USD College Republicans
- All
- Climate Change/Global Warming
- Affirmative Action
- Freedom
- Medicare
- No Child Left Behind
- Economics
- Media
- Taxes
- Ridiculous!
- Trade
- Democrats
- Telecom
- The Courts
- Neo-conservatism
- Presidential Race 2008
- Libertarianism
- Earmarks
- Student Government Association
- Congress
- University of South Dakota
- State and Local Politics
- General
- Republicans
- Grassroots conservatism
- Iraq
- Education
- USD Political Science League
- Afghanistan
- SCHIP
- Subsidies
- Spending
- Health Care
- Social Security
- Africa
- Labor unions
- Political Philosophy
- Hyperion Oil Refinery at Elk Point
- Foreign Policy
- War on Terror
More thoughts on Nesselhuf's reply
1) Mr. Blake made it sound as if Nesselhuf actually had an active role in the USD money. He had absolutely nothing to do with the bill, other than voting for it like every other senator
2) Mr. Blake said that Nesselhuf is the first Senator from Clay County in 100 years to hold a Senatorial leadership. That is about as much of a stretch as possible. There is absolutely no statute or Senate rule mentioning a "Caucus Chairman." It is a title made up by the Democrats to make him sound important. If he were something like majority or minority leader, whip, or president pro tempore, he would be a Senate leader. But he isn't any of those.
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 05:27PM Sep 24, 2008 by College Republicans in University of South Dakota | Comments[1]
Obama refuses to suspend campaign
I'm watching Barack Obama on CNN right now. He is saying that he won't suspend his campaign right now and that he wants to debate on Friday.
This move doesn't lend much to his lie that he works in a bipartisan fashion.
More updates as things occur.
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 03:54PM Sep 24, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008 | Comments[4]
My response to Nesselhuf's response
To Matt Blake’s response to my Nesselhuf column last week:
---On the minimum wage and pre-K education---
-Of course Mr. Blake is happy Nesselhuf supports these. Increased government meddling in citizens’ lives is a valuable tool for the Democratic Party.
-Blake makes a knee-jerk assumption that the minimum wage is beneficial (it isn’t) and that pre-K education is a good investment for taxpayer dollars.
---On Hyperion---
Nesselhuf’s failed bill would have allowed the state government to write incredibly strict environmental regulations, leaving the door open for opposition
to essentially write Hyperion out of existence, by, say, regulating so strictly that Hyperion could not operate.
“I took the laws straight off the books in California…” said Nesselhuf at one of the hearings on Hyperion.
-Also, Nesselhuf was so anti-Hyperion that the Hyperion people don’t want to work with him. Hyperion IS coming. Nesselhuf is not ready.
---My “hard core partisan” stance---
-Apparently Mr. Blake knows me…despite the fact that we’ve never met.
-His claim that I am a hardcore partisan is untrue. Though I am president of a partisan organization, I remove that hat when I write. The Volante hired me
to write Matt Hittle’s opinions, not the College Republicans’. There are several issues in the Republican Platform with which I don’t agree.
-It’s smart for Mr. Blake to paint me as a radical, though. It erodes my credibility in the eyes of readers. Both he and Bill Muller, the Nesselhuf campaign
manager, have done this now. Muller did it in a press release in which he falsely claimed that my Nesselhuf column was a product of the College
Republicans. When asked to correct this mistake, Muller became angry and refused to change the blatant error (or lie, depending on your view).
---Nesselhuf voted _____ times for _____---
-And? What’s your point? So he voted a bunch of times for bills that don’t pass. Shouldn’t his effectiveness be measured not by the ideas he supports, but
by his ability to get those ideas codified into law?
-What do you mean by “helped secure” dollars for USD? You mean he “voted for” the bill that gave dollars to USD. Blake makes it sound like Nesselhuf
took the lead, valiantly “securing” money for USD. In reality, Nesselhuf merely voted for a Regents-supported bill. That’s a no-brainer.
---Nesselhuf is popular---
-No argument there, he’s a nice guy and his father is a nice guy. But you can’t ride the amiability of yourself and your family forever. Eventually, you’ll
have to face your record, whether it’s in 2008 or in the next cycle.
