Mediaboss Marketing

Our fact-check on President Joe Bidens claim about mass shooting deaths rising after the assault weapon ban expired in 2004 sparked a generally well-informed debate from a variety of viewpoints, particularly on reddit.

After a draft Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade leaked, our explanation of the legislative options drew a couple of comments about the power of the Supreme Court.

We also heard from you about the Republican charge that Democrats seek an open border with Mexico. And, we read some broader reflections about the number of outlandish Facebook claims that we take the time to check.

On that last point, well just note that we check claims that are getting a fair bit of traffic. So, maybe some people skip right over these posts, but other people are definitely reading them.

Biden on the assault weapon ban of 1994

The claim: "When we passed the assault weapons ban, mass shootings went down. When the law expired, mass shootings tripled." Mostly True

One person wrote, "If theres no strong evidence that a ban made a change in numbers of mass shootings, then whats the point? Correlation means nothing without strong evidence, so this entire article is just misleading. Im all for making new policies to prevent deaths and other mass shootings, but Id rather those policies be based on facts and empirical data and not unsubstantiated and misleading data."

Another added, "This is frustrating because 'Mostly True is about the fact stated by the quote, but most people are interpreting it as transitive to the implication of the quote. To wit, it is mostly true that expiration of the ban caused the rise in shootings. (And so we should bring back the ban to cause shootings to declinewhich also plays to our intuition: fewer guns = fewer mass shootings, right?) But even the fact check article clearly states that no studies have found a causal link between the ban and the fall in shootings. Theyve only found a correlation."

And a third person wrote, "I'm really curious what different metrics people are using for mass shooting events. Because this often sourced website says there were 4,600 mass shootings since 2013, while this report is only counting 500 events for the entire period from 1994-2013. That's a massive disparity, and I think any report should have these qualifications described front and center anytime we're comparing one report to another, since it could make a massive difference at how the data appears."

The leaked Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling

We published many stories and fact-checks about abortion and Roe v. Wade. A reader told us, "In your assessment of the proposed Supreme Court ruling, you neglected to point out that Congress is the law-creating body in this country, with the confirmation of the sitting president. It was never the purpose of the Supreme Court to create laws, therefore making Roe v. Wade not law at all. I would guess that 90% of the citizens are not aware of this important fact."

Another person wrote that our article, "Why Democrats control of the White House and Congress isn't enough to pass law protecting abortion," neglects another obstacle in codifying Roe: "Codified laws are subject to review by the Supreme Court, just as they review precedent. Democrats may pass a law that may be challenged, and the Supreme Court could rule it unconstitutional and strike it. The Supreme Court deserves its name."

Open borders

The claim: Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters said, "Democrats want open borders so they can bring in and amnesty tens of millions of illegal aliens thats their electoral strategy." False

A reader said, "Immigration reform proposals from Democrats often are a compromise of creating a pathway to citizenship where undocumented immigrants who are already here can get citizenship, but only after a decade or more of waiting to get a green card, and then close to another decade of waiting after that. I guess you could call that amnesty in a sense. But it's not open borders, and the proposals also often pair that amnesty with much tougher enforcement of undocumented immigration and the border."

On strange claims

We check all sorts of claims, and no question, some are way out there. Like COVID-19 is a synthetic version of "snake venom." Or, evil forces are spreading through remdesivir, the COVID-19 vaccines and drinking water to "make you a hybrid of Satan." And, "Breaking: Democrats introduce bill to put Americans in quarantine camps."

We suspect that claims like these were on this readers mind when he said, "I've noticed that many, many statements you are now fact-checking are so bizarrely improbable they read more like The Onion. It is a sad state of affairs when you are having to fact-check stuff even more ridiculous than an alien weed-whacker abducted my front lawn. Are people really so credulous now?"

And more in a policy vein, this reader complained, "I supported PolitiFact for a while, during the absurd statements of the last few years. But, it appears mostly focused on fact-checking the most absurd extreme positions and statements. Most outstanding government social issues are complex and the details matter. Not just a buzzword or slogan that is right or wrong. I would be very supportive of a site that offers complex highlights of complex government or social issues."

Here is the original post:
Mailbag: The Uvalde shooting and gun control, Roe v. Wade, open borders, and more - PolitiFact

In Buffalo, New York, last week, a lone gunman brutally murdered ten people and injured three more in one of the deadliest racist massacres in recent American history.

The shooter appears to have put out a large manifesto as a twisted justification for the killings. His abhorrent ramblings concluded that there was a replacement of white Americans by people of color, and that it must be stopped. This racist ideology led him to choose Buffalo, a town comprised of mostly black Americans.

Some drew comparisons of his racist justification to the fear of many Americans that they will be replaced by immigrants. According to one poll, one in three Americans believes an effort is underway to replace native-born Americans with immigrants for electoral gains. While there are differences between this concern and the Great Replacement theory, they do share some frightening similarities.

Although we wont dig into the politics too much, we will show why the Great Replacement theory is dangerous.

Immigrants are often morally conservative, even though they strongly tend to vote for Democrats. For instance, in 2019, 53 percent of Hispanic immigrants reported themselves as Democrats or leaning that way; 39 percent said Republican or leaning that way.

