Boozman

From the Associated Press this morning (we fully expect the NY Times to contradict this at its earliest convenience):

BAGHDAD (AP) — October is on course to record the second consecutive decline in U.S. military and Iraqi civilian deaths and Americans commanders say they know why: the U.S. troop increase and an Iraqi groundswell against al-Qaida and Shiite militia extremists.

Here is what one battle zone commander - Lt. Col. Val Keaveny, 3rd Battalion, 509th Infantry (Airborne) - had to say:

“People are fed up with fear, intimidation and being brutalized. Once they hit that tipping point, they’re fed up, they come to realized we truly do provide them better hope for the future. What we’re seeing now is the beginning of a snowball,” said Keaveny, whose forces operate out of Forward Operating Base Kalsu, about 35 miles south of Baghdad.

Iowa Democrat Dave Loebsack says he is seeing progress in Iraq, according to the Des Moines Register:

“Certainly, in Anbar province, there’s no doubt some progress has been made,” said Loebsack, an opponent of the war. The question is how much, and how much political progress has been made, as well, he said.

“The military has done a fantastic job, as always,” he said. Loebsack met with members of the Iowa Army National Guard’s 833rd Engineer Company, based in Ottumwa, and other Iowans serving in Iraq.

That’s the percentage of people who approve of Speaker Pelosi’s Congress.

President Bush comes in at 24%

The Associated Press: “The U.S. budget deficit fell to $162.8 billion in the just-completed budget year, the lowest amount in five years.” (Martin Crutsinger, “US Budget Deficit Falls To $162.8 Billion In 2007, Lowest Level In 5 Years,” The Associated Press, 10/12/07)

Bloomberg: “The U.S. government posted the smallest budget deficit in five years as tax revenue reached a record.” (John Brinsley, “U.S. 2007 Budget Deficit Falls To $163 Billion,” Bloomberg, 10/11/07)

Reuters: “Federal tax receipts grew 6.7 percent in fiscal 2007 to a record $2.568 trillion…” (”U.S. Fiscal 2007 Budget Deficit Falls To $163 Bln,” Reuters, 10/12/07)

The Wall Street Journal: “The federal deficit narrowed in fiscal 2007, the third straight annual reduction, as the continued economic recovery helped the growth of tax receipts outpace the growth of government spending.” (”U.S. Budget Deficit Narrowed To Lowest Level In Years,” The Wall Street Journal, 10/12/07)

The New York Times Editorial Board Ignores Yesterday’s Report On The Reduced Deficit To Run More Pessimistic Commentary

New York Times Editorial Board: “But the economic arguments are nonsense, none more so than the claim … that lower tax rates will inevitably generate more tax revenues.” (Editorial, “What, Me Worry?” The New York Times, 10/12/07)

The Washington Post And Los Angeles Times Apparently Did Not Believe Yesterday’s News Warranted Space In Their Newspapers

The Washington Post: [No story]. (The Washington Post, 10/12/07)

Los Angeles Times: [No story]. (Los Angeles Times, 10/12/07)

A great editorial from the Christian Science Monitor:

Flip S-CHIP to a tax benefit

Using tax credits to extend healthcare for poor children could set a consensus for reform.

People’s concern for children should never be used as a political football. But that’s the case with a debate on a federal program called the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or S-CHIP. Expansion of this 1997 law has become a campaign “wedge” issue. Better that it be a window of opportunity for a consensus on reform of healthcare.

S-CHIP was a bipartisan venture between President Clinton and a Republican Congress, aimed at meeting the medical needs of children whose parents earned too much to qualify for Medicaid but whose income is less than twice the poverty line, or $41,300 for a family of four.

This government-managed system wasn’t set up, however, to become a model for families with higher and higher incomes. Yet that’s the effect of the bill passed by Congress – and vetoed by President Bush. In fact, the original program has failed to reach many of the intended poor, or an estimated 500,000 to 1.5 million children who are eligible. That’s because states (which run the program with federal money) often fall short in reaching poor families or persuading them to enroll.

And the proposed funding of S-CHIP’s expansion for five years creates its own problem.

The bill would pay for an additional $35 billion in spending by raising the federal excise tax on cigarettes by 61 cents. This, in effect, pays for the healthcare of poor children by taking money from smokers, who tend to be the poorest and least educated Americans. Such a tax is a weak reed to sustain the finances of a program – what if smoking further declines? – and simply perverse in its logic.

Extending S-CHIP to families who earn three or more times the poverty-line income would reach many who already have employer-provided insurance. This could cause many employers to drop coverage and thus erode the private system that has become the cornerstone of healthcare proposals of most presidential candidates, including Hillary Clinton.

Congress can both reach children whose parents earn more than twice the poverty level and preserve employer-based insurance. To do so, it can make money available directly to poor families, enabling them to pay for healthcare providers of their choice for their children, or pay their share of employer-based insurance.

The money can come as a tax credit for poor, working families or outright cash for families who don’t earn enough to pay taxes. Such a step was recommended earlier this year by a wide coalition of groups ranging from the US Chamber of Commerce to the American Medical Association. The credit would be indexed to rising healthcare costs and based on different costs by region.

