FLASHREPORT

By now, many of you have probably heard or seen the numerous press reports on the President's visit to the House Republican Retreat in Baltimore, Maryland last Friday. Having been in the room, here's my analysis.  This meeting occurred because the Republican caucus issued an invitation for the President to come.  I think that this was the right thing to do, in fact I think  we ought to always invite the sitting President to our retreat, regardless of their party. The President accepted the invitation. But interestingly, he insisted that the meeting be open to the press and televised. This stands in stark contrast to the fact that his meeting with House Democrats at their retreat was closed to the press.  It would appear then, that the President did not want you to hear what he said to Democrats, yet he did want you to hear what he said to us... Hmmmm.  So was one a meeting and the other a show?

In any event, our caucus was very respectful. No outbursts or booing and such, and he was welcomed warmly. The message that Republicans were trying to give was that we actually have a lot of positive ideas and an agenda for the future, and that he is misrepresenting the facts when he says that we are the party of no ideas. To that point, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) handed the President a copy of many of those ideas when he arrived. You can see it at http://www.gop.gov/solutions. I would also call your attention to two of my favorite major policy initiatives: the Patient's Choice Act and the Roadmap to America's Future.

The President was clearly trying to message that he has included various Republican-supported ideas in all of his bills that we have voted against, and he was trying to get us to reconsider.

In my opinion, that was a ridiculous request. I am not going to vote for a 2,000 page health care bill that I believe takes the country backwards just because it has 15 pages of policies that I think are OK.

The President spoke for about 15 minutes and then took questions for about 45 minutes. The questions were good and generally pretty tough. But because there were lots of members who wanted to ask questions, there were no follow-ups. The President is clearly a skilled and competent debater. But it helps when you can ignore the tough part of the question, or blatantly misstate facts, or give a wrong answer without the opportunity for challenge. For example, in his retorts to questions about the budget, he simply had the facts completely wrong.

When all is said and done, however, I think the meeting was a good thing. Many of you know that I am a student of British History and British politics. The House of Commons has a tradition called "Prime Minister's questions" during which the Prime Minister (PM) must field questions in the Chambers on television from members of all parties in Parliament.  I have often thought that this would be a good exercise for our Presidents in order to compel them to defend their policies to their critics.  This appearance by President Obama was essentially, like a session of "Prime Minister's questions." I hope it is done more frequently.

That being said, he did not change our minds, and we probably did not change his.

President's Budget:  This week, the President released his budget for the 2011 fiscal year which begins October 1, 2010.  It is a monstrosity. It increases spending, taxes, debt, and deficits to levels higher than his previous budget. This is truly unbelievable.  Let me reiterate, his budget creates more spending, higher taxes, but still higher deficits, and more debt. In spite of the reductions in spending as the TARP money is paid back, and his meaningless "freeze," goes into effect, this budget manages to add so many new programs and so much new spending that there are in fact, no real reductions.  Records are being set in so many areas that are bad, that I can't detail them all here.  Remarkably, It does all of this with some pretty rosy economic assumptions for economic growth (5.1% this year and 6% thereafter) and interest rates (10 year treasury never rising above 5.3%).

The bottom line is that this budget is not real, it is a work of fiction. Every reputable economist whether they are liberal, conservative, or libertarian,  generally agrees that we simply can't sell this much debt over the long term and that this much spending and deficit will cause an economic collapse from which we will no longer have the tools for a quick recovery.

Quote of the Day: "Here's what I ask of Congress, though: Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close." - President Barrack Obama last night referring to his call to pass the government-run health care bill

State of the Union: Unbelievable. That's my primary comment about the President's speech last night. Unbelievable. This President continues to surprise me with his insistence on pushing an extreme agenda in spite of overwhelming evidence of that agenda's failure and its wide unpopularity with the people. I really expected him to pivot last night and try to make a fresh start on the country's increasing problems. I was wrong.

Instead, he basically doubled down on his agenda of last year. As the excerpt above indicates, he still wants his government run health care bill passed. Apparently, the strategy now is to try and pass the Senate bill in the House and then use the reconciliation process (requires only 51 votes in the Senate) to make some changes to satisfy Pelosi and House Democrats. He called for passage of the national energy tax/Cap and Trade bill, which passed the House last July but appears to not have the votes in the Senate. He also called for hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of entirely new spending! This, comes in spite of increasing calls from economists and analysts all across the political spectrum that the debt and deficit track we are on will lead to fiscal collapse within a decade. Even his jobs program called for passage of a so-called jobs bill at the cost of approximately $150 billion.  A version of this bill passed the House just prior to Christmas, which is basically Stimulus II, and continues the same expensive failed policies of Stimulus I.

The dozens of tax increases he called for during the speech, either directly, or that are included in the bills he supports, will only pay for some of the additional spending and will not lead to any deficit reduction. It is clear to me now that the carefully planned "leak" the day before the speech of his nearly worthless spending "freeze" of roughly 12% of the budget was designed to have one complete news cycle dedicated to this "deficit reduction" effort so that the HUGE deficit increases in his overall plan will go unnoticed. That was a clever ruse on the part of the President's team, but it should not work.

This President clearly thinks that we are powerless and incapable of much without government direction and assistance. Emblematic of his predisposition towards all things government, was his announcement that he proposes to eliminate all student loans from sources other than the federal government, and then forgive 100% of those loans after 10 years.......but only if the student works for the government. If you make the terrible 'mistake' of working in the private sector, you will be punished by not having an opportunity for loan forgiveness until at least 20 years.

There was lots of muttering and grumbling and even laughter in the crowd at particularly outrageous parts of the speech. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito appeared to have mumbled "that's not true" after the President's assessment of a recent Supreme Court decision which mimics the reaction of many of us in the crowd to many of the President's gross misstatements. I sat next to another California Republican Congressman who is in his 13th term in the House. He told me he has never seen such an angry reaction to a presidential speech in the 24 State of the Union speeches he has heard.

