Was Santorum a Senate Spendthrift? | The Weekly Standard

Was Santorum a Senate Spendthrift? | The Weekly Standard

The Blog

Was Santorum a Senate Spendthrift?

11:00 AM, Feb 15, 2012 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON AND ANDY WICKERSHAM

Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

Mitt Romney is now arguing that Rick Santorum’s record exposes him as one of those Republicans who “act like Democrats” once they get to Washington. Romney surrogate Tim Pawlenty adds that Santorum “clearly has been part of the big-spending establishment in Congress.” Another Romney surrogate, former senator Jim Talent, says of Santorum, “He certainly has been outspoken on social issues . . . but when you get outside those issues into fiscal, spending, regulatory issues, his record shows that he’s been in the liberal wing of the Republican party.”

This is clearly emerging as one of Romney’s two prominent lines of attack against Santorum, the other — a related one — being that Santorum is a “Washington insider.” But since the only reason Romney didn’t become a “Washington insider” himself is that he failed to win election in either of his two bids for federal office, and since the vast majority of the Republican party’s Washington insiders are backing Romney, this claim is likely to persuade precious few GOP voters. That leaves Romney with only one real line of attack against Santorum: that the former Pennsylvania senator’s record isn’t that of a fiscal conservative.

So, is Romney’s claim true? Was Santorum a spendthrift in the Senate? Fortunately, credible third party analysis is available to help us answer this question, so we need not merely accept the Romney campaign’s verdict as the final word on the matter.

Related Stories

• Going After Rick
• Santorum Is Within 2 Points of Romney in California
• PPP: Santorum Leads Romney by 15 Points
• Romney Pivots to Santorum
• A New Race

More by Jeffrey H. Anderson and Andy Wickersham

• 
  

The National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has been rating members of Congress for 20 years. NTU is an independent, non-partisan organization that — per its mission statement — “mobilizes elected officials and the general public on behalf of tax relief and reform, lower and less wasteful spending, individual liberty, and free enterprise.” Steve Forbes serves on its board of directors.

For each session of Congress, NTU scores each member on an A-to-F scale. NTU weights members’ votes based on those votes’ perceived effect on both the immediate and future size of the federal budget. Those who get A’s are among “the strongest supporters of responsible tax and spending policies”; they receive NTU’s “Taxpayers’ Friend Award.” B’s are “good” scores, C’s are “minimally acceptable” scores, D’s are “poor” scores, and F’s earn their recipients membership in the “Big Spender” category. There is no grade inflation whatsoever, as we shall see.

NTU’s scoring paints a radically different picture of Santorum’s 12-year tenure in the Senate (1995 through 2006) than one would glean from the rhetoric of the Romney campaign. Fifty senators served throughout Santorum’s two terms: 25 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 1 Republican/Independent. On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators’ collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 — which amounts to a C-. Meanwhile, Santorum’s GPA was 3.66 — or an A-. Santorum’s GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50.

Across the 12 years in question, only 6 of the 50 senators got A’s in more than half the years. Santorum was one of them. He was also one of only 7 senators who never got less than a B. (Jim Talent served only during Santorum’s final four years, but he always got less than a B, earning a B- every year and a GPA of 2.7.) Moreover, while much of the Republican party lost its fiscal footing after George W. Bush took office — although it would be erroneous to say that the Republicans were nearly as profligate as the Democrats — Santorum was the only senator who got A’s in every year of Bush’s first term. None of the other 49 senators could match Santorum’s 4.0 GPA over that span.

This much alone would paint an impressive portrait of fiscal conservatism on Santorum’s part. Yet it doesn’t even take into account a crucial point: Santorum was representing Pennsylvania.

Based on how each state voted in the three presidential elections over that period (1996, 2000, and 2004), nearly two-thirds of senators represented states that were to the right of Pennsylvania. In those three presidential elections, Pennsylvania was, on average, 3 points to the left of the nation as a whole. Pennsylvanians backed the Democratic presidential nominee each time, while the nation as a whole chose the Republican in two out of three contests.

Among the roughly one-third of senators (18 out of 50) who represented states that — based on this measure — were at least as far to the left as Pennsylvania, Santorum was the most fiscally conservative. Even more telling was the canyon between him and the rest. After Santorum’s overall 3.66 GPA, the runner-up GPA among this group was 2.07, registered by Olympia Snowe (R., Maine). Arlen Specter, Santorum’s fellow Pennsylvania Republican, was next, with a GPA of 1.98. The average GPA among senators who represented states at least as far left as Pennsylvania was 0.52 — or barely a D-.

