WSJ on the GOP and Immigration

Great Wall Street Journal editorial on immigration today ("Immigration and the GOP - Is it still the party of Reagan, or of Tom Tancredo?"). Worth a read...

"As Congress battles over immigration, the consequences are likely to be far greater than the details of border walls or green cards. The most important political outcome may turn out to be the message that Republicans send about the kind of the party they are and hope to be.

To wit, do Republicans want to continue in the Reagan tradition of American optimism and faith in assimilation that sends a message of inclusiveness to all races? Or will they take another one of their historical detours into a cramped, exclusionary policy that tells millions of new immigrants, and especially Hispanics, that they belong somewhere else?

...The immediate danger is that Republicans will ignore their longer-term interests by passing a punitive, and poll-driven, anti-immigration bill this election year. Any bill that merely harasses immigrants and employers, and stacks more cops on the border, may win cheers in the right-wing blogosphere. However, it will do nothing to address the economic incentives that will continue to exist for poor migrants to come to America to feed their families. And it will make permanent enemies of millions of Hispanics, without doing anything to draw illegals out of the shadows and help them assimilate into the mainstream of American culture and citizenship.

This is not Ronald Reagan's view of America as a "shining city on a hill." It is the chauvinist conservatism usually associated with the European right. How Republicans conduct and conclude their immigration debate will show the country which kind of "conservative" party they want to be."

Click here to read the entire editorial.

Tonight's Lineup

On CNBC's "Kudlow & Company" tonight:

Larry will be live again from Washington.

Our lineup includes:

A markets panel with Noah Blackstein, Dynamic Mutual Funds
Portfolio Manager; Barry Ritholtz of Ritholtz Capital; John Rutledge of Rutledge Capital; and CNBC's Herb Greenberg.

A debate on immigration and insider trading on Capitol Hill with Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN) and Rep. David Dreier (R-CA).

Brett Gallagher, Head of US equities at Julius Baer Investment Management, will discuss the Mexican economy.

A look into Major League Baseball and steroids with "Ball Four" author/former Yankees pitching great Jim Bouton, and John Dowd, former lead investigator for MLB's inquiry into Pete Rose's gambling activities.

And finally, Elon Musk, internet entrepreneur/founder of Space Exploration Technologies to discuss his his bold space initiative.

TONIGHT'S QUESTION:

Should immigrants be required to only speak english in school?

Cast your vote at www.kudlowcnbc.com.

Paul Ryan for OMB Director?

A senior White House source suggested to me that the Bush administration may be looking at supply-side Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) to replace Josh Bolten as OMB Director.

Ryan, a former staff member for Sen. Bob Kasten and House member Jack Kemp is a brilliant, young congressman who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee. He has been involved in every worthwhile pro-growth fiscal initiative in recent years, including flat-tax reform, budget spending limits, Social Security personal accounts, free trade and other items.

Should he be appointed OMB director, it would be a tremendous pro-growth, tough-on-spending, tax-cutting signal to Congress, the rest of Washington and Wall Street.

It would also help the president recapture some of his eroding conservative base.

Ryan at OMB would be a grand slam home run.

Lupica Goes After Bonds

"Barry Bonds is Bud Selig's Pete Rose. Selig has to go after Bonds, officially make him a suspect in the eyes of his sport, before another season begins, the way the late A.Bartlett Giamatti went after Rose, who denied and denied and denied his gambling the way Bonds has denied his use of steroids."

So begins Mike Lupica's razor-sharp column in the New York Daily News today ("Time for Selig to bury Bonds").

On last Friday's "Kudlow & Company," we devoted a portion of the show to steroids' unmistakable stain on baseball. Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) -- a seven-time All-Star pitcher who threw no-hitters in both leagues, as well a perfect game in 1964 -- was a guest on our show, forcefully calling for change.

Bunning and Lupica are on the same page. In last year's Capitol Hill hearing on steroids in baseball, Bunning remarked, "Go ask Henry Aaron, go ask the family of Roger Maris, go ask all of the people who played without enhanced drugs if they would like their records compared with the current records."

Putting aside records for a moment, The Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990 made it a crime to take steroids, punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to one year.

So what's going on here? Why haven't Bonds and others steroid users like him been prosecuted?

Immigration Reform Compromise in the Works

Positive development from Capitol Hill as House Majority Leader John Boehner refused to rule out a compromise with the Senate to expand the House border security bill to include a guest-worker program ("Boehner hints a back down on 'amnesty'").

This is a good sign that immigration reform will include stronger border security, but also guest-worker provisions and a path to citizenship. Moreover, it’s a sign that the xenophobic hotheads in the House will not prevail.

Sen. Frists’s strategy is to discuss border security first. That will be today. Then bring the Specter bill on to the floor tomorrow. This is quite sensible border security and a compassionate treatment of immigrants should go hand-in-hand. The immigrants are coming over the border to meet real job demands and they’re making a great contribution to the U.S. economy.

Tonight's Lineup

On CNBC's "Kudlow & Company" tonight:

Larry will be live in the thick of things from Washington again tonight.

Our lineup includes:

A political debate on immigration reform, insider trading on Capitol Hill, and China trade policy with Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO); Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA); Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary/University of California at Berkeley professor; and The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore.

A Bull v. Bear markets debate between Barry James, President of James Advantage Funds and John Augustine, Chief Investment Strategist at Fifth Third Asset Management.

Tonight's Poll Question:

Should Congress be held to the same stock trading standards as Wall Street?

Cast your vote at www.kudlowcnbc.com.

The Success of George Mason

The George Mason men's basketball team's Cinderella-like foray into the Final Four is opening a number of people's eyes to the remarkable success the university is experiencing off the court as well. A terrific article on Slate today explores the manner in which this collegiate "David" has achieved success against the "Goliaths" on the hardwood and in the classroom as well. What's even more impressive is the short amount of time it has taken.

By taking advantage of various inefficencies in the academic marketplace, George Mason seized unexploited opportunities and developed an acclaimed free-market economics department in addition to a first tier law school.