Such an idea should become the basis for a compromise between Mr. Bush and Congress, assuming his veto is upheld in the House, as expected. It could form the kernel for a wider consensus on ways to meet the needs of an estimated 46 million people who currently don’t have health insurance while keeping the market-based healthcare system.

The issue of healthcare need not be a third rail in American politics, used to burn. Renewal of S-CHIP the right way can play to people’s hopes, not their fears.

On a day when the Senate works in a bipartisan fashion to condemn MoveOn.org’s vicious attack of General David Petraeus, the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives balked at moving on, and bringing up a similar piece of legislation.

Here is a transcript of the exchange:

BLUNT: The Senate just passed a resolution condemning moveon.org ad in the New York Times that suggested Gen. Petraeus might be General Betray Us. Since that has now passed the Senate, when can we expect to see a resolution like that on the House floor?

HOYER: That information is new to me. I am pleased to hear the Senate can pass something.

BLUNT: Maybe we should encourage them by passing this as well.

HOYER: I am not sure I want to encourage the Senate, except to do the work we sent over to them. They have a lot of work on their table. I haven’t looked at that resolution. My friend has seen my quoted as not in agreement with and disappointed with the particular ad that appeared. But having said that, I don’t having any intent at this point in time to bring up that resolution. I haven’t seen it, so I have no intention of scheduling that resolution at this point in time.

BLUNT: I thank my friend for that, I’d encourage you to look at it and would hope that we can see a similar action taken here on the house floor.

HOYER: Will the gentleman yield?

BLUNT: Yes.

HOYER: I want to say, on behalf of myself, and I believe the overwhelming majority of my caucus - perhaps every member of my caucus – we have great respect for General Petraeus. It does not help, in my opinion, the debate to impugn the integrity of those serving our country in uniform in harm’s way. I believe that general Petraeus is an honorable man of great integrity who has severed our country well. I may disagree with him. He may disagree with me on issues. But that does not in any way, any more than you and I might disagree, and we are good friends, undermine our respect for one another’s opinion. And as I say, I want to articulate because you bring up the issue that I believe that impugning of his integrity and patriotism and commitment to this country was inappropriate

BLUNT: I appreciate that and in fact while you may not want to articulate it. I thought you did very well. If you want to take that out and enter it into the Congressional record of our proceedings. I am sure I could co-sponsor exactly the comment that you just made and would like to see us have a chance to do that.

From the Washington Times, The top Republican on the House oversight committee yesterday called for an investigation into possible elections violations by the New York Times for selling an advertisement to the liberal group MoveOn.org at a reduced rate.

Kudos to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Northwest Arkansas police for taking 41 illegal aliens with gang ties off the streets.

Most arrests were in Rogers and Springdale, Reyes said. Suspects have ties to three Mexican gangs — the Mexican Mafia, Sureno 13 and Latin Kings — and with an El Savadoran gang, Mara Salvatrucha, he said.

Democrat-led Congress approval rating down to 11%…

No apologies to be found… despite the following:

From the Kansas City Star:

“Gen. David Petraeus deserves an apology. There’s room for reasonable people to disagree over Gen. David Petraeus’ take on Iraq. But MoveOn.org’s personal attacks on him go way over the top … MoveOn.org owes Petraeus an apology.”

The Wall Street Journal:

“Members of the Democratic leadership and their supporters have now normalized the practice of accusing their opponents of lying. If other members of the Democratic Party don’t move quickly to repudiate this turn, the ability of the U.S. political system to function will be impaired in a way no one would wish for … So far, only two Democrats that we are aware of have repudiated this political turn.”

The New York Post:

“But forget the hard left for a moment. What about supposedly mainstream Democrats? Don’t they find this kind of fascistic smear over the top? Apparently not. Indeed, it seems they meant for groups like MoveOn to be their attack dog. ‘No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV,’ a report quoted one (unsurprisingly) anonymous Dem senator saying. ‘The outside groups will do this for us.’”

Investor’s Business Daily:

“Defenseless against the facts, Democrats responded by trying to trash Petraeus’ carefully crafted report – and his reputation … So, where possible, they’re letting far-left groups do their heavy-lifting – as with Code Pink’s shenanigans, and the full-page Moveon.org ad in Monday’s New York Times … Not surprisinglly, most Democrats refused to criticize Moveon.org’s disgraceful slander of a decorated general who has served his country with valor, honor and distinction. There’s a word for this: cowardice.”

So far, deafening silence from national Democrats:

“Democratic congressional leaders and the party’s presidential candidates yesterday refused to repudiate a liberal group’s ad questioning Gen. David H. Petraeus’ character.

Capitol Hill Democrats rejected a call for votes in both chambers to condemn the attack newspaper ad, run by MoveOn.org …

Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the California Democrat ‘wished [MoveOn.org] wouldn’t have done that ad,’ but declined to comment further.

A spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, also declined to comment on the ad.”