or else she would have had a scripted answer as is her custom. Norton does not say "Good morning" unless she has a cue card with the words clearly printed on it.

Why not be honest about their suport for abusive taxation from the start? Because Norton and Welti are DFLers, that's why.

Saturday, March 17, 2007

"More Politics Than Science"

Here's some ammunition for those global warming skeptics out there who can't find an alternate view to the dogmatic global climate change hysteria. Unlike Al Gore, Bjarne Andresen knows what he is talking about and does not benefit financially from global warming paranoia. Andresen is a physics professor at the University of Copenhagen whose research focus is statistical optimization, modeling, atomic physics and finite-time thermodynamics. The debate is far from over.

Public release date: 15-Mar-2007
Available at http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/uoc-gt-031507.php
Contact: Gertie Skaarup skaarup@nbi.dk
45-3532-5320
University of Copenhagen


GLOBAL TEMPERATURE -- Politics or Science?


The entire debate about global warming is a mirage. The concept of ‘global temperature’ is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Bjarne Andresen who has analyzed this hot topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, both Ontario, Canada.


It is generally assumed that the atmosphere and the oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years. The reason for this point of view is an upward trend in the curve of measurements of the so-called ‘global temperature’. This is the temperature obtained by collecting measurements of air temperatures at a large number of measuring stations around the Globe, weighing them according to the area they represent, and then calculating the yearly average according to the usual method of adding all values and dividing by the number of points.


Average Without Meaning


"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an an expert of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".


He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average ‘global exchange rate’.


If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, e.g. it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.


Many Averages

A further problem with the extensive use of ‘the global temperature’ is that there are many ways of calculating average temperatures.


Example 1: Take two equally large glasses of water. The water in one glass is 0 degrees, in the other it is 100 degrees. Adding these two numbers and dividing by two yields an average temperature of 50 degrees. That is called the arithmetic average.


Example 2: Take the same two glasses of water at 0 degrees and 100 degrees, respectively. Now multiply those two numbers and take the square root, and you will arrive at an average temperature of 46 degrees. This is called the geometric average. (The calculation is done in degrees Kelvin which are then converted back to degrees Celsius.)


The difference of 4 degrees is the energy which drives all the thermodynamic processes which create storms, thunder, sea currents, etc.


More Politics Than Science


These are but two examples of ways to calculate averages. They are all equally correct, but one needs a solid physical reason to choose one above another. Depending on the averaging method used, the same set of measured data can simultaneously show an upward trend and a downward trend in average temperature. Thus claims of disaster may be a on sequence of which averaging method has been used, the researchers point out.


What Bjarne Andresen and his coworkers emphasize is that physical arguments are needed to decide whether one averaging method or another is needed to calculate an average which is relevant to describe the state of Earth, not tradition.


The currently used method and the consequences drawn from it therefore is more politics than science, they explain.
###
C. Essex, R. McKitrick, B. Andresen: Does a Global Temperature Exist?; J. Non-Equil. Thermod. vol. 32, p. 1-27 (2007). [= Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics]
For further information contact:
Bjarne Andresen, professor of physics Phone: +45 3532-0470


e-mail: Andresen@fys.ku.dk

Friday, March 16, 2007

Democrat Hypocrisy on Iraq

Love, Democrat Style

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) slipped in a compliment — of sorts — about a fellow 2008 hopeful during his appearances on the Iowa stump last weekend.“I want to wait and hear what John Edwards has to say, he’s kind of good-looking,”



During an appearance in West Burlington, Iowa, the phrase appeared again, this time with Edwards as “kind of cute.”



Now, that's how Democrats campaign. Why can't Hillary say nice things about her rivals as well?











Thursday, March 15, 2007

Political Schizophrenia


At the risk of offending Minnesota liberals for blaspheming against of one of their most revered deities, First District Congressman Tim Walz is fit to be tied.


According to the Rochester Post-Bulletin, the freshman congressman is "demanding that the Department of Defense explain why it might reclassify [Kosovo] as not being a hazardous duty zone."


Maybe Kosovo is not Iraq or Afghanistan, Congressman, where roadside bombs and homicide bombers take lives every day. Walz and his fellow Democrats want to cut and run in Iraq, where America is fighting an active war.


Why not cut and run in Kosovo as well? Why not bring those troops home?

Climate Change Zealotry

I didnt' think they were going to do it, but the Rochester Post-Bulletin published my letter to the editor tonight. Here it is in case you missed it.



