Subject Feedback – where I give you a chance to read what is sent to me by some of the subject’s of the FR Commentary:
Here are two ‘responses’ —
1) On October 12, I wrote in my commentary about my frustration that Congressman Duncan Hunter of San Diego, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, was apparently opposed to any across the board spending cuts in Congress. The conservative Republican Study Committee has proposed these cuts as a way to deal with Katrina Recovery costs without raising taxes or ‘charging’ efforst to the federal defecit.
On behalf of Congressman Hunter, his Communications Director, Joe Kasper, sent along the following:
It is important to know first and foremost, that Congressman Hunter never stated his objection to an itemization of potential funding offsets, however, he does have concerns and strong reservations about cutting funding for defense related activities, programs and technology, especially given that we are amidst a global war on terrorism and our brave servicemen and women are conducting combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan on a daily basis. The same concerns were echoed by Homeland Security Chairman Peter King who believes funding should and needs to be prioritized.
I think most people will agree, regardless of partisan affiliation, that if there was ever a time to cut funding for defense and Homeland Security, now is not the time. House Leadership has not decided on the best approach to dealing with the issue at hand and at this point and time, the offsets that have been proposed are simply recommendations.
From your writing, I get the impression that you are familiar with Congressman Hunter and his efforts in Congress. He has faithfully represented his constituency for nearly 25 years and has always remained faithful to the men and women in uniform. Congress’ responsibility to protect the American people from the threat of terrorism, ensure our military personnel posses the most optimal resources, and improve domestic and border security, should be taken into consideration before a potential funding offset package is considered."
At this point, I still feel like our over-spending is quickly becoming as great, or a greater threat to our domestic security as any terrorist acts. Maybe not in direct threat to human lives, but certainly the economic burdon on this country is overwhelming…
2) On October 19, I wrote a piece about Bill Mundell, the Chairman of the Redistrict Now Committee, who practically self-financed getting Proposition 77 on the ballot (he has been successful in his business endeavors). The column centered around Mundell’s decision to go back to Ohio and support Issue 4 on their ballot, which is a redistricting measure similar to 77 – though in that state, the partisan tables are turned and the district lines overwhelmingly favor the GOP.
Mundell wrote the following in response to my column:
First, the Initiatives in Ohio, though sponsored by the same group, are not tied- each is voted on separately and I made it clear I was not endorsing any of the other Initiatives. Secondly, there are credible Republicans, notably Joan Lawrence, a GOP Assemblywoman for 20 years and former Taft Cabinet Secretary that were amongst a dozen or so Ohio Republicans endorsing the measure.
We have been in negotiations with the Ohio people for a month, and in fact it was only after we finalized our agreement that the Governor came out and said he would endorse the measure. I only say that because your piece implied that we followed the Governor on this. To the contrary, we exist because we feel there was a leadership gap on 77. As a part of the negotiation, we got their agreement to stare their union brethren in the face out here and endorse Prop. 77 which they are doing in three press conferences today in LA, tomorrow in SF and Sacramento.
Public records show that Soros and his organization have not contributed a penny to this effort. The state Democratic party of Ohio has not endorsed Issue 4. Three years ago he made a contribution to Common Cause which has endorsed both Prop. 77 and Issue 4, but that is as close as Soros gets to this.
But this is really beside the point. Before endorsing this, I had to convince myself that the measure was fair. Several weeks ago Pat Caddell spoke to Warren Beatty, chastising him for coming out against 77. When he told Beatty that the RNC opposed this, Beatty said ‘maybe I ought to take another look.’ This type of knee-jerk partisanship is without intellectual merit, and I do not subscribe to it."
The thesis of my piece remains the same — will Mundell’s support of this measure in Ohio help or hinder his bid for the GOP nomination for U.S. Senate next year? Time will tell!