Some analysts say their Democratic leanings are because they dont feel welcomed by the Republican party. Others say its because immigrants normally come from socialist countries and Democrats will give them more government support. Still others say its because Democrats are lenient on immigration.

One of the biggest political conundrums is a chicken before the egg question. Do immigrants vote for Democrats because of their immigration policies? Or, do Democrats open up the borders because they know immigrants will vote for them?

The latter interpretation has been picked up by many controversial pundits. Some raise concerns to goad Republicans to vote to keep America from changing its demographics and giving more power to the Democrats. (Its hard to see, personally, why this strategy is favored over simply trying to win immigrants over to the conservative side.)

As far as legal immigrants, there was a ratio of 5.8 native-born babies to 1 new American from naturalization in 2020. Additionally, illegal immigrants dont illegally vote in detectable numbers.

That said, there are plenty of reasonable conservative arguments for more strictly enforcing current immigration laws and there are also arguments for and against making immigration easier. These conservative political beliefs are not necessarily the same as replacement theory.

But, there are other sinister ways this outlook on immigration can easily be twisted.

The Great Replacement theory is one put forward by a right-wing French thinker named Renaud Camus. The ideology was touted by the New Zealand gunman who killed over fifty people. On the surface, Camus rejects violence but uses strong language condemning nonwhite immigration.

The theory has been widely condemned as racist, xenophobic (bigotedly fearful of other cultures), and unfactual. I have discussed the idea that Europe is becoming more Muslim, but I pointed out that a Muslim majority is not a sure conclusion and that the vast majority of Muslims are assimilating, with entirely peaceful intentions. The philosophy of the Great Replacement is baseless and fearmongering, and most everyone (conservatives included) rejects it.

However, a similar conservative talking point is that the government is allowing immigrants in to replace native-born Americans for electoral gain. In America, the view that somebody is purposefully flooding the US with immigrants to take away your influence can be twisted to mean white people are being replaced by people of color. Christians must outright reject racist notions which would call anyone lesser for their skin color or ethnicity.

As Christians, we must be extremely careful that worldly philosophies like these dont creep into our thinking. Dr. Jim Denison dismantled the QAnon conspiracy theories, though they are still propagated to this day. Sadly, people prone to believing conspiracy theories are also prone to believing the Great Replacement theory.

If we say I cant believe these people from such-and-such a place are coming in! I barely even recognize this country anymore. It used to be a Christian nation, then we are dangerously close to Christian Nationalism and a whole host of other unbiblical ideas.

Indeed, if there are racial undertones in your political worries, it also becomes racial prejudice, an evil sin that God hates.

As Christians, we should be asking: Is this political idea making me less loving toward immigrants or another ethnicity? Is my political leaning making me fear immigrants first before I move to love them?

If so, we should take a long, careful look at whats really driving our thoughts, because those ideas are antithetical to Gods word.

This can be unnecessarily confusing, and at worst, intentionally misleading to conflate the conservative positions on immigration with this more sinister replacement theory. Both the left and right are guilty of confusing this phrase. Many media outlets accuse Republicans of using replacement language to talk about immigrants, while Republicans deny that its the same as the Great Replacement and that it has no racial undertones.

Even as we debate the issue of immigration, we must strive for clarity and truth. We should be wary of those who use replacement language, and we should also be wary of those who say more restrictive immigration is automatically the same as the Great Replacement theory.

Many characterize immigrants as a burden on society. In general, this could not be further from the truth. Economically, immigrants lead to billions of dollars in growth as a labor force, especially because of their unskilled labor.

Regardless of whether they are useful to our society, as Christians we should recognize immigrants (sojourners) as part of the least of these the Bible exhorts us to love (Matthew 25:40, Zechariah 7:910). If your church is close to where refugees are being resettled or immigrants are moving, we encourage you to get involved in serving them.

As Christians, we must make sure to tear down any prejudiced feelings about such people made in Gods image.

And, the good news is that around two-thirds of Americans believe that diversity makes the US stronger.

Our political allegiance on these issues should always be secondary to and informed by our primary one: loving our neighbor and caring for the immigrant.

For those on the left, take care that you are not only relying on the government to help others. The governments activity or inactivity doesnt prevent you from helping those in need. In fact, the mandate to love our immigrant neighbors applies to you as equally as it does to conservatives.

For those on the right, take care not to let inflamed rhetoric of them and they and the deplorables cloud compassion or hide an immigrants humanity. And do not let unfounded fear take hold so that youre led to prejudice.

The forty-third President of the US, George W. Bush, was a Republican and conservative. He led the country through 9/11 and the Great Recession. And, contrary to popular expectations, he tried to pass a great deal of immigration reform. These reforms were a middle ground that did not allow amnesty but also did not require mass deportations, etc. His desire was to see America stronger through a large, diverse immigrant population.

Its clear that his heart for immigrants remains. In a beautiful work that unites across the aisle, Out of Many, One: Portraits of Americas Immigrants, tells the stories of forty-three American immigrants he personally knew, loved, and respected. For each, Bush created an oil-paint portrait and includes it along with their story.