But Santorum also crushed the senators in the other states. Those 32 senators, representing states that on average were 16 points to the right of Pennsylvania in the presidential elections, had an average GPA of 2.35 — a C+.

In fact, considering the state he was representing, one could certainly make the case that Santorum was the most fiscally conservative senator during his tenure. The only four senators whose GPAs beat Santorum’s represented states that were 2 points (Republican Judd Gregg of New Hampshire), 10 points (Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona), 25 points (Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma), and 36 points (Republican Craig Thomas of Wyoming) to the right of Pennsylvania in the presidential elections. Moreover, of these four, only Kyl (with a GPA of 3.94) beat Santorum by as much as a tenth of a point. It’s an open question whether a 3.94 from Arizona is more impressive than a 3.66 from Pennsylvania.

Related Stories

• Going After Rick
• Santorum Is Within 2 Points of Romney in California
• PPP: Santorum Leads Romney by 15 Points
• Romney Pivots to Santorum
• A New Race

More by Jeffrey H. Anderson and Andy Wickersham

• 
  

So, if Santorum was among — and perhaps even topped the list of — the most fiscally conservative senators during this period, who were the least fiscally conservative? That prize would have to go to the two North Dakota senators, who despite representing a state that voted 23 points to the right of the national average in the presidential elections, managed to achieve GPAs of 0.08 (Democrat Kent Conrad) and 0.00 (Democrat Byron Dorgan). Honorable mentions would have to go to Max Baucus (D., Mont.), who got a 0.84 GPA in a state that was 18 points to the right of the national average; Harry Reid (D., Nev.), who got a 0.08 GPA in a state that was 4 points to the right of average; and Utah Republicans Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch, who each barely cleared a 3.0 (3.11 for Bennett, 3.08 for Hatch) despite representing the state that, in the presidential elections, was the nation’s most right-leaning (38 points to the right of average).

As for Santorum’s potential opponent in the fall, Barack Obama’s three years in the Senate (2005 through 2007) overlapped only with Santorum’s final two years. (In 2008, Obama effectively left the Senate to campaign for President and therefore didn’t cast enough votes for NTU to score him that year.) In both of the years that the two men overlapped (2005 and 2006), as well as throughout Obama’s three years’ worth of preparation for the presidency, Obama’s GPA was 0.00 — a rock-solid F.

Now that’s acting like a Democrat — something Santorum has never done.

Former Border Agent Zachary Taylor Details National Security Threats on Mexico Border |GBTV | Glenn Beck | The Blaze | Video | TheBlaze.com

Former Border Agent Zachary Taylor Details National Security Threats on Mexico Border |GBTV | Glenn Beck | The Blaze | Video | TheBlaze.com

Government Insurgency in America? Former Border Agent Details National Security Threats Spilling Into the U.S. (UPDATED: With GBTV Video)

• Posted on February 7, 2012 at 5:12pm by Buck Sexton
• Print »
• Email »

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Comments (402)

Editor’s note: This story has now been updated with information from Glenn Beck’s Tuesday night broadcast. The text report below has been updated with some of the pictures from GBTV broadcast. The most graphic of the photos we are including only in the video for GBTV subscribers in the on-demand version of the full broadcast that can be seen here.

This video clip is Beck’s introduction — it does not contain graphic images:

As America prepares to draw down from wars abroad, it faces a new conflict as a vicious drug war spills across our southern border with Mexico.

Former Border Patrol Agent Zachary Taylor told The Blaze just how grave the threat really is.
Taylor broke down the imminent dangers and expanded upon the case that the U.S.-Mexico border has become the soft underbelly of U.S. homeland defense.
It’s not just an immigration problem, Taylor insisted, but also a major national security vulnerability.
A former US Border Patrol Agent himself, Taylor says all these threats have been exacerbated by current Obama administration policies and deliberate distortions by much of the media.

To understand the scope of the problem, Taylor first wants the public to recognize that the dominant media narrative is intentionally false. As a former and longtime Border Patrol Agent, Taylor balked at the notion that illegal immigration is simply a function of people seeking a better life.

