May the Fourth be with you. In Two Days, the GOP Field Doubles Up until this week, each aspiring Republican presidential contender had a week to himself: Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Rand Paul, Senator Marco Rubio. Now, like the accelerating spring blossoms, presidential campaign announcements are coming up in bunches. Carson broke the news . . . in a big interview with . . . er . . . the CBS affiliate in West Palm Beach, Fla.: Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon who became a leading conservative voice, told a Florida TV station that he will officially join the 2016 Republican presidential race Monday. Carson shared his decision with WPEC-TV, the CBS affiliate in West Palm Beach, Fla., in an exclusive interview on Sunday. "I'm willing to be part of the equation and, therefore, I'm announcing my candidacy for president of the United States of America," Carson said. Carson, 63, will formally jump into the race at an event in Detroit, where he grew up. Also joining the field today: Carly Fiorina. This NPR profile offers the most Acela-corridor qualifier in a candidate profile ever: After she got her undergraduate degree from Stanford (in medieval history and philosophy), Fiorina's father, a federal appeals court judge, suggested his daughter go to law school. Fiorina did, but said studying law gave her "blinding headaches every day" so she dropped out after a semester. Not to worry, she does have graduate business degrees from Maryland and MIT. "Not to worry"! Just in case you were worried that the former veep of AT&T, president of Lucent Technologies, CEO of Hewlett-Packard, trustee at MIT, honorary fellow at London School of Economics and CIA advisory board member was insufficiently educated! Tomorrow, Mike Huckabee makes it official, although this video last week strongly previewed the announcement to come. Some days, Huckabee can be brilliant, as that video shows: "I'm not a Republican because I grew up rich. I'm a Republican because I didn't want to spend the rest of my life poor and waiting for the government to rescue me." Then some days, you wonder if he's listening to himself; our David French noticed one position Huckabee is sure to get questions about: Saturday, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee declared that young Christians considering military service should "wait a couple of years until we get a new commander-in-chief that will once again believe 'one nation under God,' and believe that people of faith should be a vital part of the process of not only governing this country, but defending this country." To be clear, this is a call for an indefinite, conditional abstention from service. Is there any guarantee that the next president will meet Mr. Huckabee's conditions? The Democratic frontrunner certainly doesn't. This is bad advice. In fact, Christians should double down on their commitment to military service. The best way to guarantee increasing Christian isolation and diminished religious liberty is to flee the field, to leave the military to its more secular members. If Christianity becomes an aberration, rather than a mainstream part of military life, commanders will have little practical incentive to accommodate religious expression — particularly in the face of opposition. But there's a deeper reason why young Americans shouldn't heed Mr. Huckabee's advice: Leaving the defense of the nation and its liberties to secular citizens would constitute a profound moral failing, an abdication of faithful Americans' duties as citizens. The blessings of American liberty — even when that liberty is under attack — are purchased for a price in blood that should and must be borne by every American community, including the community of faith. These presidential bids are brought to you by Mannatech and The Diabetes Solution Kit. Marco Rubio's Smooth Dexterity about His Agenda's Downsides You can watch my interview with Marco Rubio here, or read our Joel Gehrke's write-up here. There's a lot to like about Rubio, but his plans do have details that some folks on the right might dislike. But the senator's such a smooth, polished communicator that he can talk around the inconvenient drawbacks and unpopular points and leave audiences feeling good about everything he's just said. For example, he conceded that under the proposed Rubio-Lee tax plan, some people -- he estimated about 10 percent -- would face higher taxes, while reducing it for the rest. For 2015, the top tax rate is 39.6 percent and kicks in for $413,200 for individuals, $464,850 for married couples. Under Rubio's plan, the top rate drops from 39 percent to 35 percent . . . but it kicks in at $75,000 for individuals, and $150,000 for married couples. There are a decent number of individuals making $75,000 and married couples making $150,000 who will be surprised to learn that they're in the top tax bracket in the United States. Rubio points out that there are