#3 Throw in some domestic corrections, such as the Flat Tax, an elected Judiciary, Line Item Veto, solid rules to end unrelated riders (e.g. on defense and highways bills) in the first place, eliminate all "earmarks" (the McCain/Bayh joke is lip-service) and other Tough Love (TM) solutions that have been drowned out by the special interests, pseudo-hawks, true-blue LLL liars who "support the troops" but not their mission, and pork-barrel addicts and you're really talking. I say let West Virginia be West Virginia, LOL.
And add ending foreign aid to any country that doesn't prove by action, not words, to be a true ally in all security matters where the interests SHOULD be common.
If we do reach the point where the decks are actually cleared for action domestically, and I think you know what I mean, then instead of the same old games we might as well excise as many of those tumors, bad habits, and legacy mistakes as we can stand, too. No more bridges to nowhere. We're already there in many respects.
A wishful thinking personal pet peeve post script: Reduce or remove the congressional oversight on placement, opening, closing, etc of any and all military bases, foreign and domestic. I think there's a fair-to-middling chance that it's unconstitutional. A solid case can be made that it's within the purview of the President regards national security. I'd love to hear the case made that the congress should have overriding authority on how the military is structured and deployed. Funding is theirs (House) and treaties are theirs (Senate), but where else does their constitutional authority in this arena take precedence over the security of the nation, which belongs to the President? That would save untold billions of wasted $'s, too. On the side, it would be very telling if the congress had to vote on defense issues without any pork in the mix. So much ass coverage would vaporize instantly revealing who is actually who on defense and security issues. Everyone is guilty in some degree, I believe. Ah well, it'll never happen.
/wishfulthinkingpetpeevepostscript |
CAIRO: Arab states urged the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority on Saturday to accept an Arab initiative which offers Israel peace in return for land Israel has occupied since 1967. But Palestinian Foreign Minister Mahmoud Al Zahar, on an Arab tour in urgent search of funds, made no commitment to the initiative, which conflicts with the Hamas movement's goal of a single Islamic state throughout historic Palestine. Zahar told a news conference at the Arab League he was confident that Arab governments would provide money for the authority, which has lost mainly European aid because it refuses to recognise Israel's right to exist. "All the interventions spoke about the Arab initiative and its importance to Palestinians," Zahar said.