Bishop, Altschuler & The Virtues Of A Representative Republic

New York’s 1st congressional district, which includes the majority of Smithtown, has become a topic of national debate with respect to the upcoming elections. This large swath of land, encompassing Eastern Long Island, is presently being recognized as a bellwether district with regard to suburban America. Incumbent Democrat Timothy Bishop of Southampton will be running against successful businessman Randy Altschuler of St. James in what will surely be a hotly contested election. For Suffolk County’s electorate to properly discern the candidate who will best represent its interests, three primary questions must be answered. 1) What is the role of a United States Congressman? 2) What kind of character and what general intention is representative of each candidate? 3) What political ideology do the respective candidates adhere to and what is their philosophical bent? These questions, once answered, should provide the public with a clear distinction between the candidates and supply the knowledge that is necessary to make an informed decision.

The House of Representatives, as established by the United States Constitution, was considered to be the nucleus of the nascent federal government. This body of lawmakers was intended to act as the American people’s direct link to their government. It is this branch of Congress that was to separate America from the failed democracies of antiquity, thus creating a new form of government, commonly referred to as a “representative republic”. Congressional representatives, elected by the people, were to vote on federal legislation on behalf of the region from which they came. Following the Civil War (1860 – 1865) and the subsequent cohesion of the federal union, the interests of the nation as a whole often proved equal to the sum of its parts. Notwithstanding this interrelation, a Congressman’s primary job was, and still remains, that of voting for the interests of his region.

With regard to the issue of character, Congressman Bishop recently wrote the following in an open letter to his supporters: “I ran for Congress because I care about this community.” I am prone to believe the Congressman due to the recognition that Mr. Bishop is a good and honorable man who casts his votes in Congress according to the dictates of his conscience. Randy Altschuler, who I have met and conversed with on several occasions, is also a good and honorable man who would likewise vote on federal legislation based on his principles and his conscience. I believe that Messrs. Altschuler and Bishop, both well liked and respected men, are equally sincere in their patriotism.

Thus having determined the role of an American Congressman, and having established the sincerity and well-intentioned motives of the candidates, the final stage of scrutiny, with regard to choosing a representative, involves a careful inspection of the candidates’ respective ideologies. In the case of Congressman Bishop, we shall examine his voting record; with respect to Randy Altschuler, as he is new to the political arena, we shall compare his campaign platform to that of Mr. Bishop’s and contrast their principles accordingly.

Because of Timothy Bishop’s voting record, and because we have fairly established that the Congressman votes according to his conscience, we may rightfully infer that Mr. Bishop’s political principles and ideological bent are in direct accord with those of President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Over the course of the past two years, Congressman Bishop has voted in favor of Obama-Care, of cap-and-trade, of all of the President’s spending and “stimulus” initiatives, of the financial “reform” act and of raising the ceiling on America’s national debt. If people are happy with President Obama and with the quality of our present Congress, they will naturally vote to re-elect Timothy Bishop. However, for those malcontent with the social, political and economic shift that America is currently experiencing, a further examination of Mr. Altschuler’s proposed agenda is highly recommended.

Whereas Congressman Bishop apparently believes that government spending and social programs are the necessary tools for fixing our economy, Mr. Altschuler, in contrast, is inclined to consider less federal spending and across the board tax cuts as the path to fiscal redemption. Whereas Mr. Bishop’s inclinations are those of increased government regulation, effectively restructuring our society, Mr. Altschuler believes that less government control and more individual liberty are the roots of American exceptionalism.

On a personal note, I will readily admit that, during his tenure, Congressman Bishop has proven adept at securing federal funds for Suffolk County. That being said, I do not believe that lobbying for money is the proper role of a Congressman. This money, once acquired, must be taken from somewhere else, be it via tax increases, borrowing from foreign nations or passing the buck to future generations. The federal government presently owns what was once a thriving private economy. Our nation’s hope for returning to those former days of prosperity lies in fostering the ingenuity of the people and in giving back the power to the industrious American populace. Tax increases, further debt and more government interference are likely to produce the opposite result. It is this view of government that offers the most striking contrast between these two congressional candidates.

If one is happy with the direction of the country and with the performance of the current Congress, then Tim Bishop is the person to vote for on Election Day. However, if one believes, as I do, that it is up to the people to take back control and to restore the proper balance between government and individual liberty, Randy Altschuler should be the choice for Congress. What is most imperative in this crucial election season is that each and every voting American carefully scrutinizes the candidates who are running for office. For in a representative republic, the innate power of a well informed electorate, and the impact it can have on our nation, should never be underestimated.