He feels there is a lot of nefarious activity that goes unaddressed, and said: “The main problem is that the American press is working in conjunction with the administration to keep the facts about what is happening in Mexico and Central America a secret. They are hiding it in plain sight, deception I would call it.”

Taylor continued: “Our institutions have been corrupted, the 4th estate has been corrupted. It is a tool of disinformation… A psychological warfare operation being waged against the American people using things to deflect their attention.”

According to Taylor, many of the people coming across the border are entering America illegally with the intention of doing real harm. They are coming with drugs, guns and inflicting violence, or are part of elaborate human smuggling networks with direct ties to the vast criminal cartels. The appeals to human compassion and “America is a nation of immigrants” meme ignores this very real and growing threat to the United States.

Which brought our discussion to the vicious and powerful Mexican drug cartels.
Taylor made it clear that there is no level of violent depravity or government corruption outside the ability of the cartels. The Sinaloa, the Zetas, and others narco-insurgents are engaged in beheadings, mutilations, sexual assaults, as well as videotaped torture campaigns similar to what most people associate with Al Qaeda.

“I have never seen this level of terrorist messaging,” Taylor said, referencing the brazen brutality of the criminal syndicates. Taylor provided the Blaze with slideshows that depict unspeakable cruelty – true evil – that has become the calling card of the cartels. Vans full of headless and dismembered bodies, human carcasses strewn about the side of a desert road – all of it intended to strike terror in the hearts of Americans, as well as Mexicans.

Taylor believes the cartel campaigns are not limited to the nuts and bolts of the drug trade. He told The Blaze that he feels the cartels want to have a hand in Mexican national elections and hope to help bring a sympathetic leftist government to power.
The approximately 45,000 casualties of the drug war so far have been largely a response to Mexican President Calderon’s attempts to crack down on the cartels. If the drug barons were able to help install a leftist, anti-American government that would turn a blind eye to the drug trade, it would be a huge victory for the narco-traffickers. And a huge problem for the United States.
“Mexico has an insurgency on its hands — that is exactly what the problem is — and America will have the same problem as it makes it easier to get across the border,” Taylor said.
But Taylor brought some outside elements into his analysis. He stated that drug cartel activity and terrorist activity are both transnational in nature, which means groups from around the world have become involved.
In this case, that means the Shia militant group Hezbollah.
Taylor said that Hezbollah is allying with the drug and alien smuggling operations at the border to help finance their operations in the Middle East. And in the event of hostilities with Hezbollah’s benefactor — Iran — Taylor is concerned that the cartel smuggling networks could help make America’s WMD nightmare come true.
“Get them close enough and effective enough, they [Hezbollah] could smuggle a Weapon of Mass Destruction into the United States.”
For those who would say the threat of a WMD smuggled into the U.S. is hyped or remote, Taylor points to a YouTube video from 2009 in which Muslim cleric Abdullah al-Nafisi talked about bringing 4 lbs of anthrax into the U.S., which he gleefully claimed would kill 330,000 people. It’s still available for anyone to see on YouTube, as shown below courtesy of MEMRI.TV:
Faced with all these threats, the federal government has refused to devote enough resources to the problem in Taylor’s view. On the contrary, Taylor believes the Obama administration is engaged in efforts to bureaucratically subvert border security for political gain.
When the subject turned to the brave efforts of our border agents, Taylor painted a picture of an undermanned, outgunned, and bureaucratically hobbled federal Border Patrol force. He shared a number of disheartening anecdotes and cases that showed U.S. border efforts are not only insufficient — decisions are being made at the top of the federal government to make border enforcement more difficult.


Those policy decisions can and do have lethal consequences. In the infamous killing of former Marine and Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, operational guidelines ordered that non-lethal force was the preferred first option of defense for Terry. This ignored the fact that there had already been several attempts to shoot Border Patrol agents in the same area with high-powered rifles.
In 2009, almost exactly one year before Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed by border bandits, another group of BP officers were on ATVs near Ramanote canyon in Arizona. Armed smugglers opened fire on the agents, wounding one in the ankle/foot area, but the other agent was able to withdraw.
The smugglers, however, did not retreat, despite the fact that other border patrol agents came into the area to assist. Taylor said “not only will they [bandits] open fire on Border Patrol, they will advance on them in an attack.”
A helicopter arrived on the scene, according to Taylor, but shockingly, the helo crews were prohibited from exfiltrating the wounded agent. Instead, the Border Patrol brought in a horse to carry the agent out of the area to a waiting helicopter because of DHS protocol.
It took 4 1/2 hours from the time of the engagement until the medical evacuation was completed. This was all due, as Taylor put it, to DHS policy with no basis in anything other than slowing down enforcement efforts, endangering Border agents in the process.

