Are Dems really soft on Security?

The Republicans like to say that Democrats are weak on defense and that they want to “cut and run” from Iraq. Actually, the US has the manpower, the technology, the money and everything else needed to end the mess in Iraq in six months or less. But the Republican administration is so weak on defense that they are afraid to commit the resources necessary to get the job done. Iraq should have been over a long time ago. Why won’t the Republican administration do what has to be done?

As other examples of the Dems being weak on defense, take a look at what happened in the 20th century. Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, asked for and got a declaration of war from Congress during World War I, although the US was not under direct attack. Then, in the 1930s, when Hitler was rampaging in Europe and England was desperate because Nazi subs almost starved her out, FDR, a Democrat, no less, initiated lend-lease, which brought the US merchant and warships into direct military action against Germany. When Japan attacked the US, there was no hesitancy about declaring war.

Then came Korea. When North Korea attacked our ally, South Korea, Harry Truman, another wimpy Democrat, sent troops into action at once and then sought United Nations approval. Also, it was Truman who initiated the US resistance to Communist expansion, which become the Cold War.

Next was the Cuban missile crisis. Kennedy, a Democrat, mobilized the US Navy and forced the Russians to back off.

Following that, we got mired down in Viet Nam, undertaken to prevent the possible spread of Communism. Again, Democrats Kennedy and Johnson were the ones acting to protect the US.


So, what am I missing? Where are all the cutting and running Democrats?

Jobs that Americans won't do?

The claim is that only immigrants will work at certain jobs because Americans won’t, no matter what the pay is. This is only a red herring but it should be put to rest.

An organization should be formed to see if Americans really won’t do some jobs. The organization will have to collect a million dollars or more and then contract to do some work that Americans theorethically won’t do.

Only American citizens should be hired. If necessary, limit the work force to military veterans. The initial wage offered should be slightly higher than what an immigrant would expect. The wage should then be increased until enough Americans have been hired to do the job. This would be a good indicator of what the minimum wage for all should be.

The project should last for several years to keep dilletants, etc. from taking the jobs. A project of this type may be difficult to implement but a coalition of unions might be able to pull it off. If successful, it would pull a lot of teeth out of the “Americans won’t work” argument.

More on Campaign Finance reform

In a previous post it was suggested that contributors to campaigns have 60% of their contribution go to the candidate of their choice and that 40% go to their opponent. This will work ok if there is only one opponent. But how does the 40% get distributed if there are 2 or more candidates? Let's say there are two certified opponents at the time the contribution is made. The first choice still gets 60%. The certified opponent who entered the race the earliest would get 60% of the 40% and the other certified opponent would get 40% of the 40%. If both entered on the same date, each would get 50% of the 40%.

If there are three certified opponents at the time of the contribution, the first choice would still get 60%. If all three entered the race on the same day, each would get one-third of the 40%. This would apply also if there were even more than three opponents. If all entered on different dates, only the two earliest opponents would get any of the contribution.

If an opponent or the first choice should withdraw from the contest after receiving contributor money, any money not spent could be turned over to the election commission to distribute in accordance with the above principles.

No system of campaign finance is likely to be totally fair to all. The above system would be a step in the right direction.