"Unlike his neighbors, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, founding father George Mason has rarely gotten his props from historians and the public. Until recently, the same could be said of the university bearing his name. But the advancement of Mason's basketball team to the NCAA's Final Four is only the school's latest surprise win. The GMU economics department—which didn't even award Ph.D.s until 1983—has two Nobel Prize winners on its faculty. The law school ascended to the first tier several years ago, a striking achievement for a new program that 10 years ago was being run out of an old department-store building. What's remarkable is that GMU's freewheeling basketball team and its free-market academic teams owe their successes to very similar, market-beating strategies.

...From the 1960s into the 1980s, a small university such as GMU could hire conservative and free-market thinkers of true genius for the same kinds of reasons that, in the mid-1960s, a middling school like Texas Western University could recruit some of the best basketball players in the nation, so long as they were black, and win the 1966 NCAA championship. Conservative and free-market economists were so undervalued that GMU could afford the best of them."

I know a number of the sharp professors in the school's economics department and these folks are top-notch, limited government free-marketers--a welcome contrast to the inhabitants of most of today's Ivory Towers. It is refreshing to see GMU's success and sensibility at a time when Ivy-League heavyweights like Yale are opening their doors to a Taliban spokesman.

Likewise, I consider it an honor to have been recently named a Distinguished Scholar of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Congratulations to George Mason on their resounding success on the court and in the classroom.

Tonight's Lineup

On CNBC's "Kudlow & Company" tonight:

Larry will be live from Washington to discuss all the latest Washington to Wall Street news...

Our guests include:

Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) will be on board to discuss the latest developments on immigration.

He will be joined by John Fund from OpinionJournal.com; Terry Jeffrey from Human Events; Michael Crowley from The New Republic; and Congressional Quarterly's Craig Crawford. The panel will square off on the immigration debate.

Also, a markets/Fed panel with Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial; former Undersecretary of the Treasury/Wall Street veteran Gary Gensler, Vahan Janjigian, Executive Director at Forbes Inc.

Tonight's Question:

Are undocumented workers good or bad for the U.S. economy?

Cast your vote at www.kudlowcnbc.com.

Hand Toomey the Reins

Now that OMB Director Josh Bolten has replaced Andy Card as White House Chief of Staff, here’s a pitch for former House member Pat Toomey to replace Bolten at OMB.

Toomey, who now runs The Club for Growth, is a hard-headed budget cutter, with a strong supply-side tax position and a dedicated free trade view. He is closely aligned with the Mike Pence/Republican Study Committee folks in the House.

Putting Toomey in charge of the White House budget office would send a strong signal of smaller government, lower taxes and free trade—all crucial pro-growth policy elements.

Toomey for OMB.

Bravo to Brownback

Bravo to Senator Sam Brownback for his courageous vote on comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee print sets up a three-legged stool for immigration reform.

First, enhancing border security using more agents and harnessing high-tech devices like unmanned drones and motion sensors. Second, a six-year temporary worker program that would allow roughly 400,000 immigrants to work in the U.S. by allowing them a work visa after paying back taxes and a penalty fine. There would be an initial three-year visa that could be renewed for three more years. Then visa holders could apply for green cards and begin moving towards citizenship provided they pass tests on English proficiency and courses in American civics and constitutional history. The citizenship component is the third leg of the stool.

My good friends at Human Events are whacking Sam Brownback’s vote in favor of this pro-growth, sensible immigration reform. “Brownback can kiss ’08 run goodbye” reads one article posted on the Human Events website (while I agree with this crusading conservative newspaper most of the time on issues like tax and budget cuts, pro-life social values and a strong defense, I’m afraid I must part company with them on immigration reform).

My guess is Senator Brownback cast his vote in favor of the three-legged stool in response to humanitarian pleas from Los Angeles Cardinal Mahoney and other church groups and religious organizations who were threatened with criminal penalties by the House bill, even for humanitarian assistance to undocumented workers. Senator Brownback is a religious man (he converted to Catholicism as I did many years ago).

Brownback’s moral character meets the highest standards. I am not surprised he cast this vote of conscience.

Pro-life conservatives such as Mr. Brownback have been split on immigration reform. Hopefully, conservatives who disagree with Brownback will cut him some slack for his personal beliefs and his open ear and heart to the plight of undocumented workers who seek opportunity here in the U.S for a better way of life.

Bravo to Brownback.

Andy Card Resigns -- Bolten Tapped...

President Bush announced this morning that White House chief of staff Andy Card has resigned. Card will be replaced by Josh Bolten who has served as director of the Office of Management and Budget.

More to come on this big news announcement...

Tonight's Lineup

On CNBC's "Kudlow & Company" tonight:

An immigration discussion with Ruth's Chris CEO/Chairman of National Restaurant Association Craig Miller; Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ); Iowa Rep. Steve King (R); and Tamar Jacoby of The Manhattan Institute.

A markets/economy discussion with James Glassman, Senior U.S. Economist at J.P. Morgan; Brian Wesbury, Chief Economist at First Trust Advisors; Bob Froehlich, Scudder Investments Chief Investment Strategist; and Pat Dorsey, Director of Stock Research at Morningstar. Tonight's guests will weigh in on the markets and offer their perspectives on the FOMC meeting tomorrow.

Kim Childs of the American Business Group of Abu Dhabi will address the ports deal and U.S. interests in the Arab region.

TONIGHT'S QUESTION:

Would you ask your "serious squeeze" for a complete financial statement?

Cast your vote at www.kudlowcnbc.com.

Immigration Creates Wealth

These big pro–immigration demonstrations across the country may backfire. More on that in a bit…

I strongly favor a pro-immigration policy that has beefed-up border and law enforcement, but one that also includes some kind of guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants and a path to citizenship. Illegals should pay a fine, and should go to the "back of the line" of green card applicants, but they should not be felons and should not be forced to return home.

Linda Chavez has a great column in the Washington Times illustrating what great entrepreneurs and small-business owners Hispanics are.