Taylor added that the Department of Homeland Security did away with CAS (Close Air Support) helicopters in December 2011 even though with a FLIR-mounted surveillance system, the choppers “almost guarantee you will catch your quarry.”
Taylor doesn’t mince words about this. He believes the removal of the choppers is an attempt to intentionally hamper the effectiveness of border operations.
The federal government is ”killing the operation through policy and how they deploy assets… it’s about spending money and making the show, not about effectiveness.”
Currently, there are even federal agency turf wars making border enforcement more difficult. Border Patrol Agents are not allowed to enter or pursue on federal wildlife refuges without permission. As some of these preserves — which fall under the Department of the Interior — can stretch for nearly a hundred miles from the border, they are basically a smuggler’s paradise.
House of Representative Bill 1505 would give agents unfettered access to anywhere within 100 miles of the border, but the mere fact that this legislation is needed speaks volumes about the present state of border security, as Taylor put it.
There can also be clear politics at play in how Border Patrol cases are handled. Agent Jesus Diaz was found not guilty of excessive force by two different internal review boards, but the US Attorney’s Office interceded and successfully prosecuted the agent for excessive force.
Taylor said that the federal court did not allow any background info at the trial of Agent Diaz, and the words of four inexperienced agents were used against him in court.

For this offense, Diaz was charged and spent time in prison. In addition, Taylor said it has come to light that all four of the rookie border patrol agents who testified against Diaz have since washed out of the agency.
As if the southern border were not enough, there are problems at the northern U.S. border, as well. Taylor claims that the Obama Administration is intentionally making it easier to illegally cross the northern border through bureaucratic obstacles. The National Forest Service does not allow unfettered access to Border Agents, and DHS is ceasing many transportation checkpoints along the border with Canada.
For Taylor, all of this adds up to a situation that gravely threatens U.S. national security and endangers Americans.
Asked how this state of affairs could continue, or even be allowed to worsen, Taylor summarized his case bluntly.
“This administration is trying to facilitate the entry of illegal aliens into the United States.”

Government ‘Clearly Failing’: Santorum, Paul, Bachmann React to Shocking GBTV Border Security Report

• Posted on February 8, 2012 at 12:47pm by Buck Sexton
• Print »
• Email »

• 
  

(Editor’s Note: This story has been updated and will continue to be as more campaigns respond to yesterday’s GBTV report on the current state of U.S. border security)
Yesterday, GBTV and the Blaze told you the truth about the U.S.-Mexico Border. You learned about the vicious terrorist violence routinely engaged in by the cartels, the links between drug barons and international Islamic militants, and the obstructionist policies of the Obama administration that prevent effective border enforcement.
Clearly, America’s work to secure its border is just beginning.
Due to the dire nature of the national security threats created by the current state of the border, The Blaze believes this information and the policy discussion it inspires must reach the highest levels of the U.S. government.
To that end, we sent the GBTV border story out to all the Republican presidential contenders (including some of those who have dropped out of the race) so that they can weigh in on the issue of securing U.S. borders.
Rick Santorum‘s camp gave a robust response to Glenn’s disturbing, unvarnished view of the threats coming across the border. Santorum was particularly struck by the Islamic terrorism connections to the cartel, and released this statement on it:

“For the past ten years, Iran and Syria, both designated state sponsors of terrorism, have not only developed close ties with the drug cartels and criminal states like Venezuela and Cuba, they have built ports, airports, military bases and military warehouses throughout our hemisphere. They have constructed a criminal, military and intelligence infrastructure in our back yard.”

Santorum’s statement did not stop with this critical discussion of Hezbollah ties. It went on to discuss operational and tactical details of this cartel-terrorist alliance, including that:

“There are series of sophisticated underground narcotunnels found at the U.S.-Mexico border that, according to congressional testimony, strongly resemble the types used by Hezbollah in Lebanon. Numerous public officials have discussed the fact that narcotraffickers and potential terrorists with Hezbollah tattoos are caught entering the U.S.”