He writes, At its core, immigration is a sign of a confident and successful nation. . . . We must always be proud to welcome people as fellow Americans. Our new immigrants are just what theyve always been people willing to risk everything for the dream of freedom.

Former President George W. Bushs outspoken faith, love of immigrants, and art give a beautiful example of how American Christians can respond to immigration (even if they hold conservative beliefs).

The Great Replacement is a theory deeply rooted in fear and prejudice that has no place in Gods kingdom. And while there is room for disagreement on immigration law, Gods law on how we are to value those made in his image is beyond debate.

Lets learn to have healthy conversations about how to best love immigrants, both through politics and through our ministry.

Read the original here:
Why the Great Replacement theory is dangerous - Denison Forum

After losing several bids for office in the past two decades, and finally winning a seat on the Douglas County Commission in 2020, Danny Tarkanian is now challenging longtime incumbent Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV) in a primary for Nevadas only safe Republican congressional district on the basis that during his time as congressman, Amodei has not done enough for District 2.

As Amodeis most well-known contender, Tarkanian has criticized many of the incumbents votes, especially his support of the most recent $1.5 trillion omnibus bill, which included preserving funding for Planned Parenthood as part of reauthorization of the federal Violence Against Women Act, $13.6 billion for Ukraine and nearly $11.5 million for 10 Nevada-based projects.

Tarkanian, who sat down with The Nevada Independent last week for a wide-ranging interview, said that in just over a year as county commissioner, constituents have praised him, even stating that nobody's ever [stood up for them] before in the county commission.

And while Tarkanian strongly identifies with former President Donald Trumps America First ideals, he said he does believe in working across the aisle, quoting late Sen. Harry Reid that politics is the art of compromise.

It's about persuasion and that's how you get things done, he said. You don't get that done by calling people names and demeaning them and going on down on national TV and trying to say the worst things about somebody.

The District 2 Republican primary will be between Amodei, Tarkanian and Brian Nadell, a professional poker player who previously ran for District 3 in Southern Nevada. Tarkanian filed for candidacy on the last day of the filing period in March, which gave him just two weeks to fundraise. He raised nearly $132,000 in the first three months of the year just $20,000 less than Amodei raised in the first quarter of 2022 but Amodei still has a significant fundraising advantage over Tarkanian.

During the interview, Tarkanian weighed in on everything from rapid inflation and the economy and health care to immigration. Below are highlights from the discussion:

On running for Congress

Asked why he deserved to be elected over Amodei, Tarkanian suggested that Amodei had been anything but a conservative voice for the very conservative District 2.

In describing his candidacy as one based off America First principles, Tarkanian also criticized votes from Amodei that included support for an immigration compromise that involved a path to citizenship for DREAMers; support for border security money for the Middle Eastern country of Jordan, and his initial support for a House impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump (though Amodei later opposed the actual articles of impeachment).

The thing about Mark is, he's a likable guy, and I like Mark he's a fun guy to be around, Tarkanian said. But his votes aren't representative of the people and CD2, and I believe very strongly in these types of conservative principles.

However, Tarkanian said his descriptions of Amodeis voting record did not amount to criticism of that record, and said instead that he was making a distinction between himself and his opponent.

I'm not criticizing him, I'm exposing his votes, informing the voters of his votes compared to mine, Tarkanian said. Ive not one time said anything personal about Mark. I like Mark as a person.

Ukraine

As the war in Ukraine drags on and American financial and military support to Ukraine has ramped up Tarkanian said he did not agree with the Biden administrations strategy at all, adding that he believed the White House should have taken a harder stance against Russia.

I don't believe Russia's threats of using nuclear force against us if we came out and supported Ukraine helping to provide them with the military aircraft that they so desperately needed, [and that] was going to cause some type of nuclear crisis, he said.

Still, he would absolutely not support the deployment of American troops to Ukraine as the war continues. The deployment of troops to Ukraine remains broadly unpopular among Nevadans, with a plurality, 44 percent, opposing the idea, according to an April poll from The Nevada Independent and OH Predictive Insights.

Tarkanian also pushed back on a $40 billion aid package for Ukraine passed by Congress earlier this month, arguing both that not enough of the money went toward military support and that much of that spending could have been used domestically instead.

He also suggested that other Western countries, especially the largest economies in Europe, were not doing enough to provide Ukraine with financial and military assistance, and that the largest burden should not be left to the U.S.

I'm all for being the world leader, and trying to get other countries to come together and do the right thing, Tarkanian said. But we shouldn't be the world's police officer, and we shouldn't be the world's bank.

The economy

Amid surging inflation from the ongoing effects of massive pandemic stimulus under both the Trump and Biden White Houses, to supply chain disruptions to the war in Ukraine Tarkanian said that the early federal stimulus was not worth the inflationary pressure now hitting the economy.

When you start talking about what they did to save the economy, there's been hundreds of billions of dollars they've identified as waste and abuse from the COVID handouts that were done, Tarkanian said.

Tarkanian specifically pointed to issues in the Paycheck Protection Program, designed to give federal loans to small businesses forced to close because of COVID and later plagued by fraud or loans given to large businesses.

There, he said, the federal government should have been more selective about which businesses received PPP checks. A basketball gym owned by Tarkanian also received nearly $94,000 across two PPP loans in 2020 and 2021.