“Immigrants often make up in their willingness to work hard and sacrifice what they lack in formal skills,” Chavez writes. “The Census Bureau confirms a great many immigrants are imbued with an entrepreneurial spirit that puts to shame those of us born here.”

The numbers do not lie. They are strong job creators. According to 2002 Census Bureau data, Hispanics are opening businesses at rate three times faster than the national average. In addition, there were almost 1.6 million Hispanic-owned businesses generating $222 billion in revenue in 2002.

“They want to build something for the future,” Chavez continues, “something they can pass on to their children. Whether it's a Guatemalan starting a landscaping business, a Mexican setting up a home repair firm or a Cuban opening an insurance company, the United States offers them opportunities they would never have enjoyed in their native countries.”

Roughly two-thirds of undocumented immigrants pay the FICA payroll tax according to Princeton professor Douglas S. Massey (employers have a responsibility to move this toward 100 percent). Massey’s work has found that 62 percent of illegal workers have taxes withheld from their paychecks, and 66 percent pay social security. And in 2004, illegal workers contributed $7 billion to social security and $1.5 billion to Medicare.

Yet, according to Forbes magazine, only 10 percent of illegal Mexicans have sent a child to an American public school, and just five percent have received food stamps or unemployment. One obvious reason for this is that undocumented workers are fearful of getting busted, and therefore seldom use social services.

Ruth’s Chris Steak House CEO Craig Miller—who also serves as chairman of the National Restaurant Association—notes that the number of food service industry jobs is growing one and a half times as fast as the U.S. labor force. Yet only 10,000 green cards are currently available for service industry positions annually and they clearly need help from immigrants.

“...it makes one wonder about the illegal alien fuss. Are great numbers of our unemployed really victims of the illegal alien invasion or are those illegal tourists actually doing work our own people won't do? One thing is certain in this hungry world; no regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in the fields for lack of harvesters.”--Ronald Reagan in a radio address entitled "Apples," dated November 29, 1977.

Highly educated American workers are not going to take these types of lower-skilled positions. And we shouldn’t ask them to. But immigrants will, and we should give them the opportunity to do it. That said, when President Bush meets with President Vicente Fox of Mexico later on this week, he should tell Fox to deregulate, privatize state-owned industries, and reduce tax burdens on Mexico’s small businesses. Part of the immigration problem is simply Mexico’s inadequate growth and lack of economic opportunity. The country is growing at about 3 percent a year, but it ought to be growing at six to ten percent. Our southern neighbor ought to be the “Mexican Tiger,” but continues to be the “Mexican Chihuahua.”

This stuff coming from Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo about immigrants being “a scourge that threatens the very future of our nation” is just racist nonsense. If the GOP goes down this road, they will lose any support from Hispanic Americans and undo all the political good that George Bush generated by getting 44 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004. In a similar vein, the usually reliable Robert Samuelson calls immigration an importer of poverty. But he is dead wrong, and should go back to the drawing board and do a lot more homework.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Hispanic unemployment is 5.5 percent, compared to 4.8 percent overall. The BLS reports that white unemployment is 4.1 percent, while African American unemployment is 9.3 percent. This excellent Hispanic performance strongly suggests that they are importing wealth, not poverty.

On the science, technology and engineering front, The Wall Street Journal has an excellent editorial today discussing how the U.S. labor market has “long been a magnet for highly skilled and educated foreigners” and how we drive away these skilled immigrants at our own peril (“The Other Immigrants”). Senator Arlen Specter’s proposal, which raises the cap on these H-1B guest worker visas from 65,000 to 115,000, reflects a step in the right direction.

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." --Teddy Roosevelt, 1907

I believe the United States must always be a land of economic opportunity. And Teddy Roosevelt had it right a hundred years ago, when he argued for assimilation, which includes English speaking schools and a thorough civics lesson in American constitutional history.

The trouble with these large-scale demonstrations taking place right now is their union sponsorship and welfarist tilt. The case for immigration should be predicated upon economic opportunity and entrepreneurship for all those who come to America to work, and prosper, in ways that their home countries do not allow. This is the great American tradition. As Reagan famously remarked, America is the shining “City on the Hill.”

French Pirates

Here's a snippet of The American Enterprise Institute's pithy little piece ("France Discovers a Way to Fight Apple--Piracy") on France's attempt to plunder Apple's iTunes software and iPod players.

"Last week, the French National Assembly approved a bill that would force online music vendors to make their music compatible with any music player. The law is a clear shot across the bow of Apple Computer Inc., the company whose iTunes software and iPod players have revolutionized the music industry.

The French, apparently unhappy that an innovative American company is so popular in France, have decided to engage in piracy. If real property rather than intellectual property were at stake, the French move would be considered an act of war.

...Imagine if someone built a resort so beautiful that vacationers swarmed to it, and the French passed a law requiring the resort owners to let French citizens stay at the resort for free. This ruling is essentially the same thing. The French are trying to rob an American company."

Sure looks, sounds and smells like piracy to me.

For more on what ails the French government-planned entitlement state, take a look at my recent column "Paddle the French Fanny".

Tonight's Lineup

On CNBC's "Kudlow & Company" tonight:

A market panel with CNBC commentator Herb Greenberg; Barry Ritholz of of Ritholtz Capital; and John Rutledge of Rutledge Capital.

Bill Zollars, Chairman/CEO of YRC Worldwide.

Cody Willard will be on board to discuss tech, including the "Slingbox" and iPod's battle with France.

Also, a FCC censorship discussion with Kim Strosell from the Wall Street Journal; Yaron Brook, Ayn Rand Insitute; and Dr. Janice Crouse, author/Senior Fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, the think tank for Concerned Women for America.

TONIGHT'S QUESTION:

Is the FCC's censorship of certain programming going too far, just right, not far enough?

Cast your vote at www.kudlowcnbc.com.

Two More Strikes

The storm clouds keep rolling in over the embroiled Grey Lady without any sign of silver linings.