You may be wondering if I agreed with anything the President said; and yes there were a few instances where I did.  For example, I agreed with his call for an increased focus on nuclear energy, coal energy, and additional domestic oil exploration.  I also agreed with his call for free trade agreements with Columbia, South Korea, and Panama. There were a few other things I agreed with as well, but they were clearly not points of emphasis in the speech.   

This president pledged to "change the tone" in Washington; and he has. He has made it much worse, much more partisan, and much more bitter. He has done that with his extreme agenda, his ruthless assaults on anyone or anything that dares to disagree with him, and his arrogance in office. I thought that was going to change since it is clearly not working. 

It certainly didn't change last night. The fight for America's future continues. Stay in it.

Miscellaneous (short) Ramblings: A lot is going in DC right now and a lot has gone on since I sent you my first missive of the year yesterday. Here is a quick rundown of my thoughts on many things in no particular order:

• The way the Obama Administration has handled the so-called "underwear bomber" on Christmas Day is atrocious. This guy was a foreign national operating as part of an inter-connected worldwide organization with the intent to kill United States citizens and further a process of bringing down our government and destroying our way of life. He should have been immediately declared an enemy combatant, interrogated, and tried in a military tribunal, as has been done in similar incidents for more than a century. He was injured and his mission had failed. There was significant potential to garner intelligence about his network and connections in order to prevent future attacks, and save lives. Yet he has been treated as though he was caught smoking or tampering with the smoke detector in the airplane lavatory.  He was read his Miranda rights, assigned an attorney, and told NOT to say anything. Unbelievable. This administration just fails to see that radical Islamic terrorism is a serious threat, unlike the rest of us, and therefore we are less safe.
• Because of their singular obsession with government-run health care, the Democrats punted a bunch of issues on deadline to the end of February. However, this new deadline is fast approaching. Among the issues that should have been taken up last year yet still remain unresolved include: new permanent death tax exemptions and rates; a 21% cut in the rates doctors are paid by Medicare; a proposed increase in the national debt limit of $1.6 trillion to cover the enormous deficits for one year; reauthorizations of the Department of Transportation and the FAA; and a host of other issues.
• The one place where I DO agree with the President is that Fed Chairman Bernanke should be confirmed for a second term. I don't get to vote on this, but the Senate vote will be held Thursday or Friday.
• Tomorrow night, the President apparently will call for a freeze in non-defense so-called discretionary spending. That is about 15% of the total federal budget. It also was increased by $140 billion last year. So he is freezing spending after he increased it by 25% in one year. It's a little like the guy who robs your house and then returns your toaster-oven and expects you to be happy about it.
• Interestingly, Democrats on the Appropriations committee are already criticizing the President's freeze as "too tough."  This says that at least some Congressional Democrats still do not understand how severe our fiscal problems are, and that they no longer feel compelled to support their President on all of his policies. The honeymoon ended rather quickly.
• Governor Schwarzenegger came calling to Capitol Hill last week looking for money for the state budget crisis. Federal formulas that disadvantage large states like California ought to be changed, but the state legislature has expanded many Federal programs to pay more people a greater amount money than the Feds require or than other states actually do. That's a California problem, not a federal one.
• One of California's problems is that we simply cannot continue to be a magnet for those on welfare because we pay more than other states, while simultaneously repelling the very people who pay for those services with the highest tax rates of any state (recently surpassing New Jersey). This results in welfare recipients moving into the state and taxpayers/job creators moving out. This cannot go on for long.
• In my view, the Supreme Court decision last week was the correct one.  It merely allows corporations to spend general monies on political ads as unions have been able to do.  If BOTH unions and corporations were required to get shareholder/member approval before using the money for politics, that would be fine.  But the unfettered, unequal, and unfair spending by government unions in politics is the single biggest reason we have deficits at the state and federal level.

Quote of the Week:  Don't worry I didn't forget a quote of the week this week, but it is really long...but it's very good, so I decided to put it at the bottom on this missive, so scroll down!

We're Baaaack: Last Wednesday, both Houses of Congress returned to Washington for the second session of the 111th Congress.  So, your life, liberty, and property are once again in jeopardy. You haven't heard from me for a while over the holidays, but I will make up for that soon. This is the first of 4 blogs I will publish over the course of the next week. Today I want to give you a little flavor of what people in California have been telling and asking me during the roughly 4 weeks that I was home.  Tomorrow, I'll do a quick review of where many pending issues are right now. On Wednesday, the President will give his first State of the Union address (although it is his 3rd address to a joint session of Congress in 12 months) and I'll provide you with the insider's view the next day.  Then on Friday, Republican House members (including this one) will be at our annual retreat, which is in Baltimore, Maryland this year. The President has accepted an invitation to speak to us, and I have no idea what he is going to say.  I will report to you on what he said and how it was received after the speech.

So, back to the present.  I always see a lot of people when I'm home in Orange County. Whether it's at some formal speaking engagement, at a party, or it may just be someone who comes up to me while I'm filling up at a gas station or getting a cup of coffee. These people will be reflective of the demographic makeup of the nation as a whole, in that most will be Republicans, but many are Independents, Democrats, or Libertarians. There were two consistent themes that came from the vast majority of the people with whom I spoke, regardless of party affiliation.

First, almost everyone wanted to know what the prospects were for the Health care bill, and if there was still a chance that we could kill it.  At the time, I responded that yes there was a chance because the House and Senate bills were quite different and the Senate bill could not pass in the House, and the House bill could not pass in the Senate, so there was still doubt as to what could pass both Houses.  Not to mention, the public reception to both bills was growing more toxic by the day.

Little did I know just how toxic it was. Then last week, the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts took what was a difficult task for Democrats and made it nearly impossible.  It is not just that they lost the 60th vote in the Senate. The larger effect is that arguably the most liberal state in the union just sent a resounding message that they do not want more costly and inefficient government-run medicine.  This has to make many Democrats, who thought they were "safe," reconsider whether they want to oppose their constituency by voting for socialized medicine again.