Editor's Note: In 2020, The Nevada Independent applied for and received PPP loans.

On the subject of how quickly the Federal Reserve should act on interest rates as a means to tame inflation, Tarkanian deferred, calling it a decision for the Fed.

Let's talk about what has caused this inflation, [the] out-of-control spending by both Republicans and Democrats that have raised our debt to unsustainable levels, he said, specifically referencing votes in favor of federal budget bills by Amodei.

As for sharply rising gas prices, Tarkanian downplayed the role of the war in Ukraine on energy and echoed a common refrain among Republicans, criticizing the Biden administrations environmental policies as a war on gas and oil and so forth.

When we were energy independent [under Trump], where we produced enough energy for ourselves, we didn't rely on Middle East oil, our prices went down, Tarkanian said.

Tarkanian added that he was all for these other alternative sources of energy, referencing renewable energy, but also that we cant destroy our country's economy and allow China to far surpass us by reducing oil and gas leases in the U.S.

As the price of a gallon of gas has creeped toward the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, Tarkanian said he had not looked at the issue closely enough to suggest a precise number for a new minimum, saying instead that he believed you need to pay people more than they are going to get not working.

I think if you want to encourage people to work, you need to make sure they can get paid a decent enough salary, that would be better than receiving unemployment, he said.

Tarkanian also said that not all people earning the minimum wage are the same, and that teenage employees differ from an employee with a family.

If you're talking about somebody who's trying to take care of a family $12 an hour isn't very much, Tarkanian said. And what they're going to do is they're going to stop working and to go on a federal handout, and it's going to cost us more money. So maybe there has to be a tiered system.

Housing

Amid record-breaking rents and affordable housing shortages in Nevada, Tarkanian who used to work in real estate said that raising interest rates should slow down the hike and reduce the cost of housing.

I believe we're going to be heading into recession, he said. When that recession hits, home prices are going to drop.

Tarkanian does not believe that the Fed can do much more, and its a matter of supply and demand.

Education

Tarkanian, who has four children, said he is all for funding education but it should be done the right way through the U.S. Department of Education.

He said more school choice and competition would improve the education system because, as it stands now, wealthier families are the ones able to afford private school.

And I hear the arguments they say, Well, you're going to take money out of the school system, but when you take money out of the school system, youre reducing the size of the classrooms, too, Tarkanian argued.

On his website, he states that Critical Race Theory should be banned from schools and the military.

Immigration

Tarkanians website states that he would never vote to give citizenship to undocumented people, including recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which he doubled down on during the interview. But he also criticized Congress for not being able to agree on immigration reform for people that want to come here and they have jobs that are needed.

I think we could solve these problems if we had people in Washington who really want to solve those problems, he said. I'm not in favor of going out door to door and trying to find people that are here illegally and deporting them I'm also not in favor of giving citizenship to people who came here illegally under any circumstances.

Tarkanian has been outspoken about his position on amnesty, which he defines as crossing into a country and someone grants you citizenship." He added that providing a path to citizenship for undocumented people would be a reward for coming into the U.S. illegally.

Tarkanian also said Congress is not doing enough to secure the countrys borders and coming up with a system that can handle the amount of people seeking asylum.

Abortion

As a Catholic, Tarkanian said he believes life starts at conception and does not support abortion unless the mothers life is at risk, but his faith shouldnt govern what laws are imposed.

And although he believes it is the states job to come up with abortion laws and not the federal government, he said there should be a general consensus abortion policy otherwise people would cross state lines to terminate pregnancies.

He argued that when Roe v. Wade was first handed down, the Supreme Court agreed that a baby could live outside the womb after the second trimester, but with the development of modern medicine, pre-term babies have been able to survive outside the womb earlier.

I believe that if we say that someone dies when the heartbeat ends, then we should say, life starts when the heartbeat starts, he said. And that's what I would push if there was federal legislation.

Tarkanian acknowledged that Nevadans voted to codify a law allowing for legal abortions up to 24 weeks in 1990 and he cant do much about it.

Tarkanian also said he is opposed to taxpayer money going toward Planned Parenthood.

Health care

Tarkanian sharply criticized the Affordable Care Act (ACA) often referred to as Obamacare saying that theres been no act that has made our health care affordable.

Citing his own experience of monthly costs that have increased more than six-fold since the passage of the ACA, Tarkanian said the health law penalized the people that were paying for [private] insurance themselves.

In its place, he said, should be a system that creates competition within the healthcare industry.

If everybody has health insurance, and it's provided for them, either through their employer or through the government or whatever else [hospitals and doctors] don't care how much they brought [prices] up, he said. So there's gotta be some type of way to have some skin in the game where they're having to pay for these costs.

Tarkanian also expressed support for a system modeled more on health savings accounts, and said that pre-existing conditions ought to be covered under a government-subsidized high risk account. And though he cautioned that Medicaid and Medicare are not for everybody, he said that we need to be able to help provide for people who cant afford it themselves.

Regulating Big Tech

Tarkanian said federal antitrust laws should be used to break up some of the largest technology companies, in part to generate more competition in the industry.