Storm On The Horizon

“People of the region should be alert and ready so when the time comes, we can fight our final, decisive battle.” These are the words of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a typical reference to fulfilling his publicly stated goal of annihilating the nation of Israel. On Friday, September 3rd, in a speech attacking America with regard to its recent efforts to mediate a peace between Israel and the Palestinians, Ahmadinejad called on all Muslims to prepare for a final battle to free Jerusalem.

Iran, with the assistance of Russia, China and North Korea, is inching closer to achieving its long sought after goal of weapons-grade nuclear technology. With each step forward in Iran’s nuclear program, Ahmadinejad grows more militant in his public denunciations of what he refers to as “the little devil” (Israel) and “the big devil” (America). These threats and the calls for the destruction of the Jewish State, running parallel to Iran’s nuclear advancement, do not bode well for Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who administers a nation that was born of another holocaust when the dire threats of another madman similarly went unanswered.

As an optimist, I believe that good will always prevail over evil. However, the question is, how many lives must be sacrificed and how much blood must be spilled before a nation, a leader or a people prove ready to confront that evil. Thomas Jefferson astutely wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” It is this innate human deficiency that has led to the immense suffering of the Jewish people at the hands of such infamous miscreants as the Pharaohs of Egypt, the Russian Cossacks, Hitler’s Third Reich and the modern day Iranian backed terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. American support for the Jewish people has helped stave off cataclysmic results from the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah. In the case of Nazi Germany, six million Jews were senselessly murdered before a belated alliance between Great Britain and America defeated a movement that never should have transpired. One hundred thousand Jews were exterminated by the Cossacks in the Chmielnicki Massacre of 1649, and the atrocities that followed, before the Jewish people simply ceased to exist as a functioning minority in the Ukraine. With regard to Ancient Egypt, the children of Israel required a higher form of foreign intervention in order to achieve liberation.

President Obama has rightfully pursued and effectively implemented tougher U.N. sanctions against the Iranian government in response to its nuclear development. I applaud the President for these efforts but, to expect that these sanctions, alone, will result in curbing Iran’s appetite for weapons of mass destruction defies logic, ignores precedent, and disregards the lessons of history. Irrespective of the sanctions and the economic pressure they place on Iran, Ahmadinejad’s paramount goal is that of military superiority over Israel, the nation which the Iranian leader has professed his desire to see “wiped off the face of the map.” At best, a nuclear Iran would lead to Iranian hegemony in the Middle East, leaving America insignificant and weak in the region and forcing Israel into submission. At worst, and equally likely, is the prospect of a nuclear apocalypse, the consequences of which are unthinkable.

I believe that the only hope for a non-military solution to curbing Iranian ambitions is through a relentless campaign aimed at convincing Iran and its allies that America will do whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of Israel, up to and including a military assault on the nation’s nuclear facilities. President Obama’s greatest weakness, in regard to international diplomacy, is his timidity in the face of confrontation. For all the talents the President possesses in the realm of oratory and persuasion, his proven gift for intraparty influence does not appear to translate internationally. I do not believe that Mr. Obama wants to see Iran go nuclear. I merely believe that the President is, by nature, adverse to foreign confrontation. His penchant for submission and apologetic bent has, unfortunately, led many foreign nations to conclude that America is a paper tiger. This irresolute perception of our nation does not bode well for Israel.

There is a storm on the horizon. America and its allies must do all within their power to stop it before it becomes too late. America and Israel will ultimately prevail in a standoff with their shared enemy, but the cost of that victory may be devastating. It is our right and our duty to stand tough now, as to avoid a greater catastrophe in the future.

Jeremy Pitcoff

The Emergence Of Suffolk Republicans

The New York primaries are over and the candidates have been chosen. For Republicans, it is time to unite around the victors. As September 14th approached, much ado had been made regarding a supposed “split” within the Republican ranks. This assertion, in this writer’s opinion, was much ado about nothing. In the first congressional district, and in the seats for the U.S. Senate, Suffolk County Republicans differed in their preferences for candidates based on issues of style, electability and history, but not in regard to principles. What makes this year unique for the Republican Party of Eastern Long Island is that all of the candidates share the same core values and adhere to the same basic tenets that have resulted in Suffolk County becoming the political force that it is. Suffolk County Republican Chairman John J. LaValle artfully placed the people he represents in the enviable position of a no-lose situation. While granting Republicans a choice in their candidates, he insured that good conservative-Republicans would prevail irrespective of the primary outcomes. One needs to look no further than Smithtown to see what a party united on principles can achieve for its constituency and how these results may supersede rival party factions.