Right now, it is unclear where this will go. Speaker Pelosi admitted on Thursday that she did not have the votes to pass the Senate health care bill in the House. Right now, Democrats are all over the place on what they should do now.  Some want to drop healthcare altogether while others still want to try to put something together like the bills they had before.  Still others want to use the "reconciliation process" which would mean that while only 51 votes would be required in the Senate, but that means that the whole process would have to be started from scratch again in the House.   Yet another faction would like to pass a much less ambitious bill that leaves the current system intact and tries to make only those changes on which a bipartisan consensus exists.  Take for example plan portability, and no termination for pre-existing conditions.  We will see on Wednesday which path the President prefers.

The other comment I received from almost everyone was "why are things so partisan back there? Can't you guys agree on anything?"  This level of partisanship is not typical. This is the worst I have seen in my 10 years in public life. The reason is simple. Democrats won historic majorities in the 2008 elections and have a very liberal person in the White House. Neither party has had this kind of control since the 70s (Jimmy Carter) and neither is likely to see this kind of control again for some time. So, Democratic leadership believes that they have a small window in which to accomplish the things they have been unable to do for decades.  Furthermore, they believe that the public gave them this mandate in the 2008 elections.  Much of this feeling was reflected early last year when Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) was invited to the White House to present Republican ideas for a stimulus package. Congressman Cantor asked the President why he rejected all Republican ideas and was answered with the quip "I won."  So, on the whole, they have moved forward on almost all major policy initiatives this Congress without consultation with, input from, or any votes of any Republicans in either House, with few exceptions.

I do think this will begin to change now. Elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have sent a clear message to Democrats that the public does not like their agenda.  Not everyone here gets it, but many do.  There are obvious places to go on many issues where broad bipartisan consensus can be achieved.  But as with health care, Democrats are not of one mind on this, and many still want to push everything to the far left, even if they suffer consequences at the ballot box this November.  As I mentioned earlier, we may get some clue by the tone and message coming from the President this week.

Quote of the Week: "I quit when medicine was placed under State control, some years ago," said Dr. Hendricks. "Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything - except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the 'welfare' of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the matter was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, only 'to serve.' That a man who's willing to work under compulsion is too dangerous a brute to entrust with a job in the stockyards - never occurred to those who proposed to help the sick by making life impossible for the healthy. I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind - yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Their moral code has taught them to believe that it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims. Well, that is the virtue I have withdrawn. Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of a man who resents it - and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn't."

Atlas Shrugged
by Ayn Rand

Quote of the week: "No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while Congress is in session" - Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)

The House of Representatives adjourned for the year on Wednesday night. So, as Samuel Clemens so aptly stated, your property and freedom are safe until January 12th, 2010. You all know that the Senate is still wrestling with their Health Care Bill. Thus far, the absence of the government run part is a good thing, laregely because it is therefore unlikely to lead to full-blown socialized medicine. That's why Howard Dean and other unabashed socialized medicine advocates are now against the bill.  But the bill still stinks because it will raise taxes and costs on every single American who currently has health insurance in order to create a new expensive bureaucracy in an attempt to insure the uninsured. If this bill were to pass, it would not surprise me if health insurance costs rise by about 30% on everyone because of the resulting taxes on insurance policies, new mandated coverage's, and expanded costs. I just don't see how the President and the Democrats believe that this will help people or the economy.

But Congress' other Christmas present to you is truly a lump of coal. On the very last day of this first session of the 111th Congress, 4 bills were passed that together borrowed or spent $1.1 Trillion. Let me repeat that, on Wednesday, the House passed 4 bills spending or borrowing $1.1 TRILLION IN ONE SINGLE DAY!  If you do the math, it means that the House spent or borrowed about $9,400 per household in one day. One more time, House Democrats spent or borrowed $9,400 of money from your family IN ONE DAY!  This lunacy included borrowing $300 billion which will only get us through early February's deficit; $150 billion of entirely new spending for Stimulus II, and a huge Defense spending bill. This is part of the reason that the national debt, which stood at $8.671 trillion on January 4, 2007 when Nancy Pelosi took the gavel as Speaker of the House, is now $12.129 trillion (as of December 16, 2009). That's a nearly 40% increase since only 2007!

This is absolutely unsustainable. You can't raise taxes enough to cover it and everyone knows it. You can't keep borrowing this much money without ruining the credit of the U.S. Treasury and hurting the value of the dollar and everyone knows this as well. And of course, this disastrous, unsustainable spending doesn't yet include anything from the health care bill, global warming (where we supposedly are offering to give billions to underdeveloped countries where people don't have enough to eat so they can reduce their carbon footprint rather than feed their people), or the surge in Afghanistan.  I obviously don't agree with the President and the Democratic leadership on much these days. But they won't even talk about stopping this or work towards finding a solution. That's not just bad policy; it's an abandonment of responsibility.

Congress temporarily extended a number of things until the end of February including the limit on how much can be borrowed, the Patriot Act, the FAA, Transportation funding, and various other things.  They will also allow the death tax to temporarily end on January 1st as a result of their inaction.  They basically punted on all of these issues because they are singularly obsessed with socializing medicine, and that obsession has used up the entire calendar. This, plus whatever happens to health care and the financial regulation bill will make for an interesting and busy February.

This all sounds pretty depressing, and I certainly get down myself at times. But this is STILL the greatest nation God ever put on earth. We are STILL the beacon of hope and liberty in the world. And we are STILL an exceptional nation, in spite of our President's views to the contrary.  The fact that I can say what I just said is evidence of a freedom that most of the people in the world do not enjoy, even in today's modern age. Winston Churchill once said that democracy was the worst form of government ever devised......except for all the others that have been tried from time to time. He was right. Democracy is far from perfect. Your representatives, including and especially this one, are far from perfect. We don't always do what the people want. But when we don't, the people will elect someone who will. Don't give up. Instead standup! Don't despair, instead, thank the Lord for the brilliance of our founders and the privilege we have to be Americans.

May all the readers of this missive, liberal and conservative, independent and libertarian embrace one another for just a few days as we celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah. May we thank Him for His gifts to us. And may God bless us......each and every one of us.

Until we rejoin the fight next year (those liberal-conservative hugs can't last too long), Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and the most prosperous of New Years.