Weve got the greatest economy the world's ever seen based upon competition, and when you create just one or two businesses, you don't have that competition, Tarkanian said.

Tarkanian did not give a specific position on Section 230 a provision of federal communications law that governs large swaths of the internet and allows social media sites to operate as platforms, rather than publishers but he did call for people to be held responsible for what they post online and face consequences for lies.

People don't have the courage to put their name behind what they're saying, and then they say it, and it's complete lies, and they hide under the immunity provisions, he said. No, I don't think that's right.

When asked how he would like to see the issue addressed, Tarkanian suggested rolling back anonymity, saying instead that you should have your name out there, you should have your information, you should be verified, that youre a real person.

And then you should be responsible for what youre posting, he said.

See the rest here:
On the Record: House GOP candidate Danny Tarkanian on the economy, health care and immigration The Nevada Independent - The Nevada Independent

We believe that the people of this country have a right to find out why a nation with our vastly superior scientific, economic, and military potential is being at the very least equaled and perhaps surpassed by a country that less than two decades ago couldnt even play in the same scientific ballpark. They also have the right to make decisions as to whether they want their government to maintain our current leadership of the free world regardless of the cost in dollars and sweat.

These words, written in aftermath of the United States strategic surprise from Sputnik, ring true again today. Facing growing scientific and technical competition, Congress and President Eisenhower enacted the 1958 National Defense Education Act, increasing Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM) talent to invigorate American competitiveness and win the Cold War. Today, we face a similar problem in key technical fields that underpin both military and economic competitiveness.

There is no single, unilateral action that will restore American dominance in technology. Progress requires both aggressively attracting the worlds talent to the United States and cultivating our own domestic talent. The United States may buy time in the immediate and near-term through much-needed immigration reform, while parallel educational reforms driven by realigned incentives take hold. We support liberal education and immigration policies for illiberal reasons: We want to win the long-term strategic competition with China.

The winds of both politics and history are blowing in the right direction, as Congress is set to debate bills on competition and talent. Among other things, the proposed United States Innovation and Competition Act (USICA) would remove green-card limits for those with STEM degrees. To date, legislative efforts to increase STEM participation have been mixed. Some members of Congress have pushed to increase S&T funding, but without clear outcomes. One recent proposal would have granted $100B over five years to the National Science Foundation, including an expanded focus on applied research, but was subsequently watered down.

Instead, we propose that Congress take a multi-pronged approach, using existing pipelines and programs, which will afford much better long-term results for America.

The most important action in the immediate term is attracting and keeping foreign STEM talent in the United States. When foreign students including those from our strategic competitors come to the United States to study, we have a choice. On the one hand, we can educate these students and send them back home, to support their economies, governments and defense establishments. Alternately, we can encourage them to stay in the United States, strengthening our economy and effectively facilitating brain drain from our strategic competitors.

We are strong proponents of the second approach. Students that come to the U.S. to study are a loan of talent it is a loan that does not necessarily need to be repaid to their country of origin.

Congress should pursue complimentary efforts in parallel. It should modify student and H-1B visa rules that currently make it difficult for international STEM graduates to remain and work in the U.S. Streamlining this process would help reduce chances for international students to suffer from a modern indentured servitude by ensuring fair wages and that the individual, not a company, holds the green card. Accelerated pathways to U.S. citizenship for STEM professionals who desire it should be a priority. STEM immigrants who contribute to the U.S. economy are a benefit, not a burden, to America.

For the longer-term, education incentives should be realigned. American prosperity depends on talent, ingenuity, and persistence. Current domestic production of STEM talent is insufficient; currently only 18 percent of U.S. college graduates receive a STEM degree, or approximately 130,000 per year. Some technical fields, especially mathematics and statistics, have a 33 percent forecast growth rate, far faster than average. American industry across all sectors and products continues to have an insatiable appetite for STEM talent.

Signature initiatives, such as the establishment of a U.S. Digital Service Academy, could help focus some top talent, but will not provide a sufficient scale. For undergraduates, the U.S. should seek a 10 percent increasein STEM opportunities for U.S. citizens. Support should come from interest-free federal loans to the student, which was a key component of the original National Defense Education Act.

For graduate degrees in STEM, interest-free loans should be portable going to the student and not the institution. The U.S. government should be able to maximize the use of existing program vehicles, such as the Department of Defense (DoD) SMART scholarships, the NDSEG graduate fellowships and Boren fellowships, while also expanding and applying these models to Department of Energy labs and other government labs.

Other existing programs to support top research talent, like the DoD Young Investigator Program to fund early-career professors in STEM, could be further expanded, and include clear requirements stipulating that research funds must be used to support U.S. citizen graduate students.

The combination of the immediate and longer-term effort can be realized through a new National Defense Education Act (NDEA). The first NDEA in 1958 was funded at a level of approximately $9B in todays dollars (less than the bailout of a single airline company during the 2020 COVID pandemic, or less than one tenth of the Secret Services current estimate for stolen COVID funds). While this level of funding would be a start, we propose a more aggressively resourced program across the spectrum should be implemented to counter the triple factors of: (1) increased demand for STEM skills for 21st century jobs, (2) a growing deficit of available STEM talent to jobs and (3) an imminent U.S. government brain drain partially driven by demographics that are rapidly converging.

