{Pinch me, I must be dreaming! The SAVE ACT (Secure America with Verification Enforcement) is gaining momentum and may soon be forced onto the floor of Congress for an up or down vote.}

“The bi-partisan SAVE Act (S. 2366 & S.2368) is finally getting the attention it deserves! A discharge petition is now circulating the House. If it collects 218 signatures, the bill can be placed on the House floor for a vote, regardless of any objections by Democratic leaders!

Despite having 151 co-sponsors, many members of the Senate have yet to support this bill. The American people have made their desires on immigration very clear. Any form of “comprehensive reform” that does not first address border security and worker verification is unacceptable.”

Please send a message to Congress that we want the SAVE Act passed. Send a free fax HERE.

{Courtesy of Randy Alcorn. Comments on a recent speech at the World Council of Churches.}

“…What, then, is left of Christianity? In the confusing and disoriented world in which we live, where is the prophetic voice of Christians? What can we offer, or can we offer anything at all to the secular world, apart from what the secular world will offer to itself as a value system on which society should be built? Do we have our own value system which we should preach, or should we simply applaud every novelty in public morality which becomes fashionable in the secular society?”….

Full post HERE.

{Courtesy of the Family Research Council}

“Yesterday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National STD Prevention conference presented research showing that 1 in 4 teen girls (or 3.2 million) have a sexually transmitted infection (STI). In addition, findings from two studies presented demonstrate that of the 15-to-24-year-old women receiving contraceptives, over half are not receiving appropriate counseling, screening, and treatment for STIs. Taken together, these findings represent a simmering STD epidemic among our young people and a tremendous negligence in care for girls most at risk for contracting STDs. The call for an effective public health prevention strategy could not be more urgent. The current contraceptive-based education approach offered in 75 percent of U.S. schools not only relies on an overly narrow focus on physical health that is spurring an epidemic, but it also completely ignores the emotional consequences of premarital sex. Abstinence education is increasingly providing an efficacious and holistic approach to protect our young people’s current and future health. While the proponents of comprehensive or contraceptive-based sex education and much of the medical and public health community continue to pay lip service to prevention for our young people, these CDC results offer fresh evidence that the focus is on facilitating high-risk behavior rather than true primary and even secondary prevention. The risk-avoidance or sexual abstinence-until-marriage strategy must be adopted to reverse the STD epidemic. It’s an evidence-based approach with proven results for reversing the HIV/AIDS trends in several African countries–let’s give it a chance in this country.”

See also Sex Infections Found in Quarter of Teenage Girls

Three cheers for Dr. Jeffrey Sadow in his analysis of today’s “Spitzer equals Vitter” article in the Baton Rouge Advocate.
From Between the Lines

“Some Louisiana Democrats and some media are trying to use calls for former Democrat New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer to resign (which he did) stemming from the revelations that he employed high-priced prostitutes to argue once again that Sen. David Vitter should resign from his post, almost a year after Republican Vitter acknowledged that he had committed a “serious sin” when his phone number was discovered among records of an alleged prostitution ring. Unless one is an absolutist about moral behavior for politicians, such a demand lacks logic and/or smacks of the politics of convenience.

State Democrat Executive Director and failed candidate for his party’s central committee Chris Whittington said that if Republican governors called upon Spitzer to resign, so should Vitter – an obvious shot not only at Vitter but a subtler one at Gov. Bobby Jindal since he sits on the executive committee that makes those statements. To review, Vitter said his behavior occurred several years ago, prior to his current position, on rare occasions, has never admitted to fornication, and never had been charged with any crime. Spitzer also has not been charged with a crime, has not admitted to fornicating, although his behavior has apparently been occurring for years, prior to and during his reign as governor, right up until at least a month ago.

If one believes elected officials must not have even a hint of scandal surrounding them, then one could argue both Vitter and Spitzer should resign – as well as the likes of Democrats Sen. Mary Landrieu and Rep. William Jefferson for crimes, respectively, alleged and indicted. But beyond this, frankly, absurdly moralistic view that assigns guilt without legal proof and fails to distinguish between policy-making and governance, a reasonable moral view shows big differences, and not just because Vitter appears to be a repented sinner and Spitzer isn’t.