“For the second time in less than a week, The New York Times today admitted to a serious error in a story. On Saturday it said it had misidentified a man featured in the iconic "hooded inmate" photograph from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Today it discloses that a woman it profiled on March 8 is not, in fact, a victim of Hurricane Katrina--and was arrested for fraud and grand larceny yesterday.” (From Editor & Publisher, “Another Bad Slip for 'NY Times': Katrina Victim Unmasked”)

At the rate they’re going, the New York Times will need to devote an entire section to correcting their errors.

Saddam's Documents

There’s an interesting story coming from ABC News’ Investigative Unit summarizing five documents from Saddam Hussein's toppled government, all of which were recently released by the U.S. government. Two of these documents happen to be dated after the attacks on 9/11.

One document in particular is dated September 15, 2001—four days after 9/11.

According to ABC News, this Iraqi intelligence document says that their Afghani informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani Consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed that Osama bin Laden and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq.

Click here to read the entire ABC story.

Fund on Yale

John Fund has been all over this absolutely unbelievable story of Yale opening its doors to the Taliban’s former spokesman. His latest column at OpinionJournal is dynamite. It’s a must read.

“Something is very wrong at our elite universities. Last month Larry Summers resigned as president of Harvard; today Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi will speak by video to a conference at Columbia University that his regime is cosponsoring. (Columbia won't answer questions about how much funding it got from Libya or what implied strings were attached.) Then there's Yale, which for three weeks has refused to make any comment or defense beyond a vague 144-word statement about its decision to admit Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi--a former ambassador-at-large of the murderous Afghan Taliban--as a special student.

The three backers of the foundation that, along with Yale, is subsidizing Mr. Hashemi's tuition have told the Yale Daily News that they are withdrawing their support. But the university remains mute and paralyzed. "The intelligentsia haven't told Yalies what to think yet, because even they haven't made up their minds," says Yale professor David Gelernter. He clearly has: He calls the Taliban "an evil and macabre terrorist group. . . . The fact that Hashemi didn't do actual killing does not absolve him. Goebbels didn't shoot anyone either."

Universities are places where free inquiry, debate and information sharing are supposed to be guiding lights. In reality, the ivory towers too often now resemble dark castles, which raise their drawbridges at the first hint of criticism or scrutiny. Never has the moat separating elite universities from the rest of America been wider than in the case of Yale's Taliban Man.

…Back in the early 1990s, when he was dean of Yale College, Yale history professor Don Kagan warned about what he called the university's "mutual massage" between value-neutral professors and soft-minded students. He is even more critical now: "The range of debate on campus is more narrow than ever today, and the Taliban incident is a wake-up call that moral relativism is totally unexamined here. The ability of students to even think clearly about patriotism and values is being undermined by faculty members who believe that at heart every problem has a U.S. origin."

Click here to read Fund’s latest.

Tonight's Lineup

On CNBC's "Kudlow & Company" tonight:

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney(R) will be on tonight to discuss various subjects including the budget and education.

A markets discussion with Tom Gardner, Co-Founder of The Motley Fool; Bill Baldwin, Forbes Magazine Editor; and Susan Byrne, Westwood Holdings Group Chairman & CIO.

Steve Malanga, Senior Fellow at The Manhattan Institute, will address the development(or lack thereof) of the World Trade Center site.

A political discussion with Fmr. Labor Secretary Robert Reich and Steve Moore, WSJ Editorial Board Sr. Economics Writer.

TONIGHT'S QUESTION:

If Senator Hillary Clinton and Governor Mitt Romney run for President, who would you vote for?

Cast your vote at www.kudlowcnbc.com.

Thoughts on Iraq

A terrific Wall Street Journal editorial today on the high stakes of our mission in Iraq ("What If We Lose?") -- well worth a read.

"The third anniversary of U.S. military action to liberate Iraq has brought with it a relentless stream of media and political pessimism that is unwarranted by the facts and threatens to become a self-fulfilling prophesy if it goes unchallenged...

[T]here's no denying the polls showing that most Americans are increasingly weary of the daily news of car bombs and Iraqi squabbling and are wishing it would all just go away. Their pessimism is fed by elites who should know better but can't restrain their domestic political calculations long enough to consider the damage that would accompany U.S. failure. A conventional military defeat is inconceivable in Iraq, but a premature U.S. withdrawal is becoming all too possible."

There's no question that a large number of "elites" have taken their eye off the big picture in Iraq and are damaging our historic mission. But the fact is, we started our mission, and America absolutely needs to finish it.

That being said, I do think it's time for some sort of structural shift in our campaign. Currently, we have roughly 130,000 of our nation's finest still stationed in Iraq. Perhaps it's time to bring home some of these troops. Take out a not so insignificant number, say 40,000-50,000, and bring the number under 100,000. The rest of the force structure can be re-stationed at U.S. bases along Iraq’s perimeter. This would take them out of the direct line of fire, make them less visible, but still be in position to strike quickly should the need arise. It's my understanding that something along these lines is currently being discussed in high circles.

This redeployment would probably hold for many years, in some sense, the way US forces were stationed in South Korea, or even Germany and Japan. There's no cut and run here. There’s no walking away from the fight. But it would represent an important structural change, a new force structure paradigm if you will.

And such a move would be highly significant for the American public and in the international community. It would hammer home the point that the United States is handing over daily responsibilities to Iraqi security forces. It would also provide strong incentives for the Iraqi political community and military forces to recognize that it is ultimately their battle. The responsibility to maintain their fledgling democracy and economic reconstruction is in their hands.

Speaking of economic reconstruction, U.S. investment and trade with Iraq is enormously important as a weapon in this war. In fact, the theme of free-trade and economic connectivity, be it Iraq, or the rest of the Middle East, is an incredibly important solution which so far looks to be undeveloped.

But Bush needs to make some sort of gesture to folks here at home that we are making progress. He needs to demonstrate that we are returning control to the Iraqi citizens. Bringing home some troops would be a step in the right direction.

Smack the Collective French Fanny

What is it about French people that they don’t want to work?