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 03:50PM Sep 24, 2008 by College Republicans in University of South Dakota | Comments[0]
The Coal Miner
Either your support coal or not. Which is it?
Posted at 01:03PM Sep 24, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008 | Comments[0]
Ron Paul lets us down
Ron Paul recently endorsed Chuck Baldwin for president
Now, I wasn't a Paul supporter, (for reasons that the quote below will establish). But for perhaps the most well-known living American libertarian to endorse such a terrible choice is nearly unforgivable.
Who is Chuck Baldwin? He is the Constitution Party candidate for president. He is also the purveyor of whatever conspiracy theories are hot right now.
Yes, he's one of the "I can't deal with real life, so I've got to develop a story that makes me feel better" crowd:
------
Paul himself believes the ridiculous claim that the Bush Administration is trying to establish a "North American Union" uniting Mexico, the US, and Canada under a single government. Baldwin goes Paul one better. He not only endorses the NAU myth but also claims that "By 2015, I’m told, the powers that be want to merge Europe and America." He thinks that the Council on Foreign Relations is at the heart of a conspiracy to create a "global government" - a longstanding trope for conspiracy theorists. He rails against "moneychangers" who are supposedly destroying us by promoting free trade and international investment for the ultimate purpose of establishing a world government. Baldwin even wrote a 2007 column entitled "There is a Conspiracy" documenting the supposed plan to create world government. To prevent this, he is opposed to the "global economy," free trade, and international economic integration, a position radically at odds with that of most libertarians (see the last three links).
-----
Libertarians, big "L" and little "l," need to distance themselves from conspiracy theorists like Paul and Baldwin. Relationships with conspiracy theorists are steadily decreasing their credibility in the eyes of major political parties and the electorate as a whole.
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 09:18PM Sep 23, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008 | Comments[0]
Victory...or not?
Congressional Democrats have finally admitted defeat and are going to allow the moratorium on offshore oil drilling expire. Unfortunately, the ridiculous legislation passed last week that denies the US to drill 90% of its offshore reserves still stands.
HT: Drudge
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 07:22PM Sep 23, 2008 by College Republicans in Congress | Comments[0]
Biden: No coal plants in America, but China OK
"No coal plants here in America," he said. "Build them, if they're going to build them, over there. Make them clean."
"We’re not supporting clean coal," he said of himself and Obama. They do, on paper, support clean coal.
--------
--------
HT: Ben Smith
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 07:07PM Sep 23, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008 | Comments[0]
Suppressing free speech for posterboard space?
After my morning class, I strolled around campus, replacing the College Republicans signs that had been torn down over the morning.
We put our signs on general-purpose sign boards, and people are free to tear them down to put other signs up.
I was replacing torn down signs in East Hall and was approached by a woman who said "If you inundate this board again, I will get you in trouble because I am faculty." I asked this faculty member what, exactly, I would be charged with and she said "littering" and stormed off.
She wouldn't give me her name.
As she stormed away, I told her not to suppress my speech. And I meant it.
Now, I'm not sure what is at issue. Either she was mad about the CRs using too much poster board space or she was mad that the CRs were USING poster board space at all due to some political bias. I'm not assuming the bias, but it is a possibility. Either way, I thought her attempted suppression of the CRs' free speech was ridiculous, so I put up my signs and immediately called the Dean of Students.
Luckily, the Dean assured me that the College Republicans were not being inappropriate with our signage and that there is no precedent, to her knowledge, that allows disciplinary action to be taken against students who put up lots of posters.
They can keep tearing down the posters, as is their right. But we'll keep replacing them, as is our right.
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 11:52AM Sep 23, 2008 by College Republicans in University of South Dakota | Comments[4]
Greed
With all the recent talk about greed on Wall Street, I thought I'd re-post this primer on greed from Milton Friedman. It's short, sweet, and insightful.
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 09:05AM Sep 23, 2008 by College Republicans in Economics | Comments[0]
Why are Pelosi and company being so secretive?
Why?
Earmarks.
