Hewitt Blog

I am told by Hill sources the Senate compromise does indeed include the fence, which will make it a huge win for the Majority Leader. Seriousness on security and the immigration problem looking forward threads the needle and gives Bill Frist a big win to match Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's...if the fence is real and makes it through conference.

The Boston Globe has a piece analyzing the politics of the Romney Health Care Plan.

It is an interesting piece that reveals, surprise, The Cato Institute and Grover don't like the fact that the plan imposes fees on employers not paying health inusrance premiums for their employees.

This may or may not be an issue with some GOP primary voters, but there is a vast difference between seeking to correct the negative externalities of the uninsured upon all taxpayers via a fee that prompts insurance availability, and a borad-based tax to support Canadian style health care.

The fact is that everyone pays through their premiums for the uninsured. The Romney plan does not mandate that employers offer coverage but it does oblige employers to help pay for the cost of the uninsured that all taxpayers are paying for and which their lack of insurance availability is contributing to. The fee is high, but the cost of the uninsured on the economy of Massachusetts much higher.

That's the polic wonk stuff. At the level of politics, the Romney Plan is a big win because it is an actual accomplishment as opposed to a promise. It is an experiment underway, as opposed to a hoped-for program innovation down the road. The Governor is trying something, not just talking about trying something.

Contrast that with the posts below that focus on the do-little-or-nothing Senate.

Because I wrote approvingly of the plan yesterday, the Globe finds a way to toss me into the piece:

Other conservative groups and commentators have come out in support of the plan. The Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C. helped write part of the bill, and syndicated radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, who is close to Romney, said on his website: ''The Romney campaign just took a big jump forward."

This is amusing. I have met the governor twice, once at a fundraiser for Cystic Fibrosis honoring his brother-in-law, who is a friend of mine, and once on a west coast swing where he was meeting with journalists along the way.

I am favorably impressed with him, as I am with George Allen and Bill Frist and a host of other potential presidential candidates, but if I am "close" to Mitt Romney then I'm even closer to James Carville, and Harry Reid is joined to Jack Abramoff's hip. What foolishness. The Globe should be able to simply report and not mix in ill-informed opinion.

As the Senate prepares to take another two week vacation --what do our troops think about a leadership that has since beginning of the year been away from the Floor more than they have been on it?-- D.C. Circuit Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh continues to languish in the Judiciary Committee along with many others. Nominnee Terrance Boyle waits for a floor vote. Nominee William Haynes is on John McCain's purge list amd probably won't get out of committee thanks to Senator Graham.

It is very difficult to ask people to work for a Senate majority that won't work.

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman hits the bullseye:

Personally, I favor a very high fence, with a very big gate....Good fences make good immigration policy. Fences make people more secure and able to think through this issue more calmly

I interviewed a Customs agent yesterday who again confirmed the obvious: Fencing along high traffic areas of the southern border will greatly reduce illegal immigration into the country, thus bringing control to the enduring problem and greatly enhancing security against terrorists and narco-criminals.

The House bill passed provisions authorizing 700 miles of real fence for those high traffic areas.

The new version of the Senate immigration bill does not appear to include any fencing (and spare me the talk of "virtual fences." Israel isn't building a "virtual fence.")

Such a bill will label the Senate majority as unserious, no matter how persuasive the arguments on behalf of regularization of all or many of the 11 million illegal aliens presntly in the country.

It will also cripple Majority Leader Frist's presidential ambitions. As far as I can tell, three quarters of GOP voters have no problem with regularization, but they are also demanding seriousness about the border.

I hope I'm wrong, but the reports indicate that the Senate bill is simply a charade.

From the WSJ.com:

Vacancies in U.S. office buildings fell to the lowest level in five years, reaffirming an improving market that is allowing landlords to boost rents.