To rectify the situation and reestablish American advantage, education and immigration incentives need to be realigned for both economic and national security reasons. All these factors provide a unique, important and bipartisan opportunity. Congress and the Biden administration should take this opportunity to enact a new National Defense Education Act, along with immigration reforms and fund it with sufficient resources.

If they work together, Congress, U.S. government agencies and industry can create and build the pool of STEM talent America needs. A new National Defense Education Act for the 21st century will be the foundation for American prosperity and growth for many decades to come.

Christopher Bassler, Ph.D. is a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA). He previously worked as a civilian engineer, researcher, technologist and strategist in the Department of Defense. Harrison Schramm is president of the Analytics Society of INFORMS, a principal research scientist at Group W and a non-resident senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

Read the rest here:
How to restore Americas dominance in technology - The Hill

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

When George P. Bush burst onto the scene at the Republican National Convention in 2000, the handsome, 24-year-old nephew of presidential nominee George W. Bush had all of the makings of a future leader of the GOP.

He was already political royalty heir to a dynasty that included his father, then-Florida governor Jeb Bush, and his grandfather, former President George H.W. Bush. The son of a Mexican mother, and a fluent Spanish speaker, he seemed poised to broaden the appeal of the Republican Party to a younger and increasingly diverse electorate in the 21st century.

Que viva Bush! he told the convention to roaring applause. Y que vivan los Estados Unidos!

On Tuesday, the 46-year-old badly lost his runoff primary challenge to two-term Attorney General Ken Paxton, a staunch conservative who was seen as the most vulnerable Republican incumbent on the ballot due to his mounting scandals, including a felony indictment and an FBI investigation into his office for allegations of malfeasance.

Bushs loss marks what will soon be the end of an eight-year stint as a statewide elected official, after serving back-to-back terms as land commissioner. He continues to serve until the end of the year. But more significantly, it heralds a shift in the Texas Republican politics away from the pro-business establishment and toward a more populist, combative and harsh style of politics. Bushs defeat also notches another victory for former president Donald Trump, who has clashed with the Bush family for years and who repeatedly expressed his support for Paxton in the attorney general race.

This defeat could mark the end of a four-generation political dynasty, and the end of an era of Texas politics that began when the first George Bush moved to Odessa in 1948.

The Bush family name is essentially what the Romanov family name is in Russia, said Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University. Theres still somebody out there claiming to be czar but nobodys listening.

Twenty two years after George P. Bushs debut at the RNC, the factors that once made him appealing to GOP voters have turned against him the party has moved to the hard right, making opposition to immigration (both legal and illegal) a pillar of its agenda and eschewing the more genteel bipartisan consensus that the Bushes once seemed to embody.

Bushs inability to get past such a troubled candidate as Paxton shows how much the Texas electorate, and the American electorate, has changed since his uncle, George W. Bush, was elected Texas governor in 1994 and then president in 2000.

An April poll by the Texas Hispanic Policy Foundation found that 40% of Republican primary voters said they would never vote for George P. Bush. Two-thirds of those voters said thats because hes a member of the Bush family.

Texas politics have shifted so much in the last 20 to 30 years that the family that was Republican royalty have gone from that to basically being vilified for essentially being mainline doctrinaire conservatives, said Jon Taylor, a political scientist at the University of Texas at San Antonio. The Bush family helped to build the modern Republican Party of Texas.

The Bush family got its start in politics more than 1,000 miles away from Texas in Connecticut with the familys patriarch, Prescott Bush, an investment banker who served as that states U.S. Senator from 1952 to 1963.

In 1948, his son, George Herbert Walker Bush, moved to Odessa to enter the oil business. He became involved in Republican political circles in a state dominated by conservative white Democrats since the end of Reconstruction.

George H.W. Bush would run in multiple races for the states U.S. Senate seats and lose, but he made inroads by winning election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1966. He was appointed as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and served as chairman of the Republican National Committee and director of the Central Intelligence Agency before being elected as Ronald Reagans vice president in 1980 in a landslide that swept Texas. (Texas has not voted for a Democrat for president since Jimmy Carter in 1976.)

Bushs two terms as vice president coincided with the rise of the GOP in the state, which in 1978 elected Bill Clements, its first Republican governor since the end of Reconstruction. In 1988, George H.W. Bush was elected president and his expertise in foreign relations stood out in his navigation of the final years of the Cold War, the first Persian Gulf War, and the negotiation of what became the North American Free Trade Agreement.

In hindsight, his view of America as a global beacon, his appeal for a kinder, gentler nation and his distaste for budget deficits were the last years of a more consensus-driven politics that had begun to erode in the 1980s and all but vanished by the end of the 1990s. And his aspirational view of the country as a force for good was epitomized in his frequently used thousand points of light metaphor to encourage civic engagement by community organizations.

But after famously reneging on a promise not to increase taxes, George H.W. Bush was defeated in the 1992 presidential election by Bill Clinton.

His son, George W. Bush, picked up the Bush dynasty mantle in 1994 and swept into the Texas governors office by defeating Democrat Ann Richards. The election marked a turning point for Texas politics. Four years later, during Bushs reelection run, Republicans would sweep all the major statewide offices and have not relinquished them in the 24 years since.