------------------
The unusual process means thousands of lawmakers' pet projects of the very sort blasted by GOP presidential nominee John McCain on the campaign trail would escape scrutiny, including up to $5 billion worth of such "earmarks" in the defense budget alone.
Congressional leaders hope to pass the budget legislation this week, but several issues remained undecided Monday. For starters, it wasn't clear how much the White House would be willing to accept.
Bush has threatened to veto bills that don't cut the number and cost of earmarks in half or cause agency operating budgets, taken together, to exceed his request.
While top-level congressional leaders haven't made final decisions, elements of the year-end budget package are likely to include:
_Stopgap government funding. Most federal agencies would see their budgets frozen at current levels for several weeks or even into March. Lawmakers want to avoid a postelection "lame duck" session, but fear the White House will force them to return to session in November in hopes Congress would approve a free trade pact with Colombia.
_Security-related budgets. More than $600 billion to fund the 2009 budgets for the Pentagon, Homeland Security Department and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
_Disaster aid. Up to $25 billion in emergency funding for victims of Gulf Coast hurricanes, midwestern floods and other natural disasters.
_Automaker loans. More than $7 billion is provided to subsidize $25 billion in loans to help the "Big Three" U.S. automakers retool their plants to build cleaner, more energy efficient cars.
_Heating subsidies. Democrats want to double the budget to $5.1 billion for a popular program providing heating subsidies for the poor.
-------------
Ahhhhhhh the Democratic Party! Champions of open and honest governance! NOT.
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 07:50AM Sep 23, 2008 by College Republicans in Congress | Comments[0]
Biden doesn't like Obama campaign's negativitiy
The Obama campaign has taken a turn toward Negative Town, but it appears Gaffe-Master General Joe Biden isn't on board.
The ad in question is the one that ridicules McCain for his inability to use the Internet (which is because he is physically unable to type).
Biden said:
"I thought that was terrible, by the way," Biden said.
Asked why it was done, he said: "I didn't know we did it and if I had anything to do with it, we'd have never done it."
Of course, after getting a tongue-lashing from his Obama Overlords, he changed his tune:
"Having now reviewed the ad, it is even more clear to me that given the disgraceful tenor of Sen. McCain's ads and their persistent falsehoods, his campaign is in no position to criticize, especially when they continue to distort Barack's votes on an issue as personal as keeping kids safe from sexual predators,"
Speak your mind Joe, you're the only one on the Obama side who will open his mouth without a teleprompter in sight!
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 07:42AM Sep 23, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008 | Comments[0]
NEW COMMENT POLICY
I'm instituting a new policy here at the College Republicans blog.
All comments must be written under your name, not a pseudonym, not "anonymous."
All comments that are anonymous or those listed under an obvious pseudonym will be deleted.
We CR bloggers are brave enough to write under our own names. We catch flack, but we've got the cajones to keep writing. It's only fair that you do the same.
Thanks
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 12:20PM Sep 22, 2008 by College Republicans in University of South Dakota | Comments[6]
More thoughts on Nesselhuf's ineffectiveness
Joe Sneve, Volante political reporter, has a new blog. The most recent post is about the Nesselhuf's ham-handed response to my recent opinion column on Nesselhuf's ineffectual Senate term.
Here's a pertinent section:
-------
However, what may be relatively surprising to some is in a press release issued Wednesday afternoon in response to Hittle’s column, Nesselhuf’s camp only addressed one of the columnist’s claims, the claim accusing the senator of not doing enough to benefit the university he attends.
-------
This got me thinking. How many of those bills that Nesselhuf apparently supported were actually passed? This question wasn't addressed by the Nesselhuf campaign.
Shouldn't Nesselhuf's effectiveness be measured by legislation that was actually PASSED, rather than legislation that he supported, but wasn't passed?
The text of the Nesselhuf press release uses phrases like "Ben has voted" and "Ben helped" and "Ben obtained special clearance." These are incredibly ambiguous. Heck, we still haven't been told what "special clearance" means!
Something is fishy here. The Nesselhuf campaign is claiming that the Senator has been effective simply by virtue of supporting certain ideas. But it seems that actually getting those ideas codified into law is of no importance. I guess that the primary argument for Nesselhuf's reelection is: When it comes to Nesselhuf's record, it's only the thought that counts.