For years, the stagnant French economy has produced virtually no new jobs. The overall jobless rate hovers around 10 percent and so-called “youth unemployment” is 23 percent (actually as high as 50 percent for some groups according to Investor’s Business Daily).

So now, a modest labor reform proposed by Prime Minister Villepin is trying to deal with this jobless problem by suggesting that companies that hire workers under age 26 can actually fire them in the first two years of employment. This makes it a lot easier for firms to hire if they know they’re not locking in high-wage and benefit costs without worker productivity. In France, few companies ever grow simply because it’s too expensive to hire, and its against the law to fire. Therefore businesses don’t grow, don’t produce, and don’t employ.

In response to this mild capitalist reform, five-hundred thousand students apparently, went out and demonstrated. Now there’s a threat of a general strike next week that would shut down all business and the economy (or what’s left of it). Government unions, industrial unions and student unions may work together in this shutdown to stop the reform. This comes only a short while after the Muslim riots, car burnings and demonstrations over cultural disputes and yes, sky-high unemployment. France is an anti-opportunity economy; anti-wealth, anti-jobs, anti-markets, anti-work, anti-capitalism. Nice.

This is all too reminiscent of the British disease in the 1960s and 1970s where labor unions worked together with general strikes to close down the English economy until Margaret Thatcher put an end to it in the early 1980s. The Iron Lady actually brought in tanks and troops to stop wacko newspaper print unions from shutting down Fleet Street. (This is what turned Rupert Murdoch into a pro-capitalist Thatcherite.) Naturally, investment will dry up and business formation will shrink in France if the British disease spreads throughout Gaul. It’s an incredible story.

There is one small ray of hope. Interior Minister Nick Sarkozy is a strong law-and-order man. He ended the Muslim riots. He is pro-market and pro-American. He is also touted as the successor to Chirac and Villepin.

Hopefully Mr. Sarkozy will get an opportunity to take a big paddle and smack the collective French fanny.

Tonight's Lineup

On CNBC’s “Kudlow & Company” tonight:

A markets panel featuring Neil Hennessy, President and Portfolio Manager of Hennessy Funds; Jim Glassman, Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute; Quentin Hardy, Silicon Valley Bureau Chief for Forbes magazine; and David Kotok, Chairman and Chief Investment Officer of Cumberland Advisors.

RealMoney columnist Cody Willard will weigh in on Telecom.

An in-depth look into politics with Kellyanne Conway, President/CEO of the polling company; John Zogby of Zogby International; and Dr. Frank Luntz of The Luntz Research Companies. Topics will include President Bush’s recent speeches and Iraq.

Are government prosecutions becoming overzealous? The New York Times reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin, along with CNBC’s Charlie Gasparino will explore this subject in light of Elliot Spitzer’s lawsuit against H & R Block and other lawsuits.

Tonight's Lineup

On CNBC's "Kudlow & Company" tonight:

Elaine Garzarelli of Garzarelli Research will be around along with the following guests to discuss a number of topics. Guests include:

Michael Dudas, Bear Stearns Industrial Analyst will discuss industrial stocks.

Jason Seidl, CSFB Transportation Analyst on transports.

Fadel Gheit, Oppenheimer, Senior Energy Analyst will talk about oil/gasoline prices as well as ethanol.

John Harwood, CNBC reporter, to talk the budget and U.S. business

Rep. David Dreier and Rep. Charlie Rangel to talk about Iran/Iraq and the White House shakeup

A Spring Break segment -- psychologist Dr. Robert Butterworth and Dan Quandt, South Padre Island (Texas) Chamber of Commerce.

TONIGHT'S QUESTION:

Should alcohol and tobacco companies be banned from marketing to spring-breakers?

Cast your vote at www.kudlowcnbc.com.

Stop the Obesity!

The Republican-led Senate stiff-armed President Bush’s call for belt-tightening yesterday and adopted a $2.8 trillion fiscal 2007 budget resolution, after adding over $16 billion in spending to Bush’s request and rejecting calls to rein in entitlements. The Senate snubbed even modest attempts to slow mandatory spending programs, which Bush had targeted for $65 billion in net savings over five years. Almost all of the proposed amendments sought to increase spending.

Republicans in Congress are riding roughshod, violating all budgetary principles. It’s real simple. The architects are using gimmicks, like Arlen Specter’s “advanced appropriations.” Specter got $7 billion for education and other programs under the jurisdiction of the Labor, Health and Education Appropriations Subcommittee which he chairs, according to Congressional Quarterly.

Specter’s blatant disregard for any sort of budget discipline was summed up with his smug remark, “It’s not sort of a gimmick; it is a gimmick.” It is precisely this attitude which is likely to haunt the GOP come November, as the small government conservative base of the party stays home. Specter also got commitments from Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran for another $3 billion that will be added to the budget resolution.

To make matters worse, when fiscally-focused senators like John Cornyn (R-TX) attempt to tighten Congress’ belt, they are rebuffed. Cornyn proposed a $10 billion budget reconciliation package of savings over five years from programs like Medicare and Medicaid. His amendment failed, 43-57.

The disheartened Texas Senator was later quoted as saying, “No one is at the wheel, and I’m afraid the plane will crash all too soon.”

There are two big holes being dug here with this GOP budgetary misbehavior:

The first hole is that the GOP overspending and over borrowing jeopardizes investor tax cut extensions. The extensions remain unsettled.

The second hole being dug is that the GOP risks further demoralizing an increasingly frustrated Republican base. These folks are getting fed up. Discouraged Republican voters could very well stay at home come November, thereby producing a Democratic Congress. This could unveil a nightmare scenario. Let’s suppose that Harlem Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel becomes Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. (I’ll allow you to wager a bet as to what will happen to those investor tax cut extensions.)

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told me in an interview last night on CNBC’s “Kudlow & Company” that he agreed that busting the budget could cost the GOP both houses of Congress. But apparently the leadership is powerless to stop the budget busting activity.