Hypocrisy in climate dogma

Global warming, like abortion, has taken the form of religious dogma. So much so that "progressives" closed-mindedly argue that it is an established fact and further debate is neither welcome nor tolerated.

Columnist Ellen Goodman has gone so far as to equate global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers in a recent op-ed. No hyperbole here.



The monthly energy consumption of pseudo-climatologist Al Gore's mansion in Tennessee is 20 times the yearly average of a typical American home. Nevertheless, the former vice president self-righteously urges everyone else to buy energy-efficient light bulbs and ride electric lawnmowers to work to save the planet from energy hogs like, well, Al Gore. He buys "carbon offsets" from his own company, Generation Investment Management LLP, a form of indulgence meant to assuage guilty consciences for oversized carbon footprints. No hypocrisy there.


Climate change zealotry is only the tip of the melting iceberg when it comes to manufacturing crises to justify government intrusion. An insatiable desire to micromanage people's lives has resulted in bans of unhealthy, though legal, behaviors in one's own place of business and arbitrary limitations in the number of garage sales city residents are now "allowed" to have.

Incidentally, since I do not plan to sell any of my junk this year, I am now in the "garage sale offsets" business.

Othelmo da Silva
Rochester

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Come Again?




Clinton Sees Some Troops Staying in Iraq if She Is Elected



WASHINGTON, March 14 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced but significant military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.


In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain in Iraq after taking office would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic
cleansing.




Excuse me, I know people are not supposed to hold Hillary accountable to anything she said before the latest interview, but did she not say a few weeks ago she would "end the war" if elected president?
Ah, yes, I remember now. At the Democratic National Committee Winter Meeting in Washington, D.C. on February 2, 2007, Mrs. Clinton bellowed:



"If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will."

Excuse me, but didn't Bill Clinton's wife actually vote FOR the Iraq war?
Or maybe Mrs. Rodham Clinton voted AGAINST the war before she voted FOR it.
Wait, I think I'm getting Democrat double talkers mixed up here.






Monday, March 12, 2007

"Cool It, Gore!," Real Climatologists Say

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore, but there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

-- Don J. Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America

Uneasy about the backlash against global warming hysteria, real climatologists fear Gore has gone "beyond the scientific evidence," according to this New York Times story.

Still, there are plenty of left wing bloggers out there soliciting signatures on petitions to "draft Gore." My take is that Gore won't run because he is making too much money selling "carbon emission offsets" to bother campaigning for his party's nomination for president.

Yes, it is in Gore's economic self-interest to promote the global climate change scam since he owns Generation Investment Management LLP, one of a host of companies that sell "carbon emission offsets."

According to EcoBusinessLinks, a self-billed environmental directory, "carbon offsets enable individuals and businesses to reduce the CO2 emissions they are responsible for by offsetting, reducing or displacing the CO2 in another place, typically where it is more economical to do so." A quick perusal of the website tells you that "Carbon Neutral" Gore is not the only one taking advantage of liberals' misplaced guilt for driving Escalades and flying GulfStream jets.

For a good laugh, check out the site's price survey table, where they claim that "for a very small amount of money you can drive the equivalent of a zero-CO2-emission car!"

Like con-man Joseph Bessimer, not P.T. Barnum as widely believed, once said, "There's a sucker born every minute..." And they are buying "carbon offsets."

Saturday, March 10, 2007

Alive and Kicking

The Olmsted County Convention held today was one of the most exciting and dynamic ever. Some highlights ...

Fran Bradley did a superb job as Convention Chair. We moved along at a fast clip. Business was well conducted.

Tom Ostrom brought the house down with his John Edwards impression and a biting exposé of the ridiculous legislation the DFL is ramming down our throats this session. Ostrom's "glass warfare" line, a reference to Andy Welti's ban on glass containers, was particularly memorable.


Senator Norm Coleman delivers a stump speech like no one else in Minnesota.

Carla Nelson announced she will not be seeking the party's nomination for District 30A. What a pity! Democrat Rep. Tina Liebling is an embarrassment to the district and to the town.

More importantly, District 29A Rep. Randy Demmer (R-Hayfield) announced he will seek the party's nomination for the First District Congressional seat now occupied by Democrat Tim Walz. Demmer will compete for the nomination with former State Senate Minority Leader Dick Day (R-Owatonna) .

It should be an exciting race. Walz is doing his best to keep in front of the cameras whenever he can. The Rochester Post-Bulletin is happy to comply. Congressman Walz has been on both sides of the track when it comes to the DM&E. He rejoices when the federal loan is rejected but expresses hope the railroad can get the money elsewhere. Speaking out of both sides of his mouth like a good little democrat.

