95th Annual New York YR Club Alumni Dinner

by Jimmy Toussaint, Brooklyn YRs

In a roomy Manhattan penthouse, the New York YRs get together for their alumni dinner each year.

The atmosphere was full of refreshing conservative energy that is normally waterd down in the blue state of New York.

While looking over the city, people from different backgrounds and ages mingled before the dinner. From the self-made business man to the politically-active college student, everyone came together to support the NYYRC awardees and most importantly, they came to re-affirm commitment to the conservative movement.

This particular event featured prominent Republican speakers like Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard and Fox News, Fran Townsend, former Presidential Assistant for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and Rick Lazio, former New York Congressman and 2000 U.S. Senate candidate.

Other notable attendees at the dinner were Edward Cox, Chairman of John McCain's Presidential Campaign in New York, Republican State Senate candidate John Chromczak and Republican State Assembly candidate Saul Farber.

There is nothing like re-affirming Republican values with a nice glass of wine, a multi-course dinner and camraderie with fellow and distinguished Young Republicans.

During the dinner, New York YR President, Lynn Krogh, presented awards to Fran Townsend, Rick Lazio and NYYRC alumnus Charles Moerdler.

Krogh did an excellent job with this event and the club's officers really pulled together an exceptional evening experience. If they continue on this path to bringing New York Republicans together, we will be a stronger political force in New York City for it.

Jimmy Toussaint is the Chair of Fundraising & Events for the Brooklyn Young Republican Club, and a recent attendee at this year’s NYYRC 95th Alumni Dinner.

Teddy Roosevelt Dinner

The New York State Young Republicans completed their productive day at the Grassroots School with their annual Teddy Roosevelt Dinner in Jack’s Oyster Bar & Steak House on Albany’s State Street.

Among the guests that evening included candidate for the U.S. Senate seat in Delaware, Christine O’Donnell, who spoke about staying true to conservative values in her race against incumbent Democratic Senator Joe Biden.

Besides juicy steak, open bar, and conversation with YRs from around the state, one of the main highlights of the evening was the annual awards ceremony.

The first award is for Club of the Year, which was awarded to the Steuben County YRs.

The second award is for New York State Young Republican of the Year, which was awarded to Secretary of the Brooklyn Young Republican Club and Editor-in-Chief of the GOPyr, Jonathan Judge. Judge thanked all the YR clubs from around the state, saying that it was due to their ingenuity and activism that we are able to brag so proudly about the many accomplishments of New York’s Young Republicans in our newsletter.

The final and most distinguished award is for New York State Assemblyman of the Year, which was awarded to Assemblyman Lou Tobacco of the 62nd A.D. in Staten Island. Assemblyman Tobacco was particularly grateful for this award and spoke about the common sense ideals he and his Republican colleagues have been trying to push in the State Assembly.

The night was complete with after-dinner socializing at a couple of the local pubs in the area, reveling in what turned out to be a wonderful evening for the State YRs.

The Case on Congestion Pricing

by Jonathan Judge, Brooklyn YRs

Former President Ronald Reagan once said, “Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: if it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; and if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

Congestion ‘pricing’ (or, more appropriately, a congestion ‘tax’), is a mechanism of imposing a per-use government surcharge for moving in a private vehicle on ordinary local public streets within a certain area.

And it may be coming to a city or town near you in the future if the State Legislature approves it for NYC on March 31st.

Why, you might ask, would our representatives vote for this. The goals articulated are many, but mainly as a government disincentive to modify your daily behavior to the way government thinks best. Some argue it is meant to reduce traffic congestion by pricing people out of their cars and on mass transit. Others argue it is the only way to reduce pollution by fining people for using private vehicles. And then many more honestly admit that it is just another means to raise revenue, particularly for already tax-payer funded transportation. Meanwhile, the revenue would not go to improve roads, but would be redistributed to mass transit improvements almost exclusively.