Merry Christmas?  'Tis the season for carols, presents, and such...even in Washington D.C.  As we move into the home stretch of 2009, there is a lot of unfinished business. The business is largely unfinished because of the singular obsession on having the government take over 1/6 of the American economy and your health care.  Senate rules do not allow them to break off for any other business during the weeks of health care debate except for appointments, confirmations, and conference committee reports.

But the calendar days continue to tick by and cannot be stopped or slowed down. Christmas will come in 11 days and the Speaker cannot repeal it. So, of all the various things that might be passed during these next 11 days, what are Santa Obama and his merry elves, Nancy and Harry, likely to put in your stocking? Will your stocking be full of presents....or coal....or will it be empty? Here is a rundown of all the potentials:

Empty or Coal - Government run health care: Certainly, nothing good is going to come out of this health care plan as it is currently constructed. There is not a single Republican that is likely to vote for it and divisions still exist between the Democrats. So, the most likely scenario is that nothing goes to the President by Christmas. Let's hope this lump of coal stays in the mine.

Coal - $2 trillion more debt: The U.S. will have borrowed the maximum allowed by law in the next month or so. Democrats are planning to raise the debt limit by nearly $2 trillion to cover all borrowing anticipated between now and the election next November. That will put the total national debt close to $14 Trillion. If the debt limit is not passed by year end, the government cannot borrow or print more money.

Coal - $1 trillion more spending: A spending budget for this year has still not been fully passed. It is expected that one will be passed by the House before Christmas which will increase federal spending by another 8% over last year and even higher when you include what was in the so-called stimulus plan. Americans are not getting raises. Unemployment continues to rise. But government bureaucrats are doing just fine under this administration.  There is no recession in Washington D.C. if you need more proof, see this story about the salaries of federal employees now completely eclipsing their counterparts in the private sector:  USA Today - December 11, 2009

Coal - Stimulus II:  In February, Congress passed a stimulus package which has largely been ineffective.  Now, in an admission that the first stimulus package has failed, here comes Stimulus II. The problem is, it's more of the same stuff that was in Stimulus I, and it will result in more borrowing, more debt, and more printing of money without creating or encouraging private sector jobs. More lumps of coal on top of lumps of coal.

Present, Coal, or Empty - Death Tax: The outcome of this is completely up in the air right now. If nothing is passed, the death tax goes to zero on January 1st. But there is already talk of retroactively reinstating it in February. Or, they could extend the current rates (This is where the 'coal' part comes in) or move the exemption to $5 million and the rate down to 35% (which would be a 'present').

Empty - Cap and Tax Global Warming Bill:  After narrowly passing the House in June, this bill appears dead in the Senate and certainly will not go anywhere by the end of the year. Technically this would leave your proverbial stocking empty, but it is actually a present to the economy if this thing dies.

Empty - Financial regulation: We need some regulatory changes so that we don't even get close to a financial collapse as we did in 2008. But the bill, H.R. 4173, that passed the House last week is not it. This bill contains a completely new federal agency with a new building, thousands of new employees, and billions in new deficit spending. Not to mention, it will retard recovery by putting up too many roadblocks to lending in the future without curing the 'too big to fail' problem. But, it will likely not be taken up in the Senate until Spring and they may look at a completely different strategy which would be good.

Present, Empty, or Coal - Extension of Tax Credits: Under the perverse accounting in the Democrat budget, when you renew or extend a tax credit or tax deduction, you are "spending money." When they actually do spend money, many times they do not consider it as 'spending money,' because they really wanted to spend more.  Anyway, a number of tax credits are scheduled to expire this year and Democrats are arguing about how to "pay for" them. So, they may be extended while other taxes are raised, or they may let them expire or they may just extend them. We'll see.

So, I hope you have lots of friends and family to put real presents in your stocking because you are not likely to get much from Washington other than lumps of coal. Of course, since the U.S. has more coal than any other country on earth except for maybe China; perhaps coal will be part of our energy independence? Nah. That's not the coal we're going to get.

Afghanistan: A couple of weeks ago I wrote you about my opposition to the surge in Afghanistan and I made comparisons to Vietnam. After I wrote that, I found the following well-researched piece with much more detail on the parallels between Vietnam and Afghanistan.  It is important to note that this was published by Military Review, located at the United States Army Combined Arms Center based at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.  This journal is the official professional journal of the United States Army.

Click Here to read the article

Death Tax: Last week, the House passed a permanent extension of the Death Tax, setting the tax rate on any estates over $3.5 million at 45%, not indexed for inflation. The vote was 225-200 with ZERO Republicans voting in favor and 26 Democrats voting to oppose. The Senate is talking about a much preferable 35% on estates over $5 million, indexed for inflation. I favor complete repeal of the tax, although the Senate proposal would be a step in the right direction. Here is a clip of my 2 minute floor speech on why I oppose this bill and this tax.

Quote of the week: "I didn't see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there that the President chose to address tonight and I thought that was interesting. He went to maybe the enemy camp tonight to make his case." - Chris Matthews on MSNBC after the President's speech at West Point.

Wait a minute Mr. Matthews. The United States Military Academy is an "enemy camp" for the Commander-in-Chief?

Afghanistan: Before I comment on the President's plan for the war in Afghanistan, let me reiterate that this is a very difficult situation with no easy answers. The President laid out his plan this week, and that plan will have some Republicans and some Democrats in support, and other Republicans and Democrats in opposition.

I will be one of the Republicans in opposition. Perhaps for not the reasons readers of this missive might expect. Some people will legitimately oppose this plan because the 30,000 additional troops is below the minimum range of troops outlined by General McChrystal several months ago to get the job done. He had called for 40,000 to 80,000. The strategic maxim of "overwhelming force" would probably call for 80,000 additional troops if not more. Furthermore, the President's decision to announce a date for the beginning of withdrawal makes one wonder about the level of his commitment and seems to give the enemy a winning card they can play if they just wait the surge out. Zalmay Khalizad, the former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, once received a direct message from the Taliban saying:"You have all the watches. But we have all the time," a clear reference to their ability to wait us out.

