by Ron Meyer
Conservative Columnist
Published May 29th, 2009

Pollution is bad. Yes, despite popular belief, Republicans and skeptics of global warming agree that carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, and any of the harmful pollutants people emit can be hurtful to our earth and its people. Action can and should be taken in Washington to help curtail these emissions. However, the most recent bill, the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act, will unnecessarily bankrupt American consumers, kill jobs, and further damage our already injured economy.

The original Waxman-Markey bill was designed to curb carbon dioxide emissions by introducing a government-run “cap and trade” system into our economy. Cap and trade, a supposed alternate to a carbon tax, forces companies that emit carbon dioxide to buy permits to do so. The government would auction a fixed number of these permits into the market each year. Businesses would be able to trade these permits. By putting a price on CO2 emissions and making them tradable, these businesses would have an incentive to use less CO2. However, this incentive only comes through the penalty of having to buy carbon permits; practically, it is a tax.

Most of our energy comes from CO2-emitting methods. Therefore, whether or not a certain business emits CO2, its costs will go up because the price of energy will skyrocket. Extra costs for businesses translate into laid-off workers and higher prices to make up for these additional costs.

When businesses raise prices, consumers take the heat. According to a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study, the average family would have incurred more than $3,900 dollars in extra expenses if the original bill had passed. While Obama has proposed a mild tax credit to low income families to balance these costs, there is no doubt that all family budgets, especially of families in areas powered by coal, will take a serious hit.

For this reason, some Democratic congressmen who are afraid of their constituents have pushed to modify the bill. Instead of doing one big government auction, the new Waxman-Markey bill would give out 85 percent of the permits, and auction off the remaining 15 percent. The 85 percent would be handed out to the people of Congress’s choosing. Certain energy distributors, automakers, natural gas distributors, and states with renewable energy programs would receive permits at the government’s discretion.

Even though this new plan may be marginally easier on consumers, the government should not be able to pick winners and losers. When congressmen select the recipients of the unauctioned permits, they are likely to pick businesses in their own district or companies that give money to their campaigns. Maybe this is why GE’s CEO Jeffery Immelt is excited about the bill’s possible passage.

Both the new and old Waxman-Markey bills have a problem with enforceability as well. How can the government ensure that companies are only using the carbon they purchased? The government would have to create a new measuring system and a new bureaucracy to make sure businesses are only using their permitted CO2. Watching over every business in America is neither a small nor an inexpensive endeavor, and may in fact be impractical.

Washington should still take action. However, instead of making the government bigger by creating a new bureaucracy, inhibiting our economy, or allowing D.C. to become even more corrupt, the government should step out of the way.

There is a solution, apart from cap and trade, that will save consumers and businesses money while still getting rid of pollution (not just CO2). This solution has been around for decades, and every other developed and developing country in the world is investing in this energy source. China has planned or is building 92 plants of this kind. France gets over 80 percent of its power from this source. This energy is four times cheaper than solar energy, and it is the second lowest in price only to coal. America’s best way to reduce pollution is to remove the ban on building nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power — or “nucular” power if you’re former president George W. Bush — is a cheap source of power with zero pollution, and the arguments to keep it banned are getting slimmer. New nuclear plants can provide America with cheap and pollution-free energy that is ready to produce right now. Wind, solar, hydrogen, and other clean sources are not nearly as developed as nuclear. Since electric cars have a good chance of becoming the next generation of automobiles, nuclear electricity could actually be the complete solution to our energy independence and pollution problems.

More nuclear power would help our economy and our environment. Cap and trade may help our environment, but it will certainly hurt our economy. The choice is easy for the American people, even if Washington runs on a different frequency.

By Ron Meyer

The battle for the heart of the Republican party has intensified. Senator Arlen Specter’s precipitous party switch has everyone asking the question: should the GOP be more moderate? In this fight, everyone seems to be arguing that their own political ideology should govern the party, rather than looking at what can bring Republicans together. Instead of looking for compromise, the right-wingers want the party to be more conservative and the moderates and the neo-cons want a centrist party. Both of these solutions have fatal flaws.

The moderates — led by David Brooks of the New York Times and author David Frum — really don’t have much political evidence for their argument. Becoming a party of moderates sounds promising, but as I’ve mentioned in previous columns, this idea is oxymoronic. Parties are made up of partisans: people who feel strongly about issues.

Having a party of moderates is kind of like having an unbiased opinion — it isn’t possible. What Brooks and Frum want is for the party to become ambidextrous by cutting off its right arm. This doesn’t make any sense, especially when you consider that the right arm does all the work. When was the last time you saw an excited group of moderates putting up signs and making phone calls for their candidates. Let’s be honest, the people with the strongest beliefs do most of the political groundwork, and without them you have no party and no foundation for success.

Despite what the media has been touting, there is empirical evidence to show that conservatives still have a large base. According to a recent Harris Poll, 37% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, compared to 18% who identify as liberal. This number has been stable for 40 years. The biggest problem with the GOP is that they have not been able to effectively unite their base with a comprehensive message. This is why only 26% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans.