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 12:08PM Sep 21, 2008 by College Republicans in General | Comments[2]
McCain's new ads
I especially like the second one because I like hearing the message directly from the candidates' mouth.
"Patriotic Act"
"Foundation"
"Jim Johnson"
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 09:50AM Sep 21, 2008 by College Republicans in General | Comments[0]
Slowing Muller's and Nesselhuf's spin
*The following has not been influenced by, accepted by, or endorsed by the USD College Republicans. They are the views of Matt Hittle*
I've been detached from the uproar over my last column, as I've been out of town. But I'm pleased as punch!
Bill Muller, the Nesselhuf campaign manager sent out a press release after my column went to print.
Here it is:
---------
Friends of Nesselhuf,
With a mere 48 days until election day, the Republicans have begun their attacks on State Senator Ben Nesselhuf. Recently on campus, posters have surfaced against Ben and then in the current issue of The Volante there was an opinion piece personally attacking Ben. Both of these pieces originated with the College Republicans.
The attacks do not change the facts. The fact is that Ben has been a powerful voice for USD in Pierre.
- Since 2001 Ben has co-sponsored, sponsored, or voted upon legislation that would create, expand or fund a scholarship program over 21 times.
- Ben has voted 9 times to reduce tuition for specific categories of students, such as members of the National Guard.
- Ben helped bring $4.3 million in construction money to USD, including $1.8 million for the new medical school.
- Ben obtained special clearance for the Board of Regents to bond for almost $16 million for lab upgrades at USD.
His voting record shows that Ben understands what is important to USD and has provided a powerful voice for students and employees in Pierre.
It is clear that the Republican Party will go to any lengths to take down Ben, so please donate $25 to help defend Ben against these baseless attacks.
You can donate by clicking here.
---------
I've got a few things to say about this:
1) My column did not originate with the USD College Republicans. In an on-the-record phone call, Mr. Muller refused to fix this error and became quite angry when I said it was wrong.
2) The Republican Party will go to "any lengths" to take down Ben? I'm discussing his legislative history. It seems that the Nesselhuf campaign needs to learn the difference between issue-based and ad hominem attacks. I will VIGOROUSLY attack Mr. Nesselhuf on his legislative history, but I will ALWAYS refrain from attacking his personal life. The Nesselhuf campaign is again trying to squelch discussion of his legislative history.
3) Almost everyone who has been in the legislature for nearly a decade would have sponsored, co-sponsored- or voted upon USD-related legislation. Just the Opportunity Scholarship legislation was proposed several times, was funded by a separate bill, and there have also have been votes to change it. That amounts to several votes on one USD-related issue. Image all of the scholarships that USD provides, then imagine voting on changes to those scholarships. That amounts to tons of tiny votes- that the Nesselhuf campaign spins to appear important.
4) Mr. Nesselhuf may have voted to reduce tuition for specific categories of students, because these bills often arise in the legislature. However, they are typically opposed by the Regents because they rarely include funding to pay for the loss in tuition revenue - the burden is simply thrown back onto the other universities. Leave it to a Democrat to mandate that something occur, but not fund it!
5) As for the USD construction and lab upgrades, these were part of Regents-pushed bills that were supported by the governor. When Mr. Muller says that Mr. Nesselhuf "helped," that merely means he voted for it, not that he played an active role!
And I think we all would like to know what "special clearance" means.
-------
As you can see, the Nesselhuf campaign states facts in such a way that pumps up the Senator's resume. They may be true, but when you dig a bit deeper, you'll find that Mr. Nesselhuf isn't a leader, but merely follows.
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 09:14AM Sep 19, 2008 by College Republicans in General | Comments[0]
The attacks have begun
In a message to supporters, Nesselhuf campaign manager Bill Muller indicated that the political column I pen for the Volante is affiliated with the College Republicans. It is not.
I demand he correct this error as soon as possible. In an on-the-record conversation I had with him yesterday, he was extremely angry and seemed very reluctant to accommodate this demand.