Bush has submitted much leaner budgets in his second term, but it is Congress now which has come down with a serious budget obesity addiction. (Perhaps Peggy Noonan’s recent column directed at Bush entitled “Hey Big Spender” might be directed at Congress instead.)

The strong stock market correctly believes that chances for investor tax cut extensions are still pretty good. And pay-go, which would force tax hikes to offset investor tax cuts, was defeated. But the question still lingers for the stock market: will this new round of budget obesity at some point this spring block investor tax cut extensions and pose a tall barrier to the stock market climb?

On the bright side, just imagine if the Fed’s “one-and-done” scenario (4.75 percent or 5 percent) were coupled with a successful tax cut extension for dividends and cap gains. Stock markets would be off to the races. The markets would surpass their 2000 highs, at least for the broad S & P 500.

Hope springs eternal. Keep the faith.

Tonight's Lineup

On CNBC's "Kudlow & Company" tonight:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will discuss assorted topics including the budget and immigration.

A markets discussion with guests Noah Blackstein of Dynamic Mutual Funds; CNBC Senior Economics Reporter Steve Liesman; CNBC reporter Bob Pisani; and CNBC's Herb Greenberg.

A political discussion/debate with Steve Moore, WSJ Editorial Board Sr. Economics Writer and Robert Reich, former Clinton Labor Secretary.

Mark Leonard, Iowa State Agriculture Secretary will talk about farm subsidies.

TONIGHT'S POLL:

Is it time for President Bush to hand over the reins to the Iraqis?

Cast your vote at www.kudlowcnbc.com.

We Are Doing Just Fine

If things are so bad according to the polls, why are they so good according to the stock market?

I am one of those who believe that stocks are the best barometer of the health and wealth of our nation, and our nation’s businesses. Poll after poll keep telling us how unhappy people are with the President Bush, the economy, the Iraq war, and the direction America is going in. Yet stocks are telling a decidedly different story. They are making five-year highs among the broadest averages, a completely different message altogether.

Some important indexes like the NYSE (about 2500 stocks), the Transportation Index and the small-cap Russell 2000 are registering all-time highs. Today’s inflation report shows diminished price pressures. With respect to interest rates, the Wall Street rumor mill is discounting “one and done,” or at most, only two more Fed rate hikes to 5 percent. Profits continue their surge, consumers are spending, and the economy is healthy.

My guess is large-scale troop withdrawals from Iraq are already in the planning stage. The U.S. military knows what it’s doing, and President Bush is listening to them. We are about to open up new talks with Iran concerning their mischief in Iraq, and you can bet these talks will include nuclear weapons as well.

With all due respect to the many fine pollsters out there, I’ll take the stock market as a better indicator of American health and wealth.

We are doing just fine.

Death to the Death Tax

Great column you ought to take a look at in today's New York Post on the insidiousness of the death tax. Peter Ferrara hits the nail on the head time and again in his exhortation to repeal this awful and ridiculous tax once and for all. Here's a snippet..

"THE federal "death tax" is the most hated and unfair tax of all. When Mom or Dad dies after a life of hard work, and the family is the most vulnerable, Washington government swoops in and taxes their lifetime savings yet again.

Now we have the opportunity to put the tax to rest for good. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist recently announced that the Senate will vote on repeal of the tax in May. (The House has already voted for repeal.)

The death tax is unfair because the government has already taxed all savings when it was first earned as income, and then has taxed the return to that savings all of the worker's life. Taxing lifetime savings again at death is just a harsh double, or even triple, tax."

Tonight's Lineup

On CNBC's "Kudlow & Company" tonight:

Mike Holland, Chairman of Holland & Company, will address the Dow industrials and S&P 500's highest finish in nearly five years.

Are newspapers dying? We'll take a look at the "old media vs. new media" debate with Leo Hindery, InterMedia Partners Managing Partner/former YES Network CEO and Jennifer Reingold, Fast Company Sr. Writer. CNBC's Jim Goldman will join in the discussion.

A look at the mob and our ports with Michael Balboni, NY State Senator/NY Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman and Joseph King, Fmr. U.S. Customs Official/John Jay College of Criminal Justice Professor.

Cody Willard, General Partner at CL Willard Capital Partners will also be on board with his take on these subjects.

TONIGHT'S POLL:

Is the mob a threat to port security?

Cast your vote at www.kudlowcnbc.com.

Big Losses in the Gulf

The rug was pulled out from underneath Arab stock markets yesterday in a dramatic sell-off spurred by growing concerns in Gulf markets of over-stretched valuations. Stocks across the region gave back a substantial portion of their gains, as fear replaced confidence in the region.

Shares in Dubai were off close to 12 percent yesterday, while Saudi Arabia's Tadawul All-Shares index returned almost 5 percent of its gains. The Saudi index closed trading at 14,900, shedding almost a quarter of its value since reaching a record high of 20,635 in late February. Egypt's index hasn’t fared any better. It is down 22 percent from its February peak. Similar plunges were felt by a slew of other markets in the region, including Kuwait, Morocco and Jordan.

The chief catalyst contributing to the seismic corrections was the growing concern that share prices had gotten way ahead of themselves following a three-year bull run. The failure of the Dubai ports deal certainly did not help investor psychology either. And, perhaps, there has been some discounting going on due to the possibility of lower energy prices in the future. Lower oil prices will certainly lead to lower government and corporate income in the Gulf region.

Kingsmill Bond, emerging markets strategist at Deutsche Bank in London, told the Financial Times that the recent dispute over Dubai port operator DP World's ownership of US ports might have been "the straw that broke the camel's back".

"When markets are as overextended as markets in the Middle East have been, it doesn't take a lot to make people switch from greed to fear," he said.

A Pathetic State of Affairs

The Senate budget resolution now in play has dropped Bush's entitlement savings according to Budget Chairman Judd Gregg. Plus, Republican senators are trying to front-load new pork into the resolution even though Gregg wants to hold the line (at least on that).

After all the GOP Congressional talk about newfound budget-cutting religion, including earmark transparency and reform, so far they have produced nothing.

People like Arlen Specter, and many others, are still trying to get their pet projects funded. So, what else is new?