Yours truly was elected PR co-chair. It's going to be fun.

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

A Little Perspective

Lest we or our liberal foes forget:

ARKANSAS ALZHEIMER'S*

- Number of times Hillary Clinton said "I don't recall" or its equivalent in a statement to a House investigating committee: 50

- Number of paragraphs in this statement: 42

- Number of times Bill Clinton said "I don't recall" or its equivalent in the released portions of the his testimony on Paula Jones: 271

- Total number of facts or events not recalled before official bodies by Bill Kennedy, Harold Ickes, Ricki Seidman, Bruce Lindsey, Bill Burton, Mark Gearan, Mack McLarty, Neil Eggleston, John Podesta, Jennifer O'Connor, Dwight Holton, Patsy Thomasson, Jeff Eller, Beth Nolan, Cliff Sloan, Bernard Nussbaum, George Stephanopoulous, Roy Neel, Rahm Emanuel, Maggie Williams, David Tarbell, Susan Thomases, Webster Hubbell, Roger Altman, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton: 6,125

- Average occurrence of memory lapse by top [Clinton] administration figures while before official bodies: 235

* From "Clinton Scandal Stats," available at http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/ProRev/wwstats.htm




It's too bad Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald (pictured above) wasn't in charge of prosecuting real crimes such as the ones perpetrated during the Clinton administration.

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Ham Sandwich









"A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich."
-- Sol Wachtler, disbarred former Chief Judge of New York State

Saturday, March 03, 2007

Alive and Well

Just in case you are wondering, conservative principles are alive and well as evidenced by Vice-president Dick Cheney's speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last Thursday night in Washington, D.C., excerpts of which follow.

As you might have heard, I've just been out of the country -- which, in some quarters, is considered a good thing. I got back yesterday morning after more than a week overseas, on a trip that took me to several countries. In Japan and Australia I had very good discussions with leaders of two of our great allies -- Prime Minister Abe in Japan, and Prime Minister John Howard in Australia. And on the last part of the trip I visited Pakistan and Afghanistan to review progress in the war on terror with Presidents Musharraf and Karzai.

On the journey I also spent time, as I always try to do, with members of the American Armed Forces -- on the deck of the carrier USS Kitty Hawk in Tokyo Bay, at Andersen Air Force Base on Guam, and at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan. I think it's important to remind the troops that we believe in them, we believe in what they're doing, and we're going to back them one hundred percent.


With a divided government and strong feelings on both sides of the aisle, getting things done is a bit more of a challenge than it was before. But the American people expect results, and the President and I are committed to working with Congress for the good of the country. What we will not do is abandon the conservative principles we ran on in 2000 and 2004. President Bush's policies have revived this nation's economy, improved the quality of the federal courts, and protected the American people from great dangers. None of these outcomes came about by accident. We've worked hard for the prosperity and the security of the American people, and we have no intention of letting it slip away.

As conservatives, we believe, as Ronald Reagan did, that government should "work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government," said President Reagan, "can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it." That wisdom is the key to creating a healthy, growing economy -- and by most any measure, that is what we have today. America has now seen five years of uninterrupted economic growth -- in a recovery that has generated nearly 7.5 million new jobs. When people across the world look at America's economy they see low inflation, low unemployment, and the fastest growth of any major industrialized nation. Wages are rising, too -- allowing American families to meet their budgets and build a better future.

We recognize that nobody can sit in an office in Washington, D.C. and decide to make America prosperous. Our job is to preserve the freedoms that gave birth to this nation, to encourage free enterprise, and to give people confidence that their hard work will be rewarded, not punished. And that begins with leaving more money in the hands of those who earn it.

For that reason, at the start of our administration, President Bush asked Congress to pass significant, broad-based tax relief. The House and Senate responded with historic pro-growth legislation. We reduced taxes for every American who pays income taxes. We doubled the child tax credit, reduced the marriage penalty. And in 2003, we accelerated the rate reductions; we created new incentives for small businesses to invest. And in order to lower the cost of capital, and to encourage firms to expand and hire new workers, we reduced the tax rate on capital gains and dividends.

Now the evidence is coming in -- and the Bush tax relief has proven to be exactly the right policy for our country. If you think of all that's happened in the last six years -- the recession we inherited, terrorist attacks, corporate scandals, natural disasters, a tripling in the price of oil -- it's remarkable how resilient this economy has been. In
fact, since 2001, our GDP has grown by 16 percent. Let me just put it in perspective: In only six years' time, the American economy has expanded by an amount greater than the entire economy of Canada.