The e-mail claims I personally attacked Mr. Nesselhuf. I'm not surprised. On this blog, Bill characterized discussion of Ben's legislative record as a "low blow."
Why can't we discuss Nesselhuf's legislative record? Or is Bill simply regurgitating tired press secretary lines?
At any rate, the Nesselhuf campaign needs to learn the difference between personal and legitimate attacks. We don't talk about Ben's family or his personal life. We discuss his record- his votes, his statements, and his employment.
If Bill and Ben had nothing to hide, they wouldn't have a problem with discussion of these things.
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 08:29AM Sep 18, 2008 by College Republicans in General | Comments[6]
Tim's Column
Also check out Tim Carr's columnin the Volante this week!
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 10:14AM Sep 17, 2008 by College Republicans in General | Comments[0]
Nessehuf Needs to Go
Check out my political column in the first print edition of the Volante. It can be found HERE.
It discusses State Senator Ben Nesselhuf's inadequacies and why I think he should be removed from office on November 4th.
Apparently, parts of the piece were leaked to Nesselhuf by someone on the Volante staff last weekend, so I'm on pins and needles while waiting for what will surely be a rapid-fire response from Nesselhuf's campaign manager Bill Muller or the USD Dems in general.
Here's a quick disclaimer about the article that is already known by the Nesselhuf campaign: Jerad Higman has not read, influenced, seen, or approved anything I wrote in that column.
Also, the CR signs around campus were not paid for, influenced by, seen, or approved by any Republican candidate. They are totally from the minds and personal pocketbooks of the CRs.
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 09:34AM Sep 17, 2008 by College Republicans in University of South Dakota | Comments[0]
Dems Prez off the mark
In response to my column last week, USD Democrats President, Brittany Neiles wrote a letter to the Volante editor. An Obama supporter, she was off-the-mark.
Her primary argument is that government-forced civil service, like USD's IDEA program and other programs, are already established in citizens' lives. Therefore, expanding them is acceptable.
But this assumes that those initial plans are acceptable. They are not. No kind of government-forced community service is acceptable. In a truly free country, citizens have the right to decide whether or not they want to serve.
Obama's plan would not only force us to serve, but it would tell us how to serve. We would no longer be able to work in ID Weeks or as a Tech Fellow for student work. Instead, we would be forced to work in a soup kitchen, pick up trash, or any number of community service positions.
A secondary assumption Neiles makes is that the actual work the government forces us to do is good work. By forcing us to do its bidding, the government is telling us what is important. For instance, if I value saving the environment, but am forced to work in a soup kitchen, my passion and knowledge about the environment is wasted. It wouldn't have been if I had the right to serve if/how I wanted.
The Democrats often say that the US cannot force democracy on nations like Iraq, because they didn't fight for, and earn, it. If fighting for, and earning, something is required to appreciate it, then it must be true that government-forced service does not instill any values into citizens.
Obama's plan is still a gross infringement on our freedoms.
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 09:29AM Sep 17, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008 | Comments[1]
Rangel can't even negotiate the tax code!
The WSJ has a great column about how Charlie Rangel, the man in charge of the entire tax code, can't even figure it out!
-----
House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel of New York admitted last week that in recent years he has underpaid his taxes by about $10,000. Republicans are demanding that he step down as chairman pending an Ethics Committee investigation, but we're more sympathetic. Charlie is a victim of the tax code he helped to write.
His lawyer says Mr. Rangel flubbed his tax return by failing to record some $75,000 of rental income he received from a beach house he owns at a posh Dominican Republic resort. Mr. Rangel professes to have made an honest mistake, and says "I personally feel that I have done nothing morally wrong." He explained that he didn't know how much income he received from the property because his Dominican business partners would "start speaking Spanish."
Plenty of Americans know how he feels since the IRS tax form might as well be in Spanish. The tax code now runs to some 67,000 pages, and Mr. Rangel has probably written a few thousand himself in his 38 years on Capitol Hill. If even the nation's top tax writer can't figure out what to declare as income, and what not to declare, how can the rest of us be expected to get it right?