While congestion pricing does not exist in the United States yet, there have been certain areas with variable highway tolls, which is somewhat similar, though there is always a free alternative. Congestion pricing, however, by definition, eliminates any free alternate routes--it’s government’s way or no way.

New York City: The Test Subject

New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (Unaffiliated), prompted by a Federal grant opportunity, has introduced a congestion pricing plan. The NYC Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, created by the State last year, has recommended a plan to charge all incoming drivers south of Manhattan’s 60th Street $8 a day (or $2,000 a year) between 6 AM and 6 PM on weekdays. Trucks would be charged $21 a day, or about $5,000 a year. It must be adopted by the New York City Council and the State Legislature before anyone can be charged. Furthermore, it could stand as precedent for other cities and towns in the state to begin implementing similar taxes.

New York State Highest Taxed State

The facts are out: New York State is one of the top three states with the highest tax burden in the country, according to the Tax Foundation.

But the experts don’t need to tell us that it’s expensive to live in New York, never mind to raise a family. We know it firsthand.

Pundits are already trying to figure out about how much our congressional representation might be reduced after the 2010 Census because New York is not growing at the same rates as other states.

We as Republicans have seen the error of the ways of this State and, consequently, hold dear the following two principles, which are found in our State Creed:

“I believe that while government can and should be the provider of some essential services, it should function with limited taxation, financial efficiency and the adoption of innovations to allow taxpayers to get the most for their hard-earned tax dollars”; and

“I believe that our natural environment is a precious resource for all humankind, and that citizens and government should work together to implement common-sense policies that allow for both environmental protection and economic growth.”

Our Republican principles acknowledge this, and the facts surrounding us compel us to do something about it.

For instance, in recognition that making travel more expensive hurts economic growth upstate, many Republican State Legislators are aiming to fight the toll hikes on the New York State Thruway, and some local elected officials are even recommending the abolition of the tolls altogether.

The impact of a $2,000 a year tax to commute into Manhattan by car would be certainly devastating for the breadbasket of the Empire State, and the evidence shows that it would do little to advance any of the goals that it is designed to produce, except to make government more money.

Does New York City Need a Congestion Tax?

On the charge that congestion is bad now and will be getting hopelessly worse, here are the facts. The number of private vehicles in Manhattan has gone down by 20,000 over the past 20 years. Census data shows that more people each year leave their cars at home to take mass transit instead, which infuses more revenue into mass transit by the very fact of its increased demand.

Those neighborhoods where a relatively large number of people drive to Manhattan (a) have mass transit options at or exceeding capacity that cannot improve service without multi-billion dollar new subway lines, (b) are areas without any sort of local access to Manhattan-bound mass transit, (c) are located where driving is faster than any available mass transit alternatives, or (d) mass transit does not fit into the demands of the individual’s or family’s daily routine. Not surprisingly, then, the MTA, which supports congestion pricing as it would be the primary recipient of revenues collected, does not anticipate that more than 1% of these drivers will switch to mass transit.

On the charge that pollution from cars will only get worse, here are the facts.
The City of New York released last year an analysis of greenhouse gas emissions in the city. It showed that pollution from vehicles has gone down 6% from 1995 to 2005, thanks to tougher standards and fewer people driving. The State Department of Environmental Conservation revealed that enforcement of environmental standards has been significantly lax because 33% of diesel trucks surveyed entering upper Manhattan grossly violated State emissions standards. Enforce more, don’t tax more.

On the charge that more revenue is needed to improve mass transit, here are the facts. Most of the improvements, such as expanding ferry service, creating bike lanes, creating Bus Rapid Transit lines, building the Second Avenue Subway, and creating new regional commuter hubs, are already being fully funded or implementation has already begun--all without a new tax. Funding through efficient planning, Federal grants and other investments has been working quite well enough.