The office vacancy rate for the 69 largest metropolitan markets dropped to 14.1% in the first quarter from 14.7% in the fourth quarter of 2005, the steepest percentage-point drop in at least seven years, according to a survey by Reis Inc., a New York-based commercial-real-estate research firm. The eighth consecutive quarterly drop resulted from continued strong absorption -- the net change in occupied space -- totaling 15 million square feet in the first quarter.

The strong, distributed and sustained economic boom we are in depends upon not screwing things up with sudden changes in tax or monetary policy.

This is a powerful argument for the fall elections. It would be useful to hear Republicans making it on a daily basis. From Larry Kudlow:

The bottom line here is that Republicans need to hammer home a positive message. The GOP still needs to convince the base they deserve to be reelected as a Congressional majority. So far they haven’t done that.

I disagree with Larry in the idea that the optimism is sufficient in the campaign. The Democratic Party is committed to retreat and defeat in the war, and that needs to be broadcast far and wide.

But he is correct and urgently so when it comes to focusing on the incredible economy that has been produced by the tax cuts.

If as has been rumored, John Snow steps down at Treasury, the hunt for a new Treasury Secretary should put a premium on the nominee's ability to engage the public and the media. Of course he or she will need "the respect of the markets," but mostly they will need the ability to communicate the key truths about this economy into a MSM committed to electing Democrats by denying the reality of the growth that is everywhere around us.

In the last three years of the Bush Adminsitration, senior appointments have to be made with an eye on the long term benefit those individuals will bring to the GOP as well as the talents they bring to the job. Elevate some relatively young, telegenic achievers. Pull some people from the academy or business.

Please, no "last job" benefit chairmen in the making.

ElectionProjection provides a nice reminder of why a Zogby poll is like the latest prediction from the worst weatherman you know.

Maybe he's right today, but you'll still take an umbrella.

It is pretty obvious the Indians own the White Sox this year. Bring on the Yankees.

George Will writes up the campaign of Judy Topinka to unseat the headed-for-indictment re-election of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.

It is an interesting piece, and Topinka intrigues...until we get to the end:

Topinka says Karl Rove urged her to run, hoping to offset in Illinois a probable gubernatorial loss in New York. Would she like President Bush to campaign for her? An aide says not exactly: "We just want him to raise money." Topinka does not demur as the aide adds: "Late at night." Pause. "In an undisclosed location."

Maybe Illinois Republicans have found their John McCain. Now they will find out whether such "straight talk" works.

So much in those two paragraphs.

First, we see that columnist Will is an unreconstructed McCain man. Fine.

But we also see Topinka indifferent to the appearance in at least one paper in every major market in the union of a slam at the president from her senior staff that goes unrebuked by her.

Whatever one thinks of the president --and quite a few Republicans and independents admire him greatly, many of them Illinois voters-- the candidate gains absolutely nothing by playing to the columnist's renowned dislike for all things Bush.

Does the candidate and staff imagine that no one reads Will's columns in the White House? Or are they counting on the president's very thick skin to absorb the slight, and Laura as well to put it down to inexperience with the national press?

When I see candidates wanting to have the president's friends and their money but not without an obligatory shot to satisfy critics, I know that I am observing a real rookie.

Lynn Swann and Ken Blackwell are also running for governor in crucial swing states. They have managed to do so thus far without playing to the anti-Bush MSM. What pro-Bush donor is going to skip over them to dig deep for Topinka?

Illinois hasn't done much for the GOP in recent years, and if it joins California and New York as a deep blue safety zone for Democrats in presidential years, the answer is not to prop up occasional governors, but to match up a third big state to go with Florida and Texas in the deep red category. I know that Illinois isn't going to go from blue to even light red with a governor who starts her campaign by blasting Bush.

Chapman Law School is holding a symposium beginning tomorrow on the crucial legal question of the year: "Are We At War."

If you are in California beginning tomorrow, you will want to try and attend. There is also a webcast.

Here's the rundown on participants.

Bad Example sets a good example of creativity. (HT: RightWingNews.)