Not that the IRS will show Joe Taxpayer any mercy. In most disputes over even honest mistakes, the tax collectors presume guilt. Mr. Rangel is also one of those who like to denounce corporations that shield income overseas. He'd better hope both the IRS and his House colleagues treat him with more forbearance than he and they treat private citizens or businesses. Who knows, maybe Mr. Rangel will even take this embarrassment as new motivation to work with the next President on tax reform. How do you say "flat tax" in Spanish?
-----
This is hilarious!
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 10:07PM Sep 14, 2008 by College Republicans in Taxes | Comments[0]
Why did the government repair Cherry Street?
Comedian and libertarian, Drew Carey, as a fantastic series of videos on the Reason Magazine website. I'll be posting links to a few of them.
The first deals with road construction. It discusses the notion of privately-built and maintained toll roads. Most liberals view this idea with disdain- roads are supposed to be for everyone!
Ah, that's where they're wrong.
The roads Carey proposes run right alongside- or above, below, or between the lanes of- government roads. The government roads remain gridlocked while the toll road's traffic moves along at a steady pace.
HERE is the video. I recommend you watch it.
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 10:17AM Sep 14, 2008 by College Republicans in Economics | Comments[0]
Obama needs to try fact-checking
Barack Obama has launched a new ad that lampoons John McCain for his inability to use the Internet.
Unfortunately for Obama, his lack of fact-checking left this tidbit of information unfound:
Yet more fact-less ad hominem attacks from Obama. It's becoming predictable. Maybe he'll put a fact in his next ad to throw us off.
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 01:56AM Sep 13, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008 | Comments[1]
The Real Women's Party
In these past few weeks, Sarah Palin has come striding onto the scene, knocking everybody back on their ….heels. She has proven herself to be ferocious (pit bull-like?) against her opponents, well-spoken, charismatic, and most of all, quite conservative. She stands for everything that I value. Her views of abortion, her real-life experience with corrupted government…I cannot find anything I don’t like about this woman.
If everything goes as it should, in January of next year, we will have our first female vice-president. But more importantly, we will have a vice-president who will have values and morals in line with most of the conservative right. The history-making is just a bonus.
And yet, the media is focusing more on Sarah Palin’s gender than her actual views and policies. We have to watch as a woman gets pummeled in the media for being a woman. And the biggest outrage, after DECADES of fighting to get out of the kitchen, the left is telling us that Sarah Palin is abandoning her family by having a career.
I honestly don’t know why every woman in America isn’t absolutely furious right now. We have gotten so far as to have a female vice-president candidate, and suddenly the left tells us that we women have made it too far. Now we have to stay home and not dirty our hands with men‘s work. Maybe they should just tie our apron strings around our feet.
The Democrats claim they are the party that supports women’s rights. But they were the party that passed on having Hillary Clinton as their VP. Instead, they chose Joe Biden, a man who actually had the idiocy to say that Sarah Palin was “obviously a backward step for women.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijGoISc7vFc)
You know, I may not agree with Hillary Clinton on anything, but I respect her. She has made strides where no woman has ever gone before. She very nearly made the first female major-partied-backed run for president. For that alone, I respect her. But couldn’t the Democrats have the same courtesy?
They may not agree with any of Sarah Palin’s views, but that alone does not give them the right to say that the very real possibility of the first female vice-president is a “backward step for women.” If the Democrats call this women’s rights, I’ll think I’ll pass, and take my vote to a party that actually values my views, regardless of my gender.
-Lindsey Van Beek
Posted at 12:56PM Sep 11, 2008 by College Republicans in General | Comments[3]
New Volante Columns
There are two articles you should check out today:
Fellow CR Raleigh Tiahrt has his first Volante Opinion Column and I've got my first column of the year
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 09:08AM Sep 10, 2008 by College Republicans in University of South Dakota | Comments[0]
On Debate II
Let's quell this now.
1) The USD College Republicans will participate in a debate that is structured. We can say we'll be nice, but tempers flare. Basic structure doesn't inhibit one side from expressing itself, being witty, or making jokes.
2) A discussion about candidates will invariably lead to squabbling about missteps along the campaign trail- the minutia of politics. We'd rather not waste our time when the pundits engage in this discussion ad nauseam. We'd much rather talk about the respective platforms of the parties- that is, the issues. We want the theme of the debate not to be the candidates specifically, but about issues.