Congressman Ron Paul and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann have also responded. And they’re upset about the border as well.
Paul’s official statement clearly shows he considers the border to be a critical security issue:

“Controlling our borders is one of the essential Constitutional functions of our government, and one in which we are clearly failing. It makes no sense to me that we pay more attention to the borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan than we do to our own borders here at home. If elected President, I would move to quickly end foreign nation building efforts and use many of the resources we waste playing world’s policemen to control our southern border. We cannot have a strong national defense without a secure border, and we must take decisive action.”

Congresswoman Bachmann may no longer be in the GOP primary race, but she currently sits on the House Intelligence Committee. She responded by honing in on the links between cartels and international Islamic terror groups:

“I have long believed that our border problem is inextricably linked with international terrorism. Though many of the stories are not widely reported, we have definite reason to believe that terrorists are literally on America’s doorstep. We cannot afford to have a poorly protected border any longer. After all, we cannot truly have homeland security without having border security.”

In addition to these statements, The Blaze reached out to the Romney, Perry, and Gingrich campaigns for their reactions to the GBTV expose of what’s really happening at our southern border– and even more alarming, what could happen if the status quo continues.
Read The Blaze’s original report here.

Bold solutions for America’s families | Rick Santorum for President

Bold solutions for America’s families | Rick Santorum for President

Bold solutions for America’s families

I am excited about America and her future. In this election the American people have an opportunity to restore her greatness and to focus once again on protecting liberty and creating opportunity for all. No longer should it be harder for people to succeed economically than it was for their parents. No longer should upward mobility be better in parts of Europe than in America. We need a renewed focus on creating opportunity, not dividing Americans by class; on creating wealth, not distributing it; and on promoting savings rather than dependency.

This is what my father and grandfather came to America for. This is our time to reclaim it. In contrast, Obamanomics has brought one in six Americans to poverty. President Obama’s philosophy of “spreading the wealth” in fact spreads poverty and economic decline.

I have a bold economic plan that will move our country forward — a plan that will create jobs, renew confidence in the free-market place and reward families for their hard work. My plan will cut spending and ensure future fiscal responsibility through a balanced budget amendment; lower and simplify taxes for families and businesses to promote growth; return federal programs to the states to promote freedom; and promote sustainable health-care and retirement solutions for young people and seniors.

First, I will cut spending by $5 trillion over 5 years, repeal ObamaCare and other onerous regulations and cut non-defense spending to 2008 levels. I support legislation to prevent members of Congress from being paid if they don’t pass fiscally responsible spending bills on time. We will pass a balanced budget amendment to discipline Congress and limit federal spending to a maximum of 18 percent of gross domestic product. I will eliminate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s federal housing role, reduce non-defense related federal workers by at least 10 percent and eliminate all energy and most agriculture subsidies. We will unleash America’s domestic-energy production.

Second, I will lower personal income and corporate tax rates and dramatically simplify the tax code for families, workers and businesses. To promote marriage, families and the high calling of parenting, I will triple the child deduction and eliminate all marriage tax penalties. The family is the foundation of our country. We need to have an economic policy that supports families and freedom and encourages marriage.

Instead of adding new taxes like President Obama has, I will fight to simplify the tax code by moving from six to two rates and lowering personal income tax rates to 10 percent and 28 percent respectively and eliminating most deductions. This will get us back to Reagan-era pro-growth tax rates. My goal is for the American economy to be growing at least 4 percent to 4.5 percent a year in my first term as president, more than double President Obama’s; by one estimate this would help create 10 million jobs in three years.

I also support two corporate tax rates: 17.5 percent for most businesses — half the current rate — and zero for manufacturers. This will multiply job opportunities for struggling middle-income families and renew communities that have lost critical manufacturing jobs.

Third, I will support social innovation in the states and local communities, modernize our social safety net and be fiscally responsible by block granting to the states Medicaid, housing, job training, food stamps and education programs. We will promote dignity and control costs through time limits for able-bodied people, as we did successfully in welfare reform.

Fourth, I will work to implement key reforms to Medicare and Social Security. Those approaching retirement can only be confident if these programs are on sustainable footing. I support Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare reforms, which include private-sector innovation, competition and consumer choice. While I whole-heartedly support cutting taxes, I believe that changes to payroll taxes should be tied to sustainable reforms in Medicare and Social Security.