How Does It Work in London

London’s congestion tax scheme is similar to the one proposed in New York City. While it did out-price some people from driving into London, the level of traffic congestion in 2002 and 2006 was exactly the same--about 2.3 minutes of delay per kilometer. In the short life of the congestion tax in London, the fee has already doubled from £5 ($10) a day to £8 ($16) a day. The tax zone also doubled from 8 square miles to 15 square miles, meaning more potential drivers to tax. Now the Mayor of London wants to charge all SUVs £25 ($50) a day. Bus fares were still increased a couple of years into the tax by 10%. Furthermore, a recent poll shows three-fourths of Londoners are against the congestion tax altogether. Other local governments in the UK, because of London’s revenues, are trying to impose their own congestion taxes, but with extremely high public and business opposition due to the massive tax burden.

How Do New Yorkers Feel About It?

About two-thirds of New Yorkers have been consistently opposed to the plan since last year. They would only consider it slightly favorable if it were used to prevent mass transit fare hikes, but this is something the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission recommends against.

Republicans generally oppose it more than Democrats, though opposition from both sides is at or above 60%.

No wonder opposition is so high: commuters who drive into the City from the Five Boroughs have a median income of $41,000 a year. That represents the equivalent of a 172% increase in State income tax for someone earning $41,000!

The Past Becomes Our Future

In 1990, several City Council Members introduced a City Charter amendment to ban congestion pricing in New York City. It never went anywhere, and here we are.

The people of New York City and New York State would be wise to oppose this scheme and work towards better and more efficient means of improving transportation and the overall ability to live and work in our state rather than resort to the typical liberal solution: if there’s a problem, tax something.

Jonathan Judge is the Secretary of the Brooklyn Young Republican Club and the Editor-in-Chief of the GOPyr.

Thanks to GOP, Spitzer’s License Plan Got Steamrolled

by Bob Capano, Brooklyn YRs

I am not quite sure what part of “illegal” Governor Spitzer and other advocates for giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants do not understand.

Under Governor Spitzer’s original announced plan for New York, which unfortunately is a reality in some states, one would have been able to apply for a driver’s license without having to prove their legal status. Those applying for licenses in New York State would no longer have been required to provide Social Security numbers and instead, would have allowed applicants to provide foreign passports or other forms of ID.

Therefore, illegal immigrants would have been eligible for the same license as legal immigrants and citizens under this plan.

The Brooklyn Young Republican Club began an on-line petition drive to stop this controversial Spitzer plan (go to www.brooklynyr.com for more information on the Club).

Indeed, nearly 400 individuals from Brooklyn and beyond signed this petition, including residents from throughout New York State, as well as from Wisconsin, Georgia, Nebraska, and Florida. This demonstrated the wide-spread disagreement with this plan, including by many Democrats like former NYC Mayor Ed Koch. The Brooklyn YR Club was proud to be a part of the large grass-roots effort that ultimately forced Spitzer to recently withdraw this plan.

In addition to all of the other potential security threats posed by this policy, including the fact that terrorists could have potentially obtained this new watered down driver’s license to allow them to operate more freely here, this plan could have forced us all to get passports to fly within the United States. This is because our licenses under Spitzer’s plan may not have met federal security requirements (REAL ID Act) and therefore, they would have been de-valued as proof of our identity and status in the United States. It is still unclear why our Governor proposed such a plan that would have burdened legal, law-abiding New York residents with additional costs and inconvenience by forcing us to get a passport in order to allow illegal immigrants to have a driver’s license.

Then, Governor Spitzer announced a new version of his original ill-conceived plan. He wanted to create a three-tier licensing system. Two of these licenses would have been available only to citizens and legal aliens and would have met the new federal security requirements. However, there still would have been a license available to illegal immigrants, which would still have raised the security threat mentioned above relating to terrorists potentially being able to obtain one. Once again, it is unclear why our Governor proposed creating any type of identification for people who are here illegally. Indeed, we should not be overlooking, bypassing, excusing or forgetting the fact that people are here illegally, and this is precisely what we are doing when any state provides them with a privilege like a driver’s license.