3) I'm not partial to either the PSL or the Volante debate. However, I am sure that PSL would cater the questions according to the fact that it is an election year. It's not as if they use the same questions each year (Full disclosure: I am secretary of PSL, but have excused myself from all meetings regarding the debate).
4) I don't know if the USD Democrats have more information than we do, but we haven't heard a peep from the Volante since the original e-mail regarding this topic. If the USD Democrats have more concrete information that has not been shared with the College Republicans, that's all the more reason for us not to participate.
5) Like I've said before, we aren't agreeing to anything at this point because the Volante hasn't even so much as approached us with concrete ideas. When the Volante approaches us with an official plan/offer, we will vote on the matter.
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 12:07AM Sep 10, 2008 by College Republicans in University of South Dakota | Comments[0]
On Debate
In their latest post, the USD Democrats whined about lack of debate on campus. They said there is a "demand" for debate and that our members use "smear pictures" in their Facebook profile pictures.
Look through the silly hyperbole and ad hominem and you'll find a nugget of truth: They want to fight and they want a spectacle to show it off.
Instead of respectfully asking for a debate with the College Republicans, South Dakota Federation of Democrats President Emily Van Gerpen launched an ad hominem attack against members of the USD College Republicans (and a veiled snipe at me) and their Facebook pictures. Sure, my profile picture lampoons Obama from time to time, but that fact has no place in a debate about issues.
This just goes to show what kind of rhetoric we can expect from the USD Democrats in whichever debate occurs.
The USD College Republicans want to engage in debate. However, we won't be drawn into a spectacle. I don't know about the USD Democrats, but the USD College Republicans want to maintain their reputation as calm, intelligent debaters. An "informal" debate might put this reputation at risk. That's not a risk the USD College Republicans are willing to take. Heck, we don't even know what "informal" means yet. We've heard a peep here and there from the Volante, but we're not going to agree to anything without first seeing an official sheet of rules and a pledge that they will be strictly enforced.
In addition to engaging in a proper, structured debate, the USD College Republicans will not talk about the presidential candidates. We don't want to talk about Palin's baby. We don't want to talk about Obama's ties to the Rezko scandal. We don't want to talk about Biden's slurs against immigrants. We don't want to talk about McCain's age.
We want to talk about issues. And if you examine the USD Democrats' latest post, they make nary a mention of issues, instead wanting to debate presidential candidates. Well, the USD College Republicans think the candidates themselves are doing that already.
It remains to be seen which debate the USD College Republicans will participate in. But the USD Democrats should understand the simple fact that, if you want someone to participate in your event, it's best not to insult them.
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 09:32AM Sep 09, 2008 by College Republicans in University of South Dakota | Comments[0]
Obama realizes tax increases are bad. Finally.
Barack Obama has finally realized that tax increases are bad.
Appearing with George Stephanopolous on one of the Sunday morning talk shows, Obama said he finally realized tax increases aren't the cure-all he has made them out to be.
From the Wall Street Journal:
-----
The good news is that Barack Obama said on ABC Sunday that he might not go through with his plans to increase taxes.
The bad news is that the economy has to be mired in recession to avoid the largest tax increase in the nation's history.
Our check of the Dow Jones Factiva database suggests that other than viewers of ABC's "This Week," only three or four newspapers carried an account of Senator Obama's amended tax plan. While it's possible that the story of a deferred tax increase could shock the media into paralysis, we take it as an encouraging sign. The education of Barack Obama continues apace.
For the record, here is what he told ABC's George Stephanopoulos.
Mr. Stephanopoulos: "So even if we're in a recession next January, you come into office, you'll still go through with your tax increases?"
Senator Obama: "No, no, no, no, no. What I've said, George, is that even if we're still in a recession, I'm going to go through with my tax cuts. That's my priority."
Mr. Stephanopoulos: "But not the increases?"