Spitzer as governor is not just a policy-maker, but implementer as head of his state’s executive branch. As part of that, he must take care to see that the laws are faithfully executed and done so impartially and evenly. If he demonstrates that he personally is willing to bend the laws, or to act hypocritically and selectively in their execution, it calls into question his fitness to lead the state. (Worse, as attorney general prior to his becoming governor he also was in charge of enforcing these very laws.) Such behavior which demonstrates certain undesirable qualities directly impacts on how the state will be run, with the likelihood that those qualities get translated into practice. Resignation excises a practitioner of these qualities demonstrated to be ill for the polity.

Vitter, by contrast as a legislator, only makes law. If we are to judge fitness for office, the criterion here is the quality of those laws, or to put it differently, the prudence in his policy-making. You can have rascals in personal behavior in office but if they confine themselves to making policy, absent an absolutist position it’s hard to argue there is a moral basis that they are unfit to serve in office (which does not mean there isn’t a political basis to disqualify them: voters offended by their behavior and/or policy-making can throw them out of office at the next opportunity).

Legally, Spitzer has not been demonstrated as a known practitioner of hypocrisy and selectivity in execution since he has not admitted to any behavior corroborating that (and, personally, were he or Vitter ever to be proven legally to have committed a serious crime, then my view is serious lawbreakers should resign from office as a matter of moral fitness), so we cannot argue resignation was necessary on that basis alone – even if the fact that he did appears to be a tacit admission. However, it is another aspect of Spitzer’s behavior that elevates his behavior to such a suspicious level that resignation without legal knowledge he has engaged in behavior detrimental to the state made it entirely appropriate.

Just as in the affair of former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey, what many either don’t realize or are trying to obscure for political reasons is the real problem in their behavior is not the sexual behavior presumed involved, but of the activities surrounding it that showed real disregard for the law if not its actual breaking. McGreevey’s real troubles came because he tried to bend rules to give somebody he claimed was his homosexual lover a government job, and ultimately this guy sued him for sexual harassment.

In Spitzer’s case, it seems federal surveillance showing Spitzer utilizing prostitution services is just the first shoe that dropped. The federal case seems to be more focused on illegal activity Spitzer may have engaged in to hide the transfers of money apparently necessary to finance his assumed sexual libertine lifestyle. This behavior directly affects the public trust and Vitter never has come close to being accused of doing anything like this.

Vitter is no less as effective a policy-maker as a result of his admission and never will be charged or proven as a serious lawbreaker over his matter. On that basis, his resignation would serve no purpose. But Spitzer, as the chief executive officer of New York, faces certain indictment regarding alleged behavior that drastically reduced his ability to effectively discharge the duties of his office in leading the state. For the good of the state, as a practical matter his resignation was appropriate and desirable to prevent a crisis in governing. Those who care to inform themselves about these cases and still maintain they are similar and should end similarly cloud their judgment with a lack of critical thinking and/or political motives.”

[Courtesy of Dr. Jeffrey Sadow]

As the special session on the (mostly nonrecurring) surplus begins in the Louisiana Legislature, it is worth noting that the call could allow for a variety of uses of the funds. Gov. Bobby Jindal is going to push for a largely sensible set of mostly spending priorities. But there are two other alternative uses which should be explored theoretically before deciding to spend it on nonrecurring items.

First, not politically popular but not a bad idea would be instead of putting the Constitutionally required portion (in this instance, $73 million) into the Budget Stabilization Fund (i.e., the “rainy day fund”), to put it all, over a billion dollars, there. The Jindal Administration has warned that budget shortfalls are a distinct possibility after next year, so the money could be sequestered and used in, say (according to law), two of the next four years, plus it would generate a healthy amount of interest, perhaps $100 million, over that span.

However, the risk in doing this is that it may provide a false sense of security to lawmakers in the future, encouraging them to make up deficits with it instead of making different spending choices. Even the Jindal Administration is not immune from falling into this trap; for example, in the regular budget coming during the regular session $60 million is added to nursing home reimbursement when in fact simple changes in those standards to approximate other states’ rules would save Louisiana nearly $100 million a year.