Moreover, I did not hear any definition of victory or success in the President's speech Tuesday night. That question was asked and answered over and over again about the surge in Iraq. The answer then was that the definition of victory was the establishment of a stable, democratic government in Iraq that was friendly to western interests, not a threat to Israel, and that could support and defend itself thereby permitting the withdrawal of US troops. Arguably, those objectives have been met.

But I heard no such definition of victory Tuesday night. Nor do I think there is one. I simply do not believe that we can establish a lasting westernized democracy in a society that has been based on tribal cultural ties for centuries. Furthermore, the mountainous terrain in Afghanistan, as well as the porous and uncontrolled border region with Northern Pakistan, makes control of this area exceedingly difficult. Iraq's terrain and culture were and are much more suited to these types of operations. I still believe that there was much strategic value to establishing a friendly Iraqi government in a critical region of the world that includes Iran, Syria, Israel, and others. While I acknowledge the significance of Pakistan's possession of, by some estimates, as many as 100 nuclear weapons, I just don't believe that control of Afghanistan has the same strategic value.

You can probably see where I am going here. In fact, I think the best way to address our current problems in Afghanistan should be more focused on utilizing intelligence and air assets aimed at neutralizing potential threats to the United States and her allies. We are in Afghanistan because that is where Al Qaeda was located. Yet, even by the President's own admission, what is left of that organization has now marshaled its forces inside the borders of Pakistan. So, how does controlling more of Afghanistan root them out of Pakistan? The Taliban has other competitors in the region like the Northern Alliance; such that they, or anyone else for that matter, are unlikely to control the entire country. Furthermore, the national government we are promoting over the former tribal leadership is admittedly, and horribly corrupt. Even if you believe that a westernized democracy could succeed in Afghanistan, which I don't, how can the Afghan people embrace a government rife with corruption and abuse? We certainly do not want Afghanistan to once again become a place of sanctuary for terrorists, but we cannot occupy every inch of ground in the world where terrorists are likely to be found. Al Qaeda is now largely operating out of Pakistan, where we cannot send troops. I'm sure that Iran, North Korea, and a number of African countries have a similar predisposition for terrorist activity, but we are not going to, and cannot put boots on the ground in those countries.

In the President's speech, he specifically rejected comparisons to Vietnam. Unfortunately, I think those rejected comparisons are painfully valid. I fear that his strategy will be enough to continue the war, the costs, and the casualties, but fail to produce a decisive strategic result. Even if we did prevail, it would not produce any long term stability, which would prompt the country to revert back to where it was. In the end, the strategic importance of Vietnam was overrated and Afghanistan is as well.

And we haven't even begun to talk about the cost. In the midst of record debts, deficits, and spending, this surge will cost about $200 billion just over the next 2 years. A number of Democrats in the House are already talking about a "war surtax" to pay for it. That would be on top of the proposed "Health care surtax," and the proposed "global warming surtax," and the proposed deficit reduction surtax, and the 2011 tax increases. With all of this, we could become the one of the highest taxed, biggest government, and least prosperous countries on earth. We can't afford that for such an uncertain strategy or outcome.

We all owe our young men and women of the Armed Forces, military and civilian, a debt of gratitude for their dedicated and tireless service in defense of our nation. They are the best, and most well trained in the world and will accomplish anything we ask them to do, no matter how tall the order.

The truth is, tactical victories do not always translate into strategic successes. We need a new strategy to keep America safe from terrorism that is both pragmatic and effective. I don't think that this is it.

Factoid of the Day: The Pelosi government run health care plan creates a new 2.5% tax on all medical devices not sold through a retail establishment. That means a new 2.5% tax on everything from wheelchairs and hospital gowns, to artificial organs. And that lowers health care costs how?

Tea Party: Yesterday on Capitol Hill, we Republicans held a press conference on the west front of the Capitol to oppose the Pelosi Health Plan.  The "Tea Party" people seized on this as an opportunity to express the grass roots opposition to what the Wall Street Journal has called the worst bill since World War II. They started sending their e-mails just a few days ago.

And boy did they deliver.   I would estimate that there were 25,000 people in the crowd all chanting "kill the bill; kill the bill." There are those on the left who would dismiss this movement as a bunch of kooks and fringe players. They do so at their peril.  I talked to corporate CEOs, Doctors, an investment banker with an MBA, and many other educated people of accomplishment. I would not they say they are angry, but rather, they are filled with resolve. No one paid them to be here, and it should be noted that this event was at 12:00 noon on a Thursday. They just do not want this country to follow the path of collectivism that Pelosi and Obama espouse.  They know it doesn't work,  and I agree with them.

Another interesting thing to note, is that there is no office for the 'Tea Party.'  In fact, there is no centralization at all. It is completely organic, spontaneous, and organized only through the Internet.  It is just individuals making an individual decision to fight for freedom without any central direction or control, which I might add, is exactly the opposite of how Obama and Pelosi think health care (and many other things) should work.  This movement really is emblematic of the power and dignity of the individual over the power and control of the collective.

And it is that individual choice and right that we are fighting for.  Here is a picture I took of the crowd from my vantage point on the steps of the Capitol.  If you would like to see more photos, log onto my facebook page by clicking here .  The crowd was stretched out over such a wide area that I could not even begin to capture it all without a fish-eye lens, which I don't have. But hopefully you will get the flavor.

As of this moment, the Democratic leadership still does not have enough votes to pass the bill. Tomorrow, the President will travel to Capitol Hill to meet with Democrats and try to talk enough of them into voting for it. They have scheduled a vote for Saturday, after the President works it some more.

As I write you this from my office in the Longworth Building, I can hear thousands of people outside chanting "kill the bill; kill the bill." I know that my Democratic colleagues can hear them too.  Let's hope they listen.

Factoid of the day: President Barack Obama's economic recovery program saved 935 jobs at the Southwest Georgia Community Action Council, an impressive success story for the stimulus plan. Trouble is, only 508 people work there.

- Quote from an Associated Press Report on overstating of stimulus job creation by the White House. 