I am not advocating that the GOP turn into a radically right-wing organization. Despite Rush Limbaugh’s recent claims, the Republicans need both conservatives and moderates in their party. However, no American party has ever been successfully organized by moderates. Instead of following Brooks and Frum down the pathway of principleless complacency, maybe the GOP should follow the Democrats’ successful political model.

Democrats manage to keep all of the liberals in their party while still attracting moderates. Only 18% of Americans claim to be liberal, yet 36% of Americans identify themselves as Democrats. To do this, they have built a party on liberal principles and have marketed these principles to a significant portion of the American middle. They also happened to find a very effective messenger in Barack Obama.

Just like the Democratic party has liberal principles, the Republican party needs to have a clear set of conservative principles which they can market to the middle. George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism (aka what Brooks and Frum are now calling moderation) has wrecked the perception of what those principles are. Bush tried to create a big-government Republicanism — a mix of terms that had the conservative base outraged. He grew the government establishment larger than any president since Lyndon Johnson and his “Great Society.” After the bailouts, the massive growth in entitlements, and the significant increase to the deficit, America did not know who to look to for fiscal conservatism. This is why Republican identification shrank to 26%.

Bush adopted Democratic spending policies and confused the American people about what the Republican party stood for. Brooks and Frum want the party to continue this confusion. Republicans cannot be the party of big-government conservatism. Democrats are already the party of big-government. Does it makes sense for the GOP to be the party of a somewhat smaller big-government? No. The Republicans must offer the American people an alternative to the endless deficit spending, growth-punishing taxes, bureaucratic wastefulness, and welfare statism that has dominated Barack Obama and George Bush’s agenda over the last nine years.

To do this, Republicans will have to renew and redefine what conservatism means. I believe the clearest and most marketable way to do this is Constitutionalism. By doing this, Republicans will clearly be the party of limited government, freedom, and liberty — values which seem to have gone missing in Washington. This message will bring all conservatives back under the Republican party while offering an appealing movement for American moderates to join. This principled and inclusive Republican party would refresh American politics and bring the GOP back into relevance.

by Ron Meyer
Columnist
Published May 1st, 2009

Trying to justify torture is a little bit like trying to justify killing. It is immoral to kill, unless it is done in the context of self-defense, punishment, or a state of war. It is wrong to torture unless we must do so to protect our nation.

Yes, I know that the Geneva Convention — a document more revered by liberals than the Constitution — bans torture. However, the wording prevents methods “by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,” is inflicted on the individual being interrogated. This language is pretty ambiguous. Unlike the Constitution (through the Federalist Papers), we do not really know what the writers of this document intended.

Severe could mean a lot of things; I think Brian Roberts’ homework causes severe suffering, but I don’t see Congressional Democrats going after him like they have been going after the Bush Administration. The Navy Seals have waterboarded and drowned their own soldiers during training exercises for years, but I haven’t heard Senator Dianne Feinstein go on MSNBC calling for investigation of the Navy.

The good news is that President Barack Obama said he would not pursue an investigation of the Bush officials who ordered and executed these methods. However, many Democrats still want to go after someone. They have chosen the attorneys who told the Bush administration that the wording of the Geneva Convention was elastic enough to use enhanced interrogation methods. Obama must insure that this “witch hunt,” as John McCain dubbed it, is stopped.

Incoming administrations should not investigate prior administrations because of policy differences. It’s a waste of time and sets an uncivilized precedent. By using harsh interrogation techniques, the Bush administration did not do anything morally wrong. Self-defense is not morally wrong. In fact, it should be expected that an administration do what is necessary within the bounds of the Constitution to protect its people.

Some argue that we denied terrorists their Constitutional rights to Habeas Corpus. Let’s be clear, the Constitution protects Americans, not foreign terrorists. In fact, Bush did break Constitutional law when he authorized warrantless wire-tapping. The difference here is that the administration was illegally searching Americans. Our Constitution was designed to protect our freedoms, not to cripple America’s ability to defend itself.

Many liberals still deny that waterboarding helped keep us safe. After last week, there is no question that by detaining and interrogating enemy combatants, America is better defended against future attacks. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury’s memo dated May 30, 2005 states, “intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why Al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West.” The memo continues by describing how senior terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed first “resisted giving any answers” until he was waterboarded. Only then did he release “specific, actionable intelligence.” This information was used to stop Al Qaeda’s plan to crash a plane into a Los Angeles skyscraper.

President Bush, with all his faults and mistakes, was able to keep America safe after 9/11. While he may have made us safer had he worked better with other nations, he was still able to do what was necessary to prevent another 9/11. As my friends know, I don’t like defending President Bush, but in this case I have no choice but to give him credit.

While I am grateful that President Obama will not go through with a showy investigation of the former administration, I would hope that he would consider keeping all options on the table when dealing with terrorists. By taking the ‘high ground’ on this issue, he has made his job harder and our country more vulnerable. On the positive side, I’m sure this decision will make foreign countries like us more. However, I’m not sure I like the compromise between likability and safety.

The last weeks have given us a much deeper understanding of the efficacy of enhanced interrogation methods. We should use this wisdom and learn from history. No one likes torture, but waterboarding and other harsh methods should be available as a last resort. American life is too valuable to be left in jeopardy just because a few of our leaders have deranged moral compasses.