Some argue that Republicans and those who are opposed to giving illegal immigrants driver’s licenses are anti-immigrant. Nothing could be further from the truth. We support legal immigration and those who follow the law to become part of our great country. Think about it- how can we as a society look those in the eye who waited many years to become a part of our country legally, while we excuse and reward those who came here illegally by providing them with a driver’s license. I cannot support such unfairness, and I do not understand how Governor Spitzer and supporters of this type of plan can.

Although Governor Spitzer did withdraw his plan, there are still states that currently allow illegal immigrants to get driver’s licenses.

There are also those, including many Democrats running for President, who support this idea or can’t articulate where they stand. Thankfully, in New York, we were able to stop this plan; however, one state in our country allowing policies that threatens our security is one too many.

This is why I am pleased that two New York Members of Congress, Vito Fossella and Peter King, are taking the lead in Washington, D.C. to deter and prohibit states from issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.

Bob Capano is the President of the Brooklyn Young Republican Club.

A Grand Old Party on a Midsummer’s Eve

by Jonathan Judge, Brooklyn YRs

It was the mystery event of the New York City Republican summer season—the Senate Summer Social on August 21st at Spiegeltent in Manhattan’s South Street Seaport.

Some of the local news blogs were chattering away about the speculation, saying that it might be the party’s substitute for former New York Governor George Pataki’s annual birthday fundraisers at the Seaport.

However, I only knew it as an e-mail invite I received from Scott Sala, of Urban Elephants.com fame, which billed the event as a FREE invitation-only “Exclusive New York City Networking Event” where one can join “Young Professionals in Politics, Business & Media for an evening of cocktails & conversation.”

While the word “Republican” was not to be seen so easily on the invite itself, as for the organizers, it could not be clearer for whom they planned this spectacular soiree. The event was the brainchild of Lisa Black of Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno’s Public Affairs office and Dana Weisberg of Park Strategies, LLC, which is the government relations firm founded by former U.S. Senator Al D’Amato.

Young professionals and lots of Republicans: you bet that this was my kind of event!

Thought the skies were gray, the many canopies of Spiegeltent were filled with over 300 people, an air of conviviality, a spectacular view of the Brooklyn Bridge and the New York harbor, and, of course, politics.

I had just barely made my way towards the festivities with fellow Brooklyn YR Samuel Rivera, when I immediately came across Brooklyn’s State Senator Marty Golden and Staten Island District Attorney, Dan Donovan, both of whom were event sponsors. I also briefly chatted with J.C. Polanco, State Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco’s New York City Regional Director.

When I signed in at the door, I was given two free drink tickets and I was asked to drop my business card in the glass jar to be eligible to win some raffle prizes, which included dinners, shows, baseball, and some other nifty things.

Looking around, I noticed the Brooklyn Young Republican Club was well represented. Our President, Bob Capano was there with our Executive Director Georgea Kontzamanis, as well as Vice President Britta Vander Linden and her husband, Luke Vander Linden, who himself is a former President of the BYRC.

Naturally, it was a bit after 6 o’clock, and I was a little parched and hungry. So I headed straight for the bar, utilized one of my drink tickets, and then browsed the delectable sea-themed hors d’oevres, such as jumbo shrimp with cherry tomatoes, grilled tuna on cucumber, and slices of a smoked salmon and cream cheese wrap, which I guess is a variation of the New York’s favorite lox and shmear. Of course, I sampled each of them with delight.

Anyway, while enjoying the light fare, I bumped into AlarmingNews.com blogger and public relations consultant Karol Sheinin, with whom I had a pleasant chat about, among other things, the ongoing Renaissance of our hometown, Brooklyn.

Mingling a bit more, I had a rather engaging discussion about the upcoming Republican presidential primary with Avery Knapp, a spirited gentleman who has taken up the Ron Paul crusade in New York City, most recently by painting a rooftop in the East Village to read “Google Ron Paul”, as was noted by the Washington Post a few weeks ago.