Pelosi Health Care Update: Last night at 10:07 PM Eastern time, Speaker Pelosi released the latest version of her health care plan. This version added 42 pages to make the total bill now a whopping 2,032 pages. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) had pledged to have the final bill in print for 72 hours before it is voted upon. That means that the soonest the bill could be brought to a vote on the House floor is 10:07 PM on Friday night.

But by all accounts, they have not yet cajoled the necessary 218 votes to ensure the bill's passage. It also appears clear that they may make more changes to the bill in order to secure more votes before Friday night or Saturday. But they have also been clear that they will not wait until 72 hours after any further changes.

Yesterday, I spent some time in a "bill reading room" set up by Republicans to read the bill. In between floor speeches and committee votes, I randomly picked 3 sections of the bill to read. Each one was instructive. Here's what I learned that I had not before known about the bill in just a short reading:

1. The bill contains a section called "Individual responsibility." It is less than 20 words long. It merely refers to a section in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. But immediately following, is a section called "employer responsibility." It goes on for many sections and pages. We will never control health care costs as long as people are disconnected from the choice, cost, and quality of the services they receive. This bill moves people farther away.

2. In another section of the bill, I only went a few pages before encountering an entirely new "private right of action." A "private right of action" is an opportunity to file a lawsuit on the basis of federal law. This particular new lawsuit opportunity would be for employees to sue employers if they don't like their health care choices. There are many more such new litigation opportunities in this bill. It is universally (except of course for Pelosi and her minions) acknowledged that lawsuit abuse is driving up health care costs through direct costs as well as "defensive medicine"  by tens of billions of dollars annually. However this bill not only contains no lawsuit reform, it actually will make the problem far, far worse.  The trial lawyer lobby, however, must be very happy.

3. There is a 5.4% surtax on incomes over $500,000. This is just a "soak the rich" tax to partially pay for socialized medicine. But interestingly, the tax applies to adjusted gross income, not to taxable income. That means if you make $500,000 and give it all to charity, you will still pay a surtax of $27,000 even though you have no net income. I am not aware of any other provision of the tax code that applies the tax on gross income, rather than taxable income.

It just gets worse and worse and worse.  We will keep up the fight. I hope you will too.

Lest there be any doubt about whether the new Pelosi Health Care Bill is more costly, more controlling, and closer to socialism than the previous iteration, here is your fact of the day:

You may remember that the 'original' health care bill introduced before the August recess, H.R. 3200, would have created 53 separate bureaucracies, commissions, boards etc... The new Pelosi Bill, which the House may vote on as early as this week creates a whopping 111 new boards, bureaucracies, commissions, and programs....wow....if this isn't a massive government intervention into our health care system, I don't know what is. 

Monday's edition of the Wall Street Journal has a scathing editorial of the legislation introduced by Speaker Pelosi. It notes the creation of a new 'Health Choices Commissioner' that will decide "essential benefits" which all insurers will have to offer. This sounds like something straight out of Aldous Huxley's, A Brave New World or George Orwell's, 1984.

Thanks to the House Republican Conference, I have included a list of names of these proposed new bureaucratic entities along with the corresponding page numbers.

Click Here to Read all 1,990 pages.

1. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)
2. Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)
3. Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)
4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)
5. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)
6. Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)
7. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)
8. Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 155)
9. Program for technical assistance to employees of small businesses buying Exchange coverage (Section 305(h), p. 191)
10. Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Commissioner (Section 306(b), p. 194)
11. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)
12. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)
13. Grant program for health insurance cooperatives (Section 310, p. 206)
14. "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 321, p. 211)
15. Ombudsman for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 321(d), p. 213)
16. Account for receipts and disbursements for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 322(b), p. 215)
17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)
18. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for "culturally and linguistically appropriate services" (Section 1222, p. 617)
19. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)
20. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)
21. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)
22. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)
23. Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p. 718)
24. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)
25. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)
26. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)
27. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 784)
28. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 786)
29. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 796)
30. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 804)
31. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 859)
32. Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 933)
33. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)
34. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)
35. Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 1058)
36. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)
37. Nursing facility supplemental payment program (Section 1745, p. 1106)
38. Demonstration program for Medicaid coverage to stabilize emergency medical conditions in institutions for mental diseases (Section 1787, p. 1149)
39. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)
40. "Identifiable office or program" within CMS to "provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles" (Section 1905, p. 1191)
41. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)
42. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)
43. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)
44. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)
45. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)
46. Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 1253)
47. Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 1254)
48. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)
49. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)
50. Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 1275)
51. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)
52. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)
53. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1301)
54. Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 1305)
55. Grant program for research and demonstration projects related to wellness incentives (Section 2301, p. 1305)
56. Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 1308)
57. Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 1313)
58. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)
59. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)
60. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)
61. Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)
62. Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2521, p. 1372)
63. Grant program for interdisciplinary mental and behavioral health training (Section 2522, p. 1382)
64. "No Child Left Unimmunized Against Influenza" demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)
65. Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)
66. Grant program for interdisciplinary training, education, and services for individuals with autism (Section 2527(a), p. 1402)
67. University centers for excellence in developmental disabilities education (Section 2527(b), p. 1410)
68. Grant program to implement medication therapy management services (Section 2528, p. 1412)
69. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)
70. Grant program for State alternative medical liability laws (Section 2531, p. 1431)
71. Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)
72. Grant program to prepare secondary school students for careers in health professions (Section 2533, p. 1437)
73. Grant program for community-based collaborative care (Section 2534, p. 1440)
74. Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)
75. Grant program for reducing the student-to-school nurse ratio in primary and secondary schools (Section 2536, p. 1462)
76. Demonstration project of grants to medical-legal partnerships (Section 2537, p. 1464)
77. Center for Emergency Care under the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (Section 2552, p. 1478)
78. Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)
79. Grant program to support demonstration programs that design and implement regionalized emergency care systems (Section 2553, p. 1480)
80. Grant program to assist veterans who wish to become emergency medical technicians upon discharge (Section 2554, p. 1487)
81. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 2562, p. 1494)
82. National Medical Device Registry (Section 2571, p. 1501)
83. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 2581, p. 1597)
84. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 2581, p. 1598)
85. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 2581, p. 1602)
86. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)
87. National Women's Health Information Center (Section 2588, p. 1611)
88. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)
89. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women's Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)
90. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1618)
91. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1621)
92. Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 2589(a)(2), p. 1624)
93. Grant program for national health workforce online training (Section 2591, p. 1629)
94. Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs (Section 2591, p. 1632)
95. Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (Section 3101, p. 1717)
96. Demonstration program for substance abuse counselor educational curricula (Section 3101, p. 1719)
97. Program of Indian community education on mental illness (Section 3101, p. 1722)
98. Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards (Section 3101, p. 1754)
99. Office of Indian Men's Health (Section 3101, p. 1765)
100. Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board (Section 3101, p. 1774)
101. Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup (Section 3101, p. 1775)
102. Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects (Section 3101, p. 1809)
103. Urban youth treatment center demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1873)
104. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention (Section 3101, p. 1874)
105. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for health IT adoption (Section 3101, p. 1877)
106. Mental health technician training program (Section 3101, p. 1898)
107. Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1909)
108. Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators (Section 3101, p. 1925)
109. Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (Section 3101, p. 1927)
110. Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)
111. Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968)