All told, federal tax receipts have gone up by more than $520 billion in the last two fiscal years. That's the largest two-year increase in history. By now it's time for even the skeptics to admit that a lower federal tax burden is a powerful driver of investment, growth, and new jobs for America's workers. And that increased economic activity, in turn, generates revenue for the federal government.

On the revenue side, we're going to keep working on a low-tax policy that promotes growth and keeps government within its proper limits. Under present law, many of the Bush tax cuts are still set to expire over the next few years. We feel strongly that Congress should make all the tax cuts permanent -- and that includes ending the federal death tax.

I know we've got some Democrats with big ideas for taxes they want to raise. They ought to realize that no nation has ever taxed its way to prosperity. And if they try that, they're going to find out what the rest of America already knows -- that President Bush is a man of principle and a man of his word.

One of the reasons health care is so expensive today is that the tax code penalizes Americans who are not covered at work, and subsidizes people who choose the most expensive plans. So the President is asking Congress to pass tax reform legislation tohelp make private insurance more affordable and accessible. We're proposing a standard deduction for every worker who has private health insurance, no matter where they get it. Under the President's plan, more than 100 million Americans now covered by employer-provided insurance would actually have lower tax bills.

This reform would also level the playing field, so those who buy health insurance on their own get the same tax advantage as those who get health insurance through their jobs. This would be a positive step toward covering millions in our country who aren't covered at work and struggle to afford it on their own. We believe changing the tax code is absolutely necessary to getting private coverage to more Americans, and to getting a handle on the rising costs of health care, without government trying to run the system.

Finally, as someone who has the honor of working beside the President every day at the White House, I can assure you that he will never relent in his number one obligation as President: to protect the freedom and security of the American people.

The fact that we've defeated all attempts to strike the United States again for the last five and a half years does not mean that we won't be hit in the future. But the record is testimony not just to good luck, but rather to urgent, competent action by a lot of very skilled men and women, and a lot of important decisions by the President. We've improved our security arrangements, reorganized our intelligence capabilities, found ways to surveill and to interrogate the enemy, and worked closely with friends and allies across the world.

In Iraq, our goal remains a democratic nation that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror. But for this to happen, Baghdad must be secured. To that end, we're pursuing a new strategy that brings in reinforcements to help Iraqi forces secure the capital. As we meet tonight, Iraqi and coalition forces are at work in the nine sectors of Baghdad, carrying out joint operations to track down terrorists, insurgents, criminals, and the roaming death squads that have tormented people in that city. It's a toughenterprise -- and it's absolutely essential to moving that nation forward, turning the political process toward reconciliation, and completing our mission in Iraq.

Recently, the United States Senate, by unanimous vote, confirmed a superb officer to lead the new strategy in Iraq -- Army General David Petraeus. At a hearing of the Armed Services Committee, General Petraeus was asked flat-out if he could do his job without the troop reinforcements that have been requested by the President. He said no. Yet some of the very Senators who voted to send him to the Iraqi theater tried to pass a resolution opposing the reinforcements. And the House of Representatives, of course, did pass such a resolution. The House resolution was nonbinding -- just a statement expressing the views of the members. But the fact is that every statement we make has multiple audiences. The American people listen. Our soldiers, airmen, and Marines listen. The enemy listens, and so do the Iraqi people. Friendly governments pay attention, and hostile governments take note as well. And they all wonder about America's commitment to this cause.

Very soon both Houses of Congress will have to vote on a piece of legislation that is binding -- a bill to provide emergency funding for the troops. And I sincerely hope the discussion this time will be about winning in Iraq, not about posturing on Capitol Hill. Anyone can say they support the troops, and we should take them at their word. But the proof will come when it's time to provide the money and the support. We expect the House and Senate to meet those needs on time, and in full.

Before I leave you, ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank you again for your commitment -- not just to the principles we share, but to the ideal of active citizenship. In the audience tonight we have entrepreneurs, engineers, doctors, writers, and educators. All of you lead busy lives and have many responsibilities of your own. And yet you make the time, here and in your communities, to get involved in the political process and to make your voices heard. Your efforts make a difference. You give strength to our democracy. And the success of CPAC, year after year, is another indicator that conservatism remains the leading intellectual and political movement in the United States. That's something all of us can be proud of, and it's a credit to each and every one of you. I am deeply grateful to you, and it's been an honor to be in your company tonight.

Paleocon Strikes!