A Note To The Next President

Since this column is written on a Tuesday evening, we have no idea yet who has won the election and become President-Elect.

No matter though, we still thought it useful to pen a missive to either candidate to bring their attention to some things we consider to be important now, and more so in January when a new Administration is installed.

The first priority, as it always is in our minds is the support given to the ongoing war against Islamic Jihad, and the importance of keeping our friends close and our enemies in a position where they cannot hurt us.

We do not necessarily believe that either candidate threatens this effort, no matter what was promised during primary campaigns to their base.

It is important however, to remind the incoming President of his responsibilities both to the American people and the U.S. military in his dual-role of Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief.

While premature withdrawal from Iraq or Afghanistan may seem useful in this time of financial frugality, it would be a disaster for both America's position in the world and for our hopes of building expanded alliance if we abandoned either country at this time.

On the economy, we would remind both potential Presidents that both liberal-icon John F Kennedy and conservative-hero Ronald Reagan believed in cutting taxes to stimulate the economy.

It is a documented fact that the economy and money supply are not a fixed pie where if one person gets a bigger piece, another gets less.

In general, the person with the bigger piece uses it to consume items (thus moving his or her money to the producer, its suppliers and retailers ), invests in new industrial growth, providing further employment opportunities for those less well off or pays the money to the State in taxes - providing those funds that are so necessary to provide a safety net for those who cannot fend for themselves.

On Global Warming, we would again remind both candidates of what happened to the Kyoto Protocol in the U.S. Senate.

Contrary to the popular meme, President Bush did not simply refuse to sign it. Under former President Bill Clinton, the Senate rejected the treaty by a vote of 95-0.

The reason for this is that they realised the injustice of the original agreement and the harmful impact that implementing it would have on the U.S. economy.

We'd ask both men to consider the same when dealing with carbon trading plans and killing fossil fuel industries.

We also think that both men need to think of the state of political dialogue in this country when either comes into office.

Talk of bi-partisanship by both is laudable, but needs to be followed up on - both by reining in their own supporters (who have proved partisan to a fault on both sides in this election) and by actually working together with the "opposition" where at all possible. President Bush's early work with Senator Ted Kennedy on the 'No Child Left Behind' legislation comes to mind as an example where two ideologically-diverse politicians could find common ground.

We wish the best to whoever emerges victorious.