I don’t believe that poverty is a permanent condition. How do we effectively address poverty in rural and urban America? We promote jobs, marriage, quality education and access to capital and embrace the supports of civil society. I believe in equality of opportunity. I believe that American entrepreneurs and business owners create jobs and that skilled and committed workers sustain them, not government.

The State
http://www.thestate.com/2012/01/13/2111262/santorum-bold-solutions-for-americas.html

UNLEASHING AMERICA’S DOMESTIC ENERGY | Rick Santorum for President

UNLEASHING AMERICA’S DOMESTIC ENERGY | Rick Santorum for President

UNLEASHING AMERICA’S DOMESTIC ENERGY

America’s energy policy is critical to our national security and economic growth. Dependence upon foreign sources of oil limits our national security options, undermines our interests, and raises the cost of doing business in America. Unfortunately, President’s Obama’s approach has facilitated foreign dependence by restricting oil and gas drilling, making it more difficult to get nuclear permits, and picking winners and losers through failed pet energy projects. We must employ a policy that makes energy more affordable, makes our nation more secure by lessening dependence on unreliable or adversarial foreign sources, and increases conservation through efficient use and diverse energy sources. An effective energy policy will expand economic development and create high-quality jobs, resulting in a strong economy for America’s families and workers. It is time to get serious about unleashing America’s domestic energy sources.
For example, in my home state of Pennsylvania market forces are being used to explore for natural gas. Some experts predict that this exploration will create up to 200,000 jobs by 2020. This has contributed to dramatically lower natural gas prices for consumers, transformed struggling rural communities, created additional revenue for state and local governments, and helped the environment through expanded use of natural gas.
The policies of President Obama have moved us in exactly in the wrong direction. These job killing policies and increased regulatory barriers and burdens have made oil and gas exploration a low priority for America, virtually halting exploration. The President punted on the Keystone Pipeline and opened the door for China. Furthermore, Obamanomics has done nothing to fix a broken and burdensome energy regulatory process and has instead added to the burden. His philosophy and policies only limit growth and development in the energy sector and increase the cost of energy for all Americans. We need a strong energy policy that removes barriers, invigorates the American entrepreneurial spirit that spurs research and innovation, and unleashes a robust energy economy.
Energy independence is more important than ever to ensure our national security. Nations like Venezuela and Iran have threatened to use oil and gas as political and economic weapons by manipulating the marketplace or interrupting supplies. Countries such as Brazil, France, and Canada are creating their own energy independence through energy sources such as biomass, nuclear, and natural gas. Unfortunately, President Obama continues to burden and restrain our energy potential rather than unleash it. That is the job of the private sector and the consumer—not government. We need to tap all energy sources in a responsible fashion to kick-start our economy and preserve our independence and freedom as a nation.
Core Principles

• Create energy security and independence for the U.S. to strengthen our national security and decrease reliance on unreliable and adversarial nations.
• Develop an energy policy that is consistent, uniform, and predictable for long-term economic growth.
• Rely on market forces and private sector research and development capabilities to provide Americans with clean, affordable energy through competition.
• Remove harsh regulatory restrictions on oil and gas research and exploration.
• Expand domestic innovations and energy resources. This includes oil, natural gas, hydro, biomass, wind, solar, clean coal, and nuclear energy.
• Encourage economic growth creating U.S. jobs and bringing us back on the road to growth and opportunity.
• Reduce energy costs for family budgets and business expenses.

Policies

• Remove bans on drilling—both onshore and offshore. This would immediately increase supply, create jobs, and bring revenues to the federal and state governments.
• Continue promoting private sector drilling techniques for natural gas. More than half of U.S. households use natural gas for heat, and a quarter of the nation's electricity is made from it.
• Eliminate all energy subsidies and tax credits. This will prevent the federal government from picking winners and losers in our effort to unleash all of America’s domestic energy sources.
• Immediately approve the construction of the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline. Construction of this pipeline would deliver an additional 700,000 to 830,000 barrels of oil per day to the U.S. and would create 20,000 jobs.
• Repeal bureaucratic regulations such as EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations, Utility MACT, Boiler MACT, Cement MACT, the reclassification of coal ash, and any regulation of farm dust.
• Restructure the priorities of the Department of Energy (DOE). The DOE spends an exorbitant amount of money on technologies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and alternative-energy vehicles. All of these energy sources and technologies are currently available, but they are not yet commercially viable because of burdensome regulations or because they are still prohibitively expensive. It is not the government’s role to force these technologies into the market place.