Gregg has thrown in the towel on mandatory spending cuts because he says he doesn't have the votes. Well then, I don't think that the American people should "have the votes" to keep the Republicans in charge of the Senate--or the House for that matter.

This is a pathetic state of affairs.

Happy Republicans

From Drudge...

The Pew Research Center recently updated a question about happiness that the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago has been asking since 1972.

In every asking of the question, ROLL CALL reports, Republicans have been happier than Democrats.

Republicans tend to be better off than Democrats, and that is one explanation for the happiness gap. But when the researchers controlled for household income, Republicans at all income levels were happier than Democrats at those same income levels.

As for ideology, conservative Republicans were happier than conservative Democrats, and moderate to liberal Republicans were happier than comparable Democrats.

Goldman's Midas Touch

Looks like Goldman shareholders are having a heckuva day...

"Goldman Sachs Group Inc., buoyed by revenue from merchant banking and record trading and money management fees, reported the largest quarterly profit in the history of the securities industry and said the outlook on Wall Street is as ``favorable'' as it's ever been.

Goldman shares rocketed 5.3 percent, the biggest one-day advance in three years, after the New-York-based firm said net income soared 64 percent in the fiscal first quarter to $2.48 billion, or $5.08 a share. Goldman's earnings in the three months ended Feb. 24 were greater than it netted in all of fiscal 2002 and topped the highest analyst estimate by more than 60 percent."

Read the full story on Bloomberg.

Poor Russ

What’s that sound I hear? It’s the mad, thundering stampede of Democrats galloping full speed away from Russ Feingold and his wacky resolution to censure President Bush over al Qaeda spying. Talk about being politically tone-deaf…

Feingold doesn’t exactly fit the “new and improved” Democratic mold of being strong on national security. Even “Peace-Now/Withdraw-Now” Nancy Pelosi isn’t going there. Although, California’s liberal lioness did say she feels Feingold’s pain and “understands Senator Feingold’s frustration.”

But I’ve got one for the finger-wagging Dems—a simple request for New York’s senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, as well as the Garden State’s Frank Lautenberg and Bob Menendez, and Maryland’s Barbara Mikulski: How about they go ahead and return their mobbed up money from the International Longshoremen’s PAC?

As Linda Chavez recently wrote, many of these same senators were among the chief critics of the Dubai port deal, but utter nary a peep when it comes to mob influence in the union that actually controls who works on these ports.

Whaddya say Senators? What about that mob money?

Tonight's Lineup

On CNBC's "Kudlow & Company" tonight:

A discussion on developments in Iran with Kenneth Timmerman from the Middle East Data Project and Lawrence Korb, Center for American Progress.

A markets discussion with Wharton professor Jeremy Siegel, Trust Company of the West's Stefan Abrams and John Augustine of Fifth Third Asset Management.

Tom Brown of Bankstocks.com, to discuss the Capital One-North Fork Bancorp deal.

A look into the financials of spring break, among other things, with Melissa Zamora Communications Coordinator, South Padre Island Convention and Visitors Bureau and psychologist Dr. Robert Butterworth.

TONIGHT'S POLL:

Will Iran play the oil card in their fight to develop nuclear weapons?

Cast your vote at www.kudlowcnbc.com.

More on the Mob

Here's a portion of an AP story from this weekend...

"Justice Department lawyers warned eight months ago that a nefarious element had infiltrated important East Coast ports, but they weren't talking about terrorists or Arab shipping companies.

They were talking about the mafia.

In a civil suit filed in July, prosecutors accused the International Longshoremen's Association, the 65,000-member union that supplies labor to ports from Florida to Maine, of being a "vehicle for organized crime" on the waterfront.

Packed with tales of corruption, embezzling and extortion, the complaint accused union executives of being associates of the Genovese and Gambino crime families.

The U.S. attorney's office asked a judge to seize control of the union, remove its officers and "put an end to the conspiracy among union officials, organized crime figures and others that has plagued some of the nation's most important ports for decades."

Click here for the full text.

Painting By the Numbers

The New York Sun printed a column I wrote today on the remarkable strength of the U.S. economy. Here is an excerpt:

"Despite the grim picture the mainstream media continue to paint about just about everything - the insurgent-ridden reconstruction effort in Iraq, the looming Iran threat, the failed Dubai ports deal, the twin deficits, the president's sagging poll numbers, the Jack Abrahamoff scandal, and on and on - there's one thing they just can't taint: This U.S. economy is very healthy.

It's always amazing to listen to conventional demand-side economic pundits and mainstream reporters who try as hard as they can to minimize the excellent performance of the American economy ever since lower marginal tax-rate incentives were put into place almost two-and-a-half years ago. The latest chant is that a warm winter has artificially stimulated consumer spending, and that a day of reckoning marked by a housing-price crash and an overwhelming debt burden is headed our way. This is utter nonsense.

Apart from the inherent resiliency of our free-market capitalist economy, the fact remains that tax-induced capital cost reduction and resulting higher investment returns have boosted investment, healed business woes, and created employment growth near 2 million new jobs a year (and nearly 5 million since the middle of 2003 when the Bush tax cuts were implemented).

Unemployment sits at a low 4.8 percent today. Wages are perking up, with average hourly earnings rising 3.5 percent over the past year and 4.8 percent at an annual rate over the past three months - their best performances since 2001. Importantly, falling gas prices at the pump are boosting real incomes enough that consumer spending is rolling ahead despite a slowdown in the housing sector and somewhat higher mortgage rates.

Of course, you can't please the worrywarts. Yesterday they complained that wages weren't rising; today they're bellyaching that wage growth is too fast and that the Fed is going to have to tighten monetary policy much more in order to ward off cost-push inflation. This is more bogus Phillips-curve argument. But growth does not cause inflation."

To read my column in its entirety, click here.

Stonewalling and Distortions from Yale

John Fund has written another stellar column on Yale's impossibly asinine decision granting admission to a former high-ranking Taliban henchman.