As governor, George W. Bush proved popular and focused on issues like cutting taxes, tort reform and public education. In the statehouse, he bred a reputation for working across the aisle with Democrats and the compassionate conservatism that would fuel his presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2004.

I felt compelled to phrase it this way because people hear conservative and they think heartless, George W. Bush later reminisced. And my belief then and now is that the right conservative philosophies are compassionate and help people.

That conservatism focused on improving education, reducing barriers for business and helping people of color achieve economic and social success. He courted Latino voters and, as president, appointed Alberto R. Gonzales, a former Texas Supreme Court justice, as the nations first (and so far only) Hispanic attorney general. Mexican ranchera legend Vicente Fernandez sang at the 2000 Republican National Convention at which Bush was nominated (and his nephew, George P., fted).

George W. Bush won more than 40% of the Latino vote in his 2004 presidential race and brought to the White House a desire for immigration reform, including the creation of a guest worker program (opposed by many Democrats) and an eventual path to citizenship (opposed by many Republicans).

Family values dont end at the Rio Grande Valley, George W. Bush often said.

While popular during his initial years in the White House, those goals were stymied by an increasingly anti-immigrant faction of the Republican Party. A Bush-backed, bipartisan immigration bill was defeated in the Senate in 2007. A similar measure, backed by then-President Barack Obama, died in 2014 at the hands of House Republicans.

George W. Bushs final years in the presidency were soured by the publics opposition to the Iraq War, the governments increasing surveillance during the War on Terror following the Sept. 11 attacks, his handling of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and the Great Recession.

Those dissatisfactions would continue to fester within the GOP during Obamas eight-year tenure in office, with Republicans repudiating George W. Bushs policies and blaming him for not being more aggressive on socially conservative issues and for tanking the economy.

Once Bush is out of office, immediately the Republican party is in a position of the wilderness, said Taylor, the UT-San Antonio political scientist. The Republican party didnt know where it was going. They knew where they were going only in opposition to Obama, and that morphed into the Tea Party movement.

In Texas, the Tea Party movement rocked the statehouse hard when Republicans won 99 seats in the 150-member House in 2010, ousting several moderate Republicans and Democrats. In the same election, Republicans took control of the U.S. House.

Two years later, a relatively unknown former Texas solicitor general named Ted Cruz, a Tea Party favorite then endorsed by George P. Bush, beat out Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, a moderate Republican, in the 2012 U.S. Senate race. Dewhurst was a member of the GOP establishment whod been first elected statewide as land commissioner the same year George W. Bush won a second term as governor. Dewhurst lost his bid for another term as lieutenant governor in 2014 to a conservative senator named Dan Patrick whod been a pariah to most Republicans during his first years in office.

That same year, George P. Bush, whose middle name is that of the familys patriarch, won election as land commissioner with 61% of the vote. Back then, the younger Bush pushed a big tent version of the Republican Party, appealing to disillusioned Democrats and independents and expressed support for the Texas Dream Act, which provided in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants who came to the state as children.

At his swearing in ceremony, then-Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett said George P. Bushs election kicked off a new era for one of the most revered families in American history.

Bushs style was wonky and in the weeds, reminiscent of his grandfather. He focused on the states water rights, creating the first online auction for oil leases, and making sure protecting endangered species didnt get in the way of business interests. In 2016, he said his top legislative priority would be protecting the states coasts.

But he also borrowed from his uncles compassionate conservatism, which espoused that there is enough room in politics for tougher border security and helping undocumented immigrants who came to the country looking for a better life.

As a Latino, George P. Bush also worked hard to court candidates and voters of color to the GOP, which at times required him to denounce members of the party who made racist comments.

In 2019, he denounced a Republican state legislator who said his opponents in a highly diverse state house district in Fort Bend County were only running because they were Asian and had decided that my district might need an Asian to win. George P. Bush also called for the resignation of a GOP county chairwoman who used a racial slur in a text message about a Black party organizer.

At the beginning of the younger Bushs first term as land commissioner, an intraparty war within the Texas GOP was already raging, and despite being more socially conservative than his predecessors, Bush still found himself aligned with the center-right, pro-business faction.

The 2016 presidential election defined the partys rightward shift. George P. Bushs father, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, announced his candidacy in June 2015 and received millions of dollars from donors and strong support from the party establishment.

But he collided in the primary with the eventual winner of the race, Trump, who used his campaign announcement to denigrate Mexican immigrants as criminals, drug dealers, rapists.

The younger Bush, like much of the party establishment at the time, dismissed Trump as a trivial candidate and said his comments have no place in our party. George P. Bushs mother is a naturalized U.S. citizen from Mexico.

But Republican voters gravitated toward Trumps nationalist vision to Make America Great Again and his penchant for making outlandish, frequently insulting, comments about women, people of color and political opponents. In fact, it was Jeb Bush whom voters bounced early in that race, largely based on Trumps frequent characterization of him as low energy.

When Trump became the partys nominee, most of the Bush family declined to publicly support him. George P. Bush, the only member of the family still in office, was the sole member of the clan to endorse him.

