A "Message" That Wins in Texas

I was reading the Peggy Noonan column in today's Wall Street Journal when it dawned on me that even though zero progress is being made in Washington, there is at least hope for reform when a respected Republican like Ms. Noonan goes public with this kind of criticism of her own kind. Of course, she is hoping that her words will steer the GOP back in the direction of fiscal and moral sanity -- she is not advocating for a third party solution.

Republicans, as Ms. Noonan articulates, gained control over Congress in the 1990s because they had a clear and understandable message that well over half of the American people supported. A decade of power on the hill, coupled with six years of control of the White House, has certainly dulled what was once a powerful intellectual argument for change. Like him or not, Newt Gingrich was (and is) a man of big ideas. I believe the same cannot be said for Dennis Hastert, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, et al. At this point the Republican-controlled Congress is all about maintaining that control. Of course, such a faulty focus will hasten their loss of control, throwing us into the hands of what is certainly an even more irresponsible party.

Texans aren't forever and irreversably Republican in their beliefs. Democrats, Libertarians, or Independents of whatever stripe could make significant inroads into the Texas delegation with the following set of principles:

1. No matter what we think about the way things are going around the world, we can't be a world power for very long without a strong economic foundation. Such a foundation can be restored through the reduction of (or preferably the elimination of) unsustainable entitlements, and through balanced fiscal budgets, a reasonable trade balance, and a reduction of our dependence on imported energy. Before moving on to other elements of a winning message, Texans will value the common sense solutions of:

(a) Enacting, at the very least, changes to Social Security and Medicare qualifications to put those programs on a survivable footing. Since all subterfuge of these programs being anything other than transfer payments from young to old and from rich to poor has been long since removed, the financial health of these programs should not be bailed out through tax increases of any kind. The programs themselves are unsustainable, and benefits must be reduced in order to avert their total collapse. Our society just can't afford what the politicians have promised, and we have to own up to it.

(b) Limiting federal spending to something like 101% of the prior year's actual federal receipts, and to something like 18% of the prior year's actual GDP. We'll have to cut something, unless Congress drums up the political will to raise taxes. I hate taxes, but if I KNEW that it was going for, say, extraordinary raises for our troops, I would support it. I can hardly think of another decent reason to raise taxes, though. We need to create a hard ceiling on federal spending because the gravy train up there is getting ridiculous. By the way, it's time for the president to start ignoring congressional earmarks -- a gutsy president would do this and would gain tremendous respect from rank and file Americans.

(c and d) A real energy policy that takes the restraints off of domestic oil and gas exploration and encourages the construction of refining capacity and nuclear power generating capacity would, within ten years, move us fairly close to energy independence. Mexico would need to open up its oil and gas industry to foreign investment, which would create jobs in Mexico, result in growing productivity and wealth in Mexico, and go a long way to solving our immigration problems. We should make that a diplomatic objective and be prepared to play hardball with the Mexicans to get them to do it.

2. We're stuck with Iraq and we have to admit it. As Colin Powell warned, "you break it, you own it", and that's exactly where we are. So we can't pull out and expect anything decent to come of it. But we can go back to the Powell doctrine of "if we're going in, we use overwhelming force", which was ignored in this war. I kinda like Rumsfeld myself, and the last guy I'd want as Secretary of Defense is a guy who is intimidated by the generals at the Pentagon -- however, I think it's getting close to the time when we can say Rummy and his neocon pals have screwed the pooch on Iraq. Time for a new Secretary of Defense who arrives with a new strategy for winning the war.

Now, with Iran on the verge of truly gaining nuclear warhead capability, we can see that we might have jumped the gun on the Axis of Evil, picking the wrong opponent, but now that's water under the bridge. Going forward, we operate as follows: America works with the UN to attempt a diplomatic solution, but if we fail to get one, our military force kicks ass, then gives way to the UN bluehats to police the mess that follows. It won't be pretty, but our occupation with inadequate troops has come at too high a price in terms of the wear and tear on American public support for the guys who are risking (and giving) their lives for us over there.

3. Immigration is not about phony issues like which language the Star Spangled Banner is sung in. Who gives a damn about that? Only the demogogues. Can we solve the problem by building a wall? Nope. Too many bricks and border guards required. But we can decide that laws on the books must be enforced. Do we deport more illegals? Sure. Do we say thanks to the Minutemen who volunteer to augment our border guard? Absolutely. But the best way to solve the problem is to start prosecuting the employers. They are breaking the law every bit as much as the illegal aliens, and their reasons for doing so, unlike the aliens themselves, is indefensible. Start sending a few CEOs to jail and watch how fast the problem melts away.

I could go on and on (and eventually, I will), but this is enough for now. Your comments?