2010 is proving to be the most crucial election season that I can recall. Throughout this nation, the American private sector is under attack and nowhere is this assault more virulent than in the state of New York. New York State’s top marginal individual and corporate tax rates are the highest in the nation. Its entitlement spending is literally out of control. This year, New York is projected to spend $49.2 billion on Medicaid alone, far more than any other state in the union. These policies, initiated by the Democrats in control of the State Legislature, have resulted in minimal economic growth, lackluster job creation, and diminishing capital investment.

During the course of the past two years, New Yorkers have borne witness to an all-out attack on small businesses. Throughout this assault, Smithtown’s state representatives, Assemblyman Mike Fitzpatrick and Senator John Flanagan, have stayed true to the free market principles that will ultimately prove the only path to redemption. Messieurs Fitzpatrick and Flanagan have consistently fought for the people of Smithtown by voting in opposition to tax increases, by introducing legislation intended to reform New York’s broken pension system, and by ceaselessly promoting a more business friendly infrastructure. It is these principles of tax cuts, free trade and pragmatic reform, along with a strong national defense, that have become the hallmarks of the Suffolk County Republican Party and of all the candidates it puts forth.

New York’s Democrat incumbents, Steve Israel, Tim Bishop, Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer, will run on the premise that they have “brought home the bacon” for the people of Suffolk County. This is the new phrase de jour for Democrats seizing our federal tax dollars and redistributing them as they see fit. What these incumbents don’t understand, however, is that the people of Suffolk County no longer trust their government to tend to their daily affairs. They want to make their decisions, spend their money, and invest in their workforce in ways befitting their populace. Their faith is entrusted in the people who make their region great, not in the government that attempts to exploit them.

The Suffolk County Republican Party has advocated the benefits of provincial autonomy and limited government intervention, thus electing men and women into local and state government who adhere to these core principles. Now is the time to transfer these standards to the federal level and to join in the fight, nationwide, to place the power back where it belongs – in the hands of the American people.

Jeremy Pitcoff

Getting Back To Basics: An Interview With Bruce Blakeman

In the September 14th primary election, Bruce Blakeman is one of three Republican candidates vying for the seat of New York’s junior Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand. Mr. Blakeman, an attorney and former Presiding Officer of the Nassau County Legislature, will face-off against David Malpass and Joe DioGuardi.

Confident in regard to his prospects for the Republican nomination, Mr. Blakeman commenced our August 30th phone interview with a list of national grievances: “I am running against Kirsten Gillibrand because, like most New Yorkers, I am angry, frustrated and worried about the direction that the country has taken in the past two years.” Mr. Blakeman noted that unemployment, the national deficit and mortgage foreclosures have continued to rise, and that “The very survival of our nation depends on going back to the principles that made America a great economic power.” Blakeman further excoriated Senator Gillibrand for voting “in favor of every spending bill,” for supporting the controversial “Ground- Zero Mosque,” and for “not being opposed to the trial of a terrorist, in a civilian court, in New York City.”

In relation to his hometown of Long Island, Mr. Blakeman believes that in addition to cutting taxes to allow for businesses to reinvest in “technology, equipment and people,” a prosperous Long Island will require “getting back to our manufacturing base.” Blakeman believes that the key to Long Island’s future is in the “high-tech” fields of production.

Blakeman appeared especially proud of his work as a consultant for Cannon U.S.A. Inc. He was influential in Cannon’s purchase of 52 acres of property in Melville, where the digital imaging giant will soon be building its new corporate headquarters. Mr. Blakeman believes that this purchase of property may eventually produce as many as 2,000 new jobs for the people of Huntington.

Candidate Blakeman touted his conservative credentials as he compared himself to his opponents in the upcoming Republican primary. “I am the only true conservative in this race. In the four years that I was in government in Nassau County, I cut over $150 million from the County Executive’s budget.”

Blakeman’s opponents in the September 14th primary will be David Malpass, a former Reagan Administration treasury official, and Joe DioGuardi, a former New York Congressman. Both of these candidates are claiming the conservative mantle as well. Irrespective of the viewpoints of his opponents, Blakeman’s platform does appear to pass the modern conservative litmus test. In what Mr. Blakeman refers to as his “C.P.R” approach, he enumerates his platform as follows: 1) Cut taxes and spending in order to create new jobs. 2) Protect our homeland and our borders. 3) Repeal Obama-Care.