The other option, again focusing only on the nonrecurring funds, would be to distribute the billion or so dollars as one-time rebates to taxpayers. (Since these are not recurring monies, they cannot be used for a permanent cut in taxes such as by reducing marginal rates.) By itself, this idea has considerable appeal – if government has taken too much of the people’s money to finance current activities, then why not give it back to its rightful owners?

But in a larger context, it’s not as good of an idea. First, if the purpose of letting people keep more of what they earn (besides its inherent morality) is to promote economic growth, that is accomplished through supply-side activities – working, saving, and investing – not through demand-side priming; typically, a “bonus” of the kind a rebate is does not stimulate these activities but is spent in ways that don’t encourage productivity or wealth creation. Second, while a largely ineffective idea of promoting economic growth at the national level, they are even less effective when isolated to the state level.

Nonetheless, this is still a good idea even if not nearly as effective as cuts in marginal tax rates – until you compare the small good that would come from that with the larger good being served where the proposed spending is to go. Addressing about three percent of total roads needs, saving $297.5 million in unfunded pension costs before 2029 (about a fortieth of the outstanding balance), and making a down payment of $300 million on coastal restoration when at least $10 billion more will be needed (fortunately for the state, much coming from the federal government) – in the long run, these uses among others will provide greater economic development benefits than a one-off rebate.

If proponents of giving the people’s money back to them are serious about the issue of greater economic development during this session, they will talk about using the almost billion dollars in declared recurring surplus funds most of which is intended to be dealt with (except for cutting business taxes and tax deductions for tuition and other education expenses) during the regular session – legislation doing so permitted by the call. Economic realities suggest that the spending priorities for the nonrecurring funds advanced by the Jindal Administration will lead to better economic growth than the alternatives of “saving” it all or giving it all back as a “bonus” to taxpayers.

[Letter from United States Senator David Vitter]

Dear Friends,

This week, I joined with a group of senators to create the U.S. Senate Border Security and Enforcement First Caucus, a coalition committed to fighting amnesty and improving our border security.

Our caucus will work to ensure that the laws already on the books will be enforced and act as the voice of those concerned citizens who have expressed their opinions time and time again in support of interior enforcement and border security instead of the amnesty proposals that have been offered. We will push for stronger border security and interior enforcement legislation, and we will work together in the U.S. Senate to defeat future amnesty legislation.

The current number of illegal immigrants is the highest the United States has experienced to date. One in 25 residents currently living in the United States is here illegally. Over the last seven years, 10.9 million immigrants arrived in America with more than half of them (five million plus) doing so through illegal channels.

The members of Border Security and Enforcement First Caucus recognize that Congress has presented the American people with a false choice in solving the illegal immigration problem – give illegal aliens amnesty or round them up and deport them en masse. The principle mission of the caucus is to promote a true, achievable alternative: attrition through enforcement. Living illegally in the United States will become more difficult and less satisfying over time when the government at all levels enforces the immigration laws already on the books.

Last year, the American people sent a clear message that amnesty is an unacceptable means of addressing our growing illegal immigration problem. Members of this caucus were listening, and we plan to make it our objective to push for interior enforcement measures that will address the illegal immigration problem without granting a free pass to millions of illegal aliens. As chairman of the caucus I will look for all legislative vehicles available to pressure government on all levels to enforce the immigration laws currently on the books, as well as strengthen enforcement measures.

My first actions as caucus chair were to introduce two bills focused on combating illegal immigration. The first bill will restrict Community Oriented Policing Services funding from going to cities with sanctuary policies. Sanctuary policies bar local law enforcement officials from inquiring as to the immigration status of suspects or reporting illegals to Immigration and Custom Enforcement for deportation.

The second bill I introduced requires that the identify of all individuals who are not American citizens be verified through a social security number, a passport number and the country of issuance, an alien identification card number or any combination of the three in order to ascertain their immigration status for the purposes of opening banking or credit card accounts. To prevent the use of matricula cards as a form of ID, the bill specifically designates unexpired passports as the only acceptable form of identification issued by a foreign government.

Knowing your interest in this important issue, I thought you would like to hear about my work to fight illegal immigration. I will continue to work in the U.S. Senate to bring about real solutions to this growing problem.