However, Rudy Giuliani’s Presidential Committee was certainly not going to pass up an event like this in the Mayor’s hometown. “RUDY” stickers were abounding on lapels, dresses and bags throughout the event, and even Giuliani’s New York State Executive Director, Mario Bruno, was to be seen among the guests.

It wasn’t long before I came across Assistant Director of Tedisco’s NYC office, Robert Hornak, and a fellow Republican colleague of his, Daniel Peterson, who has been a candidate for local office and currently serves as President of a Manhattan Republican club.

The event was suddenly interrupted by Senator Golden’s booming voice, ushering everyone to the front for the main event: the raffle. It was at that point that I spotted newlywed Staten Island YR President, Anthony Reinhart, whom I gave a hearty congratulations. As they were calling out the various raffle prize winners (of which I was not one), I heard a familiar name called, and it was BYRC VP Britta Vander Linden, who won a prize!

After they finished giving out prizes, I spotted New York Sun columnist, Alicia Colon, whom I had to meet and thank for her many inspiring and spot-on columns that I’ve read over the past couple of years.

Finally finishing my first drink, I went back to the bar for a refill only to find former NYSYR State Chairman Jason Weingartner, and my counterpart in the New York YRs, Kellen Giuda, who serves as Editor of the NYYRC’s newsletter, the Record. We talked shop for a bit, and then I met Molly Casey, a Bruno staffer, who also helped with putting together this excellent event.

Though the event ended at 8 PM on the dot, people (like myself) spent a few more hours talking and mingling amongst ourselves.


I know it may seem like a lot of name dropping, but it’s necessary to convey exactly how unusual a turn out this event had. Among the many elected officials, businesses and independent political organizations that came together to fill this event, each one represents a distinct part of New York City’s young professional Republican make up, and frequently one would only come to expect to find certain groups of Republicans only at certain events.

This time, Ms. Black and Ms. Weisberg managed to break that mold and brought Republicans of all sorts throughout the city together in order to meet other Republicans and have a great time doing so.

I spoke with Ms. Weisberg recently about the event. She said that she and Ms. Black, who have been friends for some time now, got the idea from several young professional events that presidential candidates had been putting together, and they decided that there ought to be an event for young professional Republicans, conservatives and libertarians, regardless of candidate preference.

Ms. Weisberg said that Senator Bruno has been eyeing ways to reach out to younger Republicans, and was glad to help sponsor the event.

So, she and Ms. Black went ahead with the idea and began putting together a host committee, to which Ms. Weisburg commented: “We had a great group of diverse people, not only in government, but in the media and business as well, who were very eager to help.” They finally chose Spiegeltent, as the venue because, as Ms. Weisberg said, “You have to have it at a place that young people want to go—some place fun.”

After proving to be a tremendously successful event, she said that Senator Bruno thought it went wonderfully and that there is discussion about putting together another event like this in the near future.

I, for one, certainly wish them lots of luck in keeping Republican social life in New York City thriving, and I think they’re off to a great start doing just that!

Jonathan Judge is Secretary of the Brooklyn YRs and Editor-in-Chief of the NYSYR GOPyr Newsletter.

In SiCKO, Dr. Moore Proves Himself to be the Biggest Quack

by Samuel M. Rivera, Brooklyn YRs

There is no doubt that the healthcare system in America is imperfect at the very least, and one can read about the downfall of Medicare almost daily in the national newspapers. Thus, one can hardly ignore a film with healthcare as its major theme, especially when the creator of such a film is a lightning rod for controversy. Most recently, Hollywood’s latest concoction with this formula is “SiCKO,” a two-hour diatribe against the status of US healthcare.