We Hold These Truths | Rick Santorum for President

We Hold These Truths | Rick Santorum for President

We Hold These Truths

The White House recently told the press there couldn’t be more difference between my position on gay marriage and President Obama’s.

On reflection, I agree.

President Obama’s position on marriage is constantly “evolving,” as he so often says. He’s not sure what marriage is, or what it should become, and no doubt right now he’s consulting highly-paid polling experts to determine how his position – and marriage itself – should morph next. This should come as no surprise given the President’s musings about the other great moral issue of our time, the protection of human life.

In a 2008 campaign forum, Pastor Rick Warren asked, “at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" Obama answered, “Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a science perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.” But as an Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama articulated a very clear view of when a baby was granted rights. He was the only senator to vote against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in committee; legislation that protected babies who survived an abortion and were born alive. He was the only senator to speak against it on the senate floor.

At the time, the constitutional law professor boldly asserted, that “whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a–a child, a 9 month old–child that was delivered to term.” He says children only have rights who are 9-months old and delivered at term. So, does that mean any child born before 9 months is not entitled to rights?

By contrast, millions of Americans, including myself, know what we think about human life and marriage. We know not only what we think but why we believe what we believe. We know that some truths are bigger than the next election and should not shift with political consultants’ advice. And among those great, enduring, and foundational truths, I believe, are life and marriage.

An unborn child is not just a clump of cells. He or she is a human life, as worthy of basic dignity and respect as any one of us. Each precious, irreplaceable human life is too infinitely valuable to permit courts to redefine its meaning away. I fought against Partial Birth Abortion, a horrific procedure supported by President Obama, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. When the highest court found the law banning the practice unconstitutional, I sent it back to the justices a second time so they could get it right.

Marriage is, and has always been through human history, a union of a man and woman – and for a reason. These unions are special because they are the ones we all depend on to make new life and to connect those new lives to their mom and dad.

A husband is a man who commits to a woman, to her and any children she may give him. He commits to his wife without any reservations, to share with her all his worldly goods and to exclude all others from this intimate communion of life. From this vow of marriage comes a wonderful and unique good: any children their union creates will have a mom and a dad united in love, in one family.

That’s the special work of marriage in law – to connect things that otherwise fray and fragment: love, life, money, moms, and dads.

A man who does not seek to do this – who doesn’t choose to give himself to a woman and any children they may have together in this unique and special way – may well be a very good man and have wonderful other kinds of relationships, but he isn’t seeking to be a husband. We can’t redefine reality to accommodate politically fashionable wishes. Words matter because they capture enduring and timeless truths about human nature and about the common good.

Lawyers cannot create life and did not create marriage. And lawyers (whether on the bench or in politics) have no business redefining either to suit the shifting winds of fashion, or worse, for political expediency.

I know so many single moms who work so hard and do such a great job raising children. We need to applaud every heroic parent working hard to raise good kids regardless of whether or not they are married; just as we need to protect all our children, born and unborn, those lucky enough to have the gift of a married mom and dad and those who do not.

We can do this without cravenly surrendering timeless truths about marriage and human life. We don’t want liberal media-approved lawyers and politicians massaging the meaning of words, or judges implementing vast social changes without the consent of the governed, or, frankly, politicians like President Obama who cannot even tell you what marriage will be next week.

In positions of power, we need men and women of character, willing to stand up and defend what they think is right and to level with the American people. America is hungry for leadership. I have found everywhere I go across this great land that people appreciate it if they know you’re the kind of man they can trust to tell the truth on important issues even if they do not agree with you on every issue.

Marriage is a society’s life blood. Not everybody can or will marry, but all of us (married or not) depend on marriage in a unique way. Marriage is foundational: it creates and sustains not only children but civilization itself. This is an institution which protects our liberty.

A president who, after thousands of years of human history, a Harvard law degree, and four years in the White House, cannot tell us with certainty what he thinks marriage or life is, is not worthy of the trust of the American people or a second term in office. It is time for leadership in America. It is time again to stand for self-evident foundational truths.

ricochet
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/We-Hold-These-Truths