Senator Obama: "I think we've got to take a look and see where the economy is. The economy is weak right now. The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers indicates that we're fragile. I want to accelerate those tax cuts through a second stimulus package, get more money into the pockets of ordinary Americans, see if we can stabilize the housing market, and then we're going to have to reevaluate at the beginning of the year to see what kind of hole we're in."
* * *
Even individuals staring down the barrel of Mr. Obama's tax increases should not wish for an economic recession to give them a reprieve. The relevant point is that it was early last year, when the "Bush economy" was still humming, that Senator Obama first proposed pushing taxes sharply upward on "the wealthy," while giving what he calls "tax cuts" (actually they are credits, not rate reductions) to "the middle class."
At the time, Mr. Obama was the long shot in the Democratic Presidential sweepstakes, and it made some political sense to reassure the party's intensely liberal primary voters with class-war boilerplate on taxes.
Under ObamaTax 1.0, he would have repealed all the Bush tax cuts, lifted the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax, put the top marginal rate up to 39.8% and raised the rate on capital gains and dividends to at least 25% from 15% now. The official campaign line was that tax rates really don't matter to economic growth.
Summer arrived, the Clinton challenge was history and with the general election ahead came ObamaTax 2.0. It posited that the top rate on capital gains now would be 20%, described on this page August 14 by economic advisers Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee as "almost a third lower than the rate President Reagan set in 1986." This was progress.
Now with the big vote less than 60 days off and John McCain pounding him as a tax-raiser and pulling ahead in some polls, the Democratic nominee has decided to release ObamaTax 3.0, the most interesting upgrade so far. If the economy is still weak in January, a President Obama might defer all of the planned increases.
Several interpretations of this shift are possible, none of which reflect badly on Senator Obama's political learning curve.
At the bloodless level of simply wishing to win, the Obama camp may have concluded that in the sprint to November it is a losing strategy to be the election's only doctrinaire tax raiser. A tight race tends to focus political minds, and none forget Walter Mondale's catastrophic promise in his 1984 acceptance speech: "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did."
Beyond this lies the economic reality of jacking up income, investment and payroll taxes on "the wealthy" amid a flat or falling economy. In the standard narrative, these taxpayers exist as fat cats atop hedge funds, banks and megacorporations. Let's toss into the vat the top-tier managers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Beltway's own fat-cat sinecure.
The reality is that the creators of new jobs in the economy are more likely to be rising entrepreneurs or filers under Subchapter S, who typically pay taxes at individual rates. Hanging three or four tax millstones around their productive necks in January if the economy is weak will likely produce unimpressive growth and job numbers in the first year of the new Obama Presidency, and likely beyond. That in turn could drag down the Democrats in Congress who will get credit for voting these higher taxes into law.
Thus Mr. Obama's unambiguous answer Sunday to whether he'd insist on his tax increases if the economy is in an official recession: "No, no, no, no, no." It seems Mr. McCain is right that taxes do matter.
Mr. Obama's most ardent primary supporters may not like it, but we'll take the five "Nos" as evidence that Senator Obama may be learning the difference between liberal doctrine and sensible governance.
-----
Flip. Flop. Flip. Flop.
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 09:08PM Sep 08, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008 | Comments[0]
Obama's protectionism isn't the answer
Today's Wall Street Journal offers a great op-ed about the history- and folly- of protectionist tendencies. The same tendencies toward which Barack Obama leans.
Here is the pertinent section, discussing Obama in particular:
----------
Mr. Obama would reverse regional trade progress. He supports House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's opposition to the Colombia FTA, even though it will open new markets for U.S. exporters. He promises to "stand firm" against pacts like Cafta and proposes to force a renegotiation of Nafta, which is likely to disrupt North American supply chains and damage the U.S. economy. By heaping new labor and environmental regulations on our trading partners, his "fair trade" proposal will raise costs for our trading partners and reduce their competitiveness.
Perhaps worst of all, his antitrade bias will signal the region that protectionism is back in style in the U.S., and encourage new trade wars. No good can come from that, for the U.S. or for Latin America.
----------
Don't worry. Given his history of being elastic on issues, Obama will probably issue a statement tomorrow in support of totally free trade.
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 10:21AM Sep 08, 2008 by College Republicans in Presidential Race 2008 | Comments[0]