A quick check of the renowned “RottenTomatoes.com” film review website counsels viewers that “SiCKO,” Michael Moore’s “documentary” (an increasingly tainted genre) about the American health care system, is “fresh” and earns 91% of positive ratings from 151 film critics nationwide. If you believe individuals such as Bill O’Reilly, you might think that this is due to a perplexing ideological imbalance in the media favoring the Left. However, this fact cannot explain the critics’ irrational love of “SiCKO” alone. Such socialist charlatanry can only convince the dumbest omadawn that Cuba and France are utopias and Hillary Clinton is “sexy.”

Yet, these are just a few of the claims that Dr. Moore makes as part of his prescription for a better life. “SiCKO” starts off by telling viewers that this film is not about those in America who are without healthcare but those that have it. Then come the litany of complaints from “real people” who have suffered (even died, Moore claims) because of the horrid nature of our health care system in America. This part of the film is the most human and emotional part. Moore transitions from these individual horror stories to muckraking. At least, one presumes this is muckraking, yet no citations are visible during much of the film.

This is Moore’s most overwhelming mistake. Here is a film made by a man whose last film accused the government of orchestrating the September 11th terror attacks. After his mockumentary on gun control (“Bowling for Columbine”) and producing the grotesque “Fahrenheit 9/11,” Michael Moore expects his viewers to trust his numbers? Since citations are seriously lacking, a reasoned viewer is left to guess which numbers in the film are cherry-picked and which are true.

For example, viewers are led to believe that the United States ranks 37th in health care performance, “just above Slovenia.” It sounds like a rather remarkable statement, considering the wealth and power of the United States. This, Moore says, is what makes “SiCKO” a comedy— a comedy about the failings of the richest nation in the world. Moore’s number is from the World Health Organization’s (WHO) World Health Report, a seemingly unbiased source (then again, it is the U.N.). However, a glance at the American Journal of Public Health underscores the inherent unfairness in this number. The WHO does not count as part of that ranking the tens of billions of dollars the US spends on research and on medicinal advances. He fails to note that over 60% of Americans rank their health as “excellent” or “good” and only 2.2% rank their own as poor. Additionally, the US ranks first in healthcare responsiveness and also deals with an impressive amount of lawsuits and malpractice claims that drive up insurance prices. But to Moore, reporting these facts and maintaining this standard of accuracy must be confusing and boring to his viewers, since he would much rather play an embarrassing clip of his favorite President, George W. Bush.

Next up, Moore does what those on the Right consider the unpardonable sin: praise anything of Hillary Clinton’s. More shockingly, he actually praises her 1993-1994 push as First Lady for universal national health care reform (perhaps her biggest weakness in her bid for president). One is forced to view a barrage of old Clinton photos, all while Moore claims that she was once “sassy” and “sexy.” Moore claims that when she pushed what conservatives appropriately called “HillaryCare,” she was proclaiming the civil right of health care. But now that she has become a big time senator, he says, she has betrayed her principles. No complaints there.

Not quite done sickening viewers, “SiCKO” travels to Canada, and then the UK and France on a bizarre European road trip to solidify Moore’s thesis that America sucks—I mean, America’s healthcare system sucks. The end result: we the viewers are subjected to the ramblings of expatriate Americans in a French bistro, a solo doctor in the UK who believes doctors should take pay cuts on principle (but somehow drives an Audi), and Dr. Moore’s logic that it’s true Europeans pay taxes (how much he never reports) but insists that healthcare’s still “free.” Moore suggests that the government should, while they’re somehow (taxes) managing to support the bureaucratic nightmare that is universal healthcare, also hire government nannies (I’m serious, he praises this) to take care of our kids. Government does so well hiring people like teachers with only minor setbacks (fondling, having sex with students and, of course, not teaching well—this last part being the most widespread), why not let them rock the cradle?