various little steps people can take to reduce their taxable income below that threshold -- put money in a retirement account or health savings account, etc., and Rubio-Lee also includes a $2,500-per-child tax credit, which will do a lot for the parents in that higher category. (The other tax rate under Rubio-Lee? Fifteen percent. Right now, the 15 percent tax rate only applies to single filers making $9,225 to $37,450 and married couples making $18,450 to $74,900.) If you're a married couple with a combined taxable income of, say, $140,000, currently playing the 25 percent rate, the Rubio tax plan is terrific! Your rate is dropping to 15 percent! But if you're a married couple with a combined taxable income of, say, $160,000, currently paying a 28 percent rate . . . Rubio-Lee's 35 percent rate doesn't look good at all! On immigration, he would insist his views are nowhere near pro-amnesty . . . but under his preferred scenario, a decent number of people who entered the country illegally will be allowed to stay and not fear deportation. He says that his agenda would require a secure border, employers using e-verify to ensure they're not hiring illegal immigrants to do work, and a visa entry and exit system to ensure those who enter legally on temporary visas don't stay longer than they're permitted. Then those who are here illegally would register, pay a fine for violating immigration law, and only face deportation if they committed crimes. I pressed him on whether that would apply to both misdemeanors and felonies, and he indicated he wanted it "as strict as possible" -- including DUIs. He expressed frustration with pro-immigration "reform" groups (my scare quotes, not his) that believe those who are entered the country are owed the right to stay here, instead of being granted the privilege of remaining here by a United States that deems their stay in the country's best interest. You're going to want to watch these highlights from the National Review Institute's 2015 Ideas Summit: 1) Rich Lowry interviews former governor Jeb Bush. 2) Larry Kudlow interviews Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska. 3) John Fund interviews Carly Fiorina. 4) Heather Higgins of the Independent Women's Forum interviews Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal. 5) Stephen Moore, NRO contributor and economist at the Heritage Foundation, interviews Ohio governor John Kasich. 6) Rich Lowry interviews Dr. Charles Krauthammer. 7) John O'Sullivan interviews Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas. Do Police Union Rules Protect Bad Cops? A comment over in the New York Times, reacting to Ross Douthat's column about police unions, suggests two segments of the Democratic coalition, African Americans and public-sector unions, are realizing that their interests don't always align and sometimes conflict: This may well be the only time I ever agree with Ross Douthat, but as an African American who is sick and disgusted with needless police violence against men and women in my community, I agree with him about police unions. I think it is no accident that in the past year, the state where I grew up, South Carolina, has fired and prosecuted more police involved racial violence than any number of states and cities that are perceived as more liberal. I cannot help but think that the reason why bad police in South Carolina have been so quickly fired and prosecuted is because union protection in South Carolina is exceptionally weak. The same was probably also true of some high profile firings of bad police in Alabama and Florida. In Staten Island, police choked Eric Garner to death on video and were given a no bill by a grand jury. In North Charleston, Walter Scott was shot to death on video, and the officer was fired and arrested the day the video became public. In my opinion, the difference of union strength in both cities was surely at least partially responsible for the radically different way two similar situations were handled. As a public sector employee myself, I have always supported the right to organize, but the political influence that police unions exercise over the investigation of themselves is simply not consistent with a society in which all are equal before the law, and if police unions are to continue, they must be sharply circumscribed. ADDENDA: Thanks to all the kind folks who helped make Right Online conference such a popular, roaring success. One of my favorite lines of the weekend came from Ben Howe, discussing how to make effective videos that go viral: "Making a good video is only about 14 percent filming and the rest is editing. I base that upon my writing down the number fourteen." For some reason, Sunday was a big day for upcoming films revealing pictures of the cast. Here's the cast of the upcoming Suicide Squad, featuring DC comics characters: 
And the upcoming Vanity Fair will feature a look at the upcoming new Star Wars film:
| 
Comments
Post a Comment