“This country is failing,” said Mr. Blakeman in a tone reminiscent of Ronald Reagan. “It’s time to get back to basics.” New York’s September 14th primary election will determine whether or not Bruce Blakeman will be afforded the opportunity to act on his conservative ideals.

Reagan, Kennedy & Supply-Side Economics

Proponents call it “supply-side economics”, detractors, the “trickle-down effect”. Semantics aside, this economic philosophy is the theory most consistent with America’s founding tenets of freedom of commerce, individual autonomy and noninvasive government. Supply-side economics has been effectively utilized in the past, under the stewardship of esteemed leaders such as Alexander Hamilton, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, in order to rescue the American economy from the brink of fiscal collapse. It is a theory rooted more in broad national values than in economic intricacies, allowing the American people, not the American government, to set commercial policy.

Free trade, low taxes and minimal commercial regulation are the foundations of the supply-side theory. By allowing Americans, both rich and poor, to keep a fair share of what they earn, we invite capital investment which, in turn, results in economic growth. With regard to individual income taxes, the lower the rate of taxation, the more money that is available for the buyer. This excess money will naturally be utilized to purchase a product or service, to invest in an upstart company or to be saved, with interest, in a bank account. With regard to business and corporate taxes, common sense dictates that a company’s profit margin serves as its driving incentive for investment, expansion and hiring. The more money the government takes, the less profit a business makes, the less profit a business makes, the less people it chooses to employ, the less people employed within a community, the less revenue that is raised through taxes. The government’s typical reaction to this diminishing revenue is yet another increase in taxes, causing more businesses to contract and raise prices, therefore perpetuating a vicious cycle.

Free trade and minimal commercial regulation, each serve the purpose of creating national wealth and increasing the real GDP. The greater the number of American products allowed to be sold abroad, the more money that will circulate within our economy at home, resulting in more domestic jobs and higher national wages. The same, too, can be said with regard to allowing foreign companies to operate within our borders. These companies will naturally employ additional American workers to tend to their business affairs, encouraging competition and demand.

The less operational control the U.S. government has over the affairs of American capitalism, the better off the economy will be. Big government is inefficient and clumsy by nature, private enterprise the engine of Americanism. New York State, with the highest top marginal personal and corporate tax rates in the nation, is in dire economic straits. However, even the states with less burdensome tax policies are no longer able to thrive. This is due to nearly four years of continuous congressional attacks on the American private sector, culminating in the passage of Obama-Care and the ill-conceived financial reform bill.

America’s current national debt dwarfs that of any other period in our history. We are in the midst of a trade war with Mexico as a result of union manipulations. The majority of the free world has negotiated trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea, yet America’s attempts at negotiations with these nations are languishing on Capitol Hill. January will usher in the largest business tax increases in American history via the expiration of the Bush-Era tax cuts and the newest round of Obama-Care levies. These policies, in a withering economy, are akin to those of the Nixon and Hoover Administrations, and will likely share their fate – that of making a bad economy worse.

The supply-side policies of the Kennedy and Reagan Administrations are the models that Americans should be attempting to emulate. In both instances, the leadership of the Presidents and the efforts of Congress resulted in rescuing the American economy from dismal conditions, leading to historically significant periods of economic growth. This growth, in both instances, resulted in increased government revenue, irrespective of lower tax rates. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan both held strong reverence for the ingenuity of the American people, each voluntarily transferring economic power from the government to the people, subsequently concentrating their respective resources on national defense, human rights and space exploration. These were issues that Presidents Kennedy and Reagan considered to be more in line with their constitutionally granted authority.

Supply-side economics is a proven theory that has resulted in the most fiscal prosperity for the maximum number of Americans. It is based on a quintessentially American premise. When a people are in control of their own destiny, they will, by nature, endeavor to improve it. Americans are prone to utilize that freedom in order to secure prosperity for subsequent generations; it is within our nature to do so. If a government controls its economy, it necessarily controls its people. Freedom of commerce is a liberty that Americans often take for granted; supply-side economics insures this liberty by keeping the government at arm’s length. If we allow our Congress to further impede upon our traditional commercial autonomy, sooner or later, supply-side economics will cease to be a viable option. Across the board tax cuts, free trade and commercial deregulation will merely be policies of the past. Countless generations of Americans will never have the opportunity to experience the prosperity that we once knew, and the American dream