Not surprisingly, the last and most obtuse segment of the film is his use of ill 9/11 workers to make a grotesque statement about Cuba’s “superlative” healthcare system. Always the master manipulator, Moore and a posse of unfortunates (you do feel sorry for the 9/11 workers—at first) sail to Cuba and then to Gitmo, where Moore extols our healthcare for terrorists and our treatment of inmates. Suddenly, I feel as though I’m watching an EIB skit for Rush Limbaugh (“Club Gitmo,” anybody?). Of course, they do not get into Gitmo, but Dr. Moore has succeeded in his purpose: he has insulted America using a play out of the conservatives’ handbook and has managed to hide behind the 9/11 workers. Can you imagine how the US would look if they prosecuted 9/11 workers who went to Cuba illegally looking for adequate healthcare? What trickery!

Then, when they fail to get anything at Gitmo, Dr. Moore’s troops head back to Cuba, where Moore claims that there is a pharmacy on every corner! That’s better than New York! The sick folks find their way to a hospital (from my research, one of the better ones in Cuba), where they pay next to nothing to be treated. After brief interview with Che Guevara’s daughter, we see the SiCKOs (just examined and released with prescriptions) meet with a government fire department official and are saluted by Cuban firefighters, whom one of the healed SiCKOs calls their “brothers…”

…And then Elian Gonzalez came out arm in arm with Fidel Castro and healed the sick and the blind. Ok, just kidding. Roll credits.

This is what the emcee of healthcare reform, Dr. Michael Moore, has prescribed for us. No wonder the film has made far less money than “Fahrenheit 9/11.” But Moore does open some wounds that are sure to infect the 2008 presidential election. With healthcare costs on the rise and dire predictions concerning the future of Medicare, Moore takes the lazy socialist’s way of handling the issue by saying that if we just do what France does, death will end and life expectancy will increase exponentially. Yet consider this: for France’s entire universal healthcare, 5 hour work week (I’m joking—I hope), government-subsidized everything—they only live a few years more than the average American! That’s right! All our supersized, transfatty, obeseity-causing foods and stressful work weeks do not kill us much sooner than the French! Imagine if we all lived a little healthier?

Does this mean that the high insurance premiums and doctors living in fear of the next lawsuit are not problems? No, but thinking logically will dispel the notion that we must throw away the baby with the bathwater. Our healthcare system is flawed, yes, but it is not insurmountably flawed. Lawmakers—being led by their constituents’ demands and not the demands of special interests— can cause change without creating a class of American do-nothings who sit in their government-subsidized apartment houses with their food stamps and weekly trips to the government-paid doctors. Before you accuse this advice as outlandish, take a look at Europe’s average unemployment rate: double digits.

But forget that! We could just remake our money, increase taxes severely and form an economic and healthcare union with Canada and Mexico. Then maybe we can hire one of those government nannies to nurse Dr. Moore’s next communist pet project. However, I think not.

Hillary-ous Hypocrisy

by Bob Capano, Brooklyn YRs

In the beginning of July, Senator Clinton (D) expressed all kinds of outrage over President Bush’s decision to commute the sentence of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. However, to this day, she has not expressed the same outrage over any former President Clinton’s many questionable pardons and commutations during his last days in office.

The most outrageous was her husband’s decision on August 11, 1999 to commute the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the U.S., mostly in New York City and Chicago, who were convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations.

Whether or not one agrees with President Bush’s decision relating to Mr. Libby, it seems clear that at least the same outrage, and I certainly believe more, should have been expressed by Senator Clinton regarding President Bill Clinton’s decision to free these members of FALN. As I noted in 1999 in a “letter to the editor” to various local newspapers, President Clinton’s decision was opposed by the two U.S. attorneys in the jurisdictions where the FALN members were convicted, and Justice Department officials who reviewed the case.

Of course, Hillary probably thought that doing so would cost her the Puerto Rican vote in New York for her first Senate race. America needs leaders who will do the right thing for the country and not a Senator (or President) who will offer commutations and pardons, or condemn them, for purely political reasons. Clearly, Hillary Clinton with her actions this week once again proves that she is not one of these leaders.

Bob Capano is Recording Secretary of the NYSYR and President of the Brooklyn Young Republican Club.