He initially stumped for his dad, Jeb Bush, but ultimately threw his support behind Trump, saying it was a bitter pill to swallow for Team Bush, but Republican voters had to stop Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Later, George P. Bush characterized his relationship with Trump as professional but remained concerned that the Republican Party was viewed as unwelcoming for people of color. Still, he supported Trump in his reelection effort in 2020.

When George P. Bush launched his campaign for attorney general last June, he lobbied hard for Trumps endorsement, handing out campaign koozies with a cartoon picture of Trump that quoted the former president saying: This is the only Bush that likes me. This is the Bush that got it right. I like him.

Bushs problem: Paxton was far closer to the president. Paxton had filed a last ditch lawsuit in federal court to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in four states where Trump lost. The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed that lawsuit because Texas had no standing, but it appeared enough to curry Trumps favor. The former president endorsed Paxton early in the race.

Still, George P. Bush shifted to the right to win over Republican primary voters. He pledged to help the state secure the border and build Trumps unfinished wall, while supporting state investigations into families of transgender children and denouncing Democrats as a woke mob. He went back on his previous support for the Texas Dream Act, now saying that he supports the Republican Party of Texas platform to repeal the law.

But despite his best efforts to stay in step with the party, he was trampled by its rightward shift.

The party shifted, Republican voters shifted and the conservatism that may have been popular during George W. Bushs tenure as governor just doesnt fit Texas anymore, said Renee Cross, a political scientist at the Hobby School of Public Affairs at the University of Houston.

George P. Bushs gaffes as land commissioner also came back to haunt him. His handling of federal hurricane recovery relief funds, which gave far more money per person to inland areas than to coastal ones that had been more seriously impacted by storms, is still hounding him. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development found his agency's distribution of the funds discriminated against people of color.

Perhaps his most consequential mistake was wading into a redesign of the Alamo grounds that considered relocating a monument to the revolutionaries who died at the 1836 battle.

Bush argued that the cenotaph, as the monument is called, needed to be moved 500 feet to the south near the historic Menger Hotel to be preserved. But opponents of the move said the relocation would dishonor the sacrifice of the revolutionaries who died there. Major Republican officials, like Patrick, sided with those who wanted the cenotaph to stay in place. During the attorney general race, Paxton characterized Bush as a liberal who had backed a woke plan to remove historic monuments.

It was pretty much a debacle, said Rick Range, a member of a group created to fight Bushs redesign of the Alamo who ran against him in the GOP primary for land commissioner in 2018. His mishandling of the Alamo was what got me in opposition.

As a fourth-generation politician, who grew up attending political conventions for his elders, George P. Bush has always been aware of the weight his name carries and the assumptions that come with it.

What a lot of people get wrong about my family is that we covet title and it's about continuing some sort of tradition, when it's all about public service, he said in March as he prepared for a runoff with Paxton.

This has never been about titles, let alone the D word as we call it in our family, he added, nodding to the use of the word dynasty to describe his family, This is about serving.

Bush is serving his second term as Texas land commissioner and though his race became tighter in 2018 because of a strong showing by Democrats, he was still one of the top statewide vote getters with 4.4 million votes in his favor. That was more than senatorial candidates Ted Cruz and Beto ORourke received and more than any other statewide candidate except for Gov. Greg Abbott.

That counts for something despite his more recent loss, said longtime lobbyist Bill Miller.

If you think about the arc of politics, the Kennedys have not always been successful. Theyve won and lost. Political dynasties have ups and downs, Miller said. Theres unpredictability to it. Theres a season for it. Right now, hes running against a guy whos really popular with the Republican primary electorate. Its not about George P. losing, its about Paxton winning.

Tuesdays loss marks the second time in two years that a member of the family failed to get out of the primaries in a Texas election. In 2020, George P. Bushs cousin, Pierce Bush, came a distant third in the GOP primary for Congressional District 22 near their grandfathers old stomping ground of Houston and failed to even make a runoff.

Taylor said the two losses indicate voters fatigue with political dynasties.

Weve seen and heard their names so many times, its like, Oh gosh, another one? he said. There comes a point where the electorate just gets tired of it.

Pierce and George P. are the last Bushes for now to express any interest in politics. Jenna Bush Hager, one of George W. Bushs twin daughters, is a journalist who works on the Today Show on NBC. Her sister, Barbara Pierce Bush, is the co-founder of a public health nonprofit.

Miller said the family name is going through a rough patch with the electorate, but he doesnt expect that to last. He thinks George P. Bush has enough name recognition and political chops to make a comeback in the future.

Time heals all wounds, Miller said. The political climates always change and everyone knows that. The political climate is not conducive to him or helpful to him at the moment. That may change or that may not, but [the Bush name] wont be a negative going forward for much longer.

The recent defeats the family has taken indicate a halt in the familys run of success, Miller said.

Now is it permanent? he asked. I would argue its temporary.

Tickets are on sale now for the 2022 Texas Tribune Festival, happening in downtown Austin on Sept. 22-24. Get your TribFest tickets by May 31 and save big!

Read the original:
George P. Bush's defeat could be the end of the line for a four-generation political dynasty - The Texas Tribune