• It is 1,990 pages long.
• It has about 400,000 words. That is 5 times the length in words of the Torah.
• It contains a government-run "option," which will effectively not be optional over the next 5-8 years.
• It spends over $1 trillion. That amounts to over $2.2 million per word.
• It uses the word "shall" 3,429 times. So, 3,429 times it compels someone to do or not do something.
• But one place where it uses the word "may" is in reference to whether Members of Congress "may" join the government run system. So, much of the public will be forced onto the government-run system but we in Congress will not. (Do what I say, not what I do)
• It increases taxes on small business, wealthy individuals, all medical devices (including wheelchairs, bandages, and such), people who save for their own health care costs through health savings accounts, payroll taxes and anyone who does not buy health insurance.
• It authorizes government funding of abortions, which is not allowed under current federal law.
• Any state that has a limit on attorney's fees or punitive damage awards in malpractice cases (like California) must change that law to remove all limits or the state loses federal money under the bill. (blatant trial lawyer provision)

Death Tax: When I am home in California, I get many questions about legislation relating to the Death Tax. As many of you know, the Death Tax currently kicks in at a 45% rate for estates over $3.5 million. But under current law, the tax will go away on January 1st, 2010 for 1 year. Then, it comes back on January 1st, 2011 at a 55% rate for estates over $1 million. This strange vacillation in the tax and the exemption has occurred in order to comply with arcane House rules calling for no increase in the deficit more than 10 years out from when the reduction in the death tax was passed. Obviously, the idea that the tax would go away and then come back 12 months later at its highest level in a decade is ridiculous public policy. There is universal agreement that this has to be changed. 

But that's where the agreement ends. Most Republicans, including this one, believe that the tax should be permanently eliminated. This wealth has already been taxed at least once when it was earned. Furthermore, this is a very inefficient tax.  The direct costs of collection are actually over 50% of the tax collected. And many studies show that the government actually loses revenue on a net basis from this tax due to actions taken to reduce the values of estates and avoid the tax. The tax, therefore, has become more of a punitive measure to eliminate wealth accumulation rather than a legitimate revenue source. In spite of these undisputed facts, virtually all Democrats either want the tax retained or increased. But they are unable to agree amongst themselves as to what those rates and exemptions should be. Because of the paralysis over socialized medicine in the nation's capital right now, they are not even currently trying to resolve those differences. The range of future rates and exemptions that have been discussed involve an exemption of $3.5-5 million and rates between 40% and 55%, with all that perhaps indexed to inflation. But there are no details anywhere.

So, the most likely outcome is that sometime before the end of the year, Congress will enact a one or two year extension of the current (2009) rates and exemptions to kick the can down the road a bit until a more permanent solution can be debated. Democrats, particularly from farm states, do not want to vote for anything short of full elimination of the tax close to an election. So, I expect that no permanent solution will be enacted until after November of 2010. 

Financial Regulation: As I have repeated many times in this missive, the near collapse of the worldwide financial system a year ago was real and very scary.  I don't ever want to look that in the face again. So, I support quite a number of changes to our financial regulatory system including disclosure and clearing of derivatives trading, approval of some financial products, and a systemic regulatory system that eliminates the "too big to fail" phenomenon by requiring more financial strength and oversight of such institutions and a structure under which such institutions can fail without jeopardizing the system. I thought that I and other like minded Republicans would be engaged in discussions on how best to do this with Democrats on our Financial Services Committee. This really is not a partisan issue. It is more about functionality.

But hold the presses. Welcome to the Obama Administration. Some promising early discussions were halted when the Obama administration decided that they wanted to move these bills sharply to the left. Now, the pattern with this administration is to make sure that every policy contains so much that is anathema to Republicans and moderate Democrats, that there is no chance of bipartisan support. They have done this on spending, taxes, health care, energy policy, foreign policy, and now financial regulation. Any pretense that this president is anything but the most liberal president ever is gone. For example, much of what he is doing in financial regulation is intended to create a bunch more federal union jobs in a new bureaucracy because the union that represents them wants to grow.  Just as with the stimulus, Pelosi and the Obama administration are exploiting the economic crisis to accomplish their ideological goals rather than taking action to fix it and prevent another one.  This is about more power and money to Democrats, from more public sector jobs, and fewer private sector ones. The only limit on his leftward drift is that there are many Democrats don't like what he is doing. 

So, the financial regulation that will likely pass the House will reach too far and will likely stifle credit, set up huge new expensive bureaucracies, create more frivolous litigation, move more trading oversees, and it will kill more private sector jobs. I will not support that. 

Health Care Factoid: Speaking of unions, it has been interesting to watch so many of them come out in opposition of the Senate/Baucus health care plan. Why? Because it taxes so-called "Cadillac health plans" that have lots of coverage. Most of these plans are in union-negotiated contracts. So, most teachers, firefighters, cops, auto workers, etc. have "Cadillac plans" and would be taxed under this proposal. Here's one time the unions and I agree. Don't we want as many people as possible to have the best health coverage possible, particularly with no taxpayer money involved? You tax something when you want less of it. But it will be hard to get many people into the government-run plan if there are far better alternatives out there. This is just another of the many stupid elements of the socialized medicine bills that Pelosi/Reid/Obama are determined to shove down our throats. 

Another of my bills: As a CPA, I have been required to take 40 hours per year of "continuing education" classes. A few years ago, I took an 8 hour class on IRAs. I remember thinking, how can they spend 8 hours on just Individual Retirement Accounts? After the class was over, the teacher pointed out how 8 hours was not nearly enough to cover this subject. I wholeheartedly agreed. That's ridiculous. Social Security is actuarially bankrupt and many government and private pension plans are in deep trouble. So why do we put up so many barriers allowing people to save as much of their OWN MONEY on a pretax basis as they want?

To fix this, I introduced Save More For Your OWN Retirement Act, which would allow anyone to put away up to 100% of their income in a retirement account in any year. That's it. No caveats and no restrictions. The only thing is that there is a big penalty if you pull the money out before you retire. With all the clouds on the horizon for baby boomers (oh yeah, that's me!) this is the least we can do. You will hear more about this bill as an alternative when Obama starts to raise your taxes to pay for other people's retirement in the next year or so.

Obama/McChrystal: Conflicts between military commanders and presidents are not a new phenomenon in the history of the United States. During the Civil War, several generals publicly clashed with President Lincoln. The most notable, of course, was Gen. George B. McClellan, who went on to oppose Lincoln for reelection in 1864. The public disagreements between Gen. MacArthur and President Truman are the stuff of legend, as are the protestations of Gen. Patton during World War II. In all of these cases, the general was relieved of command. That is the prerogative of the commander in chief. But it is also the right — and obligation — of a commander in the field to aggressively support the strategy that they believe will accomplish the mission that they have been assigned, with the least loss of American blood and treasure as possible.

The president fired Army Gen. David McKiernan and replaced him with Gen. McChrystal. The president laid out a mission and its objectives in March and asked the general to come up with a strategy to accomplish that. McChrystal did so, and is now under criticism for the recommendation he proffered at the president's request.

President Obama has come under criticism within his party and support base over his Afghanistan policy announced in March. It now seems that he is going to pivot on that policy. Rather than do so directly, it appears as though he may use McChrystal's proposal as a scapegoat to cover his own indecision about the best course in this war.

The skills and personality required to be a politician in a democracy are very different from those required to be a commander in the military. Those personalities have often come into conflict over centuries of war and politics. Our system, with a civilian commander in chief setting policy for the military chain of command, while not perfect, is still the best system out there. But it doesn't mean that the two will never conflict.

That said, I have been very clear that the situation in Afghanistan is extremely challenging and the solutions are far from obvious. But the president needs to decide on a mission objective and then fully implement the policy to accomplish that objective to achieve the desired end state. He has not done so. This vacillation, indecision, and weakness merely encourages our enemies and troubles our friends around the world.

Health Care Update: Democrats in both Houses continue to debate among themselves over this issue and continue to be uninterested in talking to, or compromising with Republicans because such a compromise would necessitate giving up on socialized medicine. That being said, here is what I believe their strategy on health care is:

The Senate Finance committee will vote next week on the Baucus bill you have heard so much about. But that will not be the final Senate bill. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will have their own version. They hope to get 60 votes in the Senate on whatever bill emerges and then probably send that bill to the House for an up or down vote. That is their "plan A." But, if they can't get the required 60 votes in the Senate, the will go to "plan B." Plan B involves using a Congressional process called "reconciliation." If they use "reconciliation, " then they only need 50 votes in the Senate (plus Vice President Biden) to pass it. A reconciliation process would start in the House and then move to the Senate. The bill would go through the House Budget Committee of which I am a member of. This is "plan B" because reconciliation is more restrictive than a general bill. There are some things you can do and some you can't when using this process. Both the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts were done using such a process. The reason those tax cuts sunset next year is because reconciliation would not allow them to go on over 10 years.

I expect the Senate to determine by the end of the month whether they can get 60 votes or not. Either way, the bill then moves to the House in November. They clearly want to try and pass this by Thanksgiving.

Hopefully we can stop them from killing more jobs and making the economy even worse than they already have.

More of my bills: Here are 2 more things I am working on:

Put Your Money Where Your Mouth is: This is a bill I first introduced last Congress. A number of very wealthy individuals and Hollywood luminaries have publicly commented on how they would be willing to pay more taxes to fund various new and expanded government programs. I think that's great. They should do that. Just don't use the tax code to make the rest of us support their pet projects.

In spite of all of their public statements, I am not aware of a single one of these individuals who has voluntarily contributed additional taxes to show their commitment to their words. Maybe that 's because they don't know how to do it? Perhaps it is too hard to figure out? Well, this bill would remedy that problem. It would simply add a line to the end of your tax return to enable anyone to pay more tax money than what is due if they choose to do so. This bill would make it so simple a caveman could do it. (Do I have to send a royalty to GEICO for that??)

Anyway, this bill would make it very easy for all of those actors, Congressmen, and various others who believe that taxes should be raised, to lead by example and pay more now! In other words, to put their money where their mouth is.

Interestingly, no Member of Congress who supports tax increases has cosponsored this bill. When similar bills were passed in the States of Oklahoma and Massachusetts, the amount of money raised was in the hundreds of dollars. Not hundreds of thousands. Hundreds.

Bear Bill: This is another bill from last Congress that I have reintroduced with Raul Grijalva (D-AZ). Some far eastern cultures use bear gall bladders and bear paws for ritual worship. As a result, bears are being killed all around the United States simply for their gall bladders, which are then shipped to another state, and then out of the country. This bill would make it a federal crime to transport bear gall bladders or paws across state lines. The idea here is to create a new enforcement mechanism to stop this disgusting and inhumane practice. As many of you know, I am an animal person and believe that the humane treatment of animals is an essential part of being a civilized society. Wherever animal abuse is accepted, human abuse is not far behind.

Last year, we were unable to get this bill passed out of the Natural Resources Committee, but we are hopeful that we will have more success this year.