Fund's latest delves into the Yale administration's baffling modus operandi of stonewalling and half-truths in all matters related to Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi -- the former Taliban official welcomed by the who-knows-what-they're-thinking Yale administrators.

My old friend Ben Stein (who was the valedictorian of his 1970 Yale Law School class) tells Fund, "It's extremely discouraging. It's as if Yale had admitted a largely unrepentant SS man after World War II on the theory he would help rebuild Germany. Yale is being run by Froot Loops and is wacky."

This story is simply unbelievable, and grows more so by the day.

Ports and the Mob

Linda Chavez recently wrote a fascinating and important article ("Don't Forget the Mob") about mob infiltration of our nation's ports. It's a story that deserves more attention.

"With all the recent talk about security vulnerabilities at the nation's ports, one subject goes virtually unmentioned. The men who actually control many of the nation's docks, especially on the Eastern seaboard, are in the hip pocket of the Mafia and have been for decades."

She's got it right.

"[F]ew lawmakers who profess concern about port security seem in the slightest bit worried that the International Longshoremen's Association's role on the docks may constitute a huge security risk. The ILA contributes millions of dollars each election cycle. In the 2004 election cycle, the ILA's political action committee (PAC) had over $7 million cash on hand to distribute to candidates.

Among the top recipients of ILA PAC money in the last few elections were Sens. Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ, Robert Menendez, D-NJ, Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., Chuck Schumer, D-NY, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-NY, all of whom represent states with important ports. Some of these same senators are among the chief critics of the Dubai port deal, but they are noticeably silent when it comes to mob influence in the union that actually controls who works on these ports."

Just shows you one reason why there are no American companies running these ports. Who wants to mess with mob?

"Dubya's Lucky Loss on Ports"

John Podhoretz has a great op/ed piece in today's New York Post ("Saved by Revolt") suggesting that the sinking of the Dubai ports deal by congressional Republicans will actually end up helping Bush in the final analysis.

“Surely, his enemies say, this is curtains for Bush. Republicans are fleeing from him, he can't keep his troops in line - and he can't work his will. He's become a lame duck, they say. Wrong. Just as with his last serious political miscalculation, Bush has actually been saved by the very forces in his own governing coalition that are opposing him.”

Like the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination imbroglio, Republicans did Bush a big favor here. If there had been a congressional showdown to overcome a threatened Bush veto, this would have led to some serious political hemorrhaging. But instead, the way the controversy worked itself out works to Bush’s advantage. It’s a much easier solution for Bush politically, like the Miers flare-up.

“[I]n handing the president his hat, his party did him a service. Republicans have made certain that a few months from now most Americans will barely remember the whole business, which really did threaten the continued viability of his presidency.”

Bush was right on the foreign policy and economic merits, but the politics just didn’t work.

Podhoretz goes on to say, “the public reaction to the ports deal indicates that the American people are still very much committed to the War on Terror.” He’s right. It’s clear that Americans are still committed to the war on terror and protecting the homeland. Democrats are sorely mistaken if they think they’ve pulled even with Bush on the national security issue. Their instincts are almost always wrong, all the time, and they are going to lose ground again in the months before election.

The bottom line is that Bush remains committed to national security. The President is getting what he wants and what America needs on the Patriot Act and NSA surveillance of al Qaeda phone calls.

Hillary's Oval Office Dreams Not Looking So Good

According to a statewide poll released yesterday by Siena College's Research Institute, six in 10 New Yorkers believe Hillary Clinton is planning to run for president in 2008, but only about a third of New York voters say they would back her if she decides to run.

Almost half of New York voters, including three of every ten Democrats, said they would not vote for her for president, according to the poll.

These numbers echo a recent Gallup poll in which 51 percent of Americans say they would absolutely not vote for Mrs. Clinton for president were she to run, with only 16 percent definitely backing her.

This is a good thing, especially when you take into consideration statements from Mrs. Clinton like the one below...

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) at a fundraiser for Sen. Barbara Boxer in June 2004.

Sounds a bit socialist to me...

What Does This Tell You?

So the White House arranged a sale of Dubai Ports World that will transfer its port operations to a yet-to-be-named U.S. entity. We don't even know if it is a private American company or a government agency of some sort.

Here's something Sen. Schumer can fume about -- one of the very few private American firms capable of running a bunch of port terminals is HALLIBURTON. That's right, Halliburton. Remember them? Every Democrats' favorite.

But the big question is whether foreign investors are being repelled by neo-protectionist American politicians who are using phony national security reasons to advance an anti-trade, anti-investment, xenophobic agenda. This is a point that Steve Moore over at the WSJ is putting forth and it is vitally important. Do we really want to tell foreign capital not to come here? Do we want it in China? Russia? Brazil?

An international think tank estimates that U.S. jobs from foreign direct investment average over $60,000 per job; 34 percent more than U.S. capitalized jobs.

Today's stock market opened up, but at precisely 2:00 p.m. EST when the Dubai Ports World sale was announced, stocks turned tail and closed down 33 points on the day. What does that tell you?

Do we really want to send a message to world investors that we don't want their capital? Do we really want a political surrender to protectionism? Do we really want to emulate the political economy of Smoot Hawley of the 1930s. I don't think so.

The House on Dubai

The latest news that House Republican leaders are going to vote to block any Dubai Ports World agreement is unfortunate. This is a revolt against President Bush.

As I have made clear on a number of occasions, it smacks of protectionism and xenophobia. And it could completely interrupt the forty-five day security investigation going on inside the executive branch. Fortunately, the Senate is still engaged in the process, but the House is acting hastily and unwisely before all the facts are known. I still have yet to see any evidence of a security breach in Dubai ports.

Take a look at the Financial Times story from March 5th on the Dubai ports deal (“Most maritime managers see little risk”). According to a survey, most maritime managers see little risk in the deal. Security protocols have been established for all port operators. There’s no unusual risk in this latest deal.

("The survey found 58 per cent of respondents thought the P&O takeover would not endanger US national security, while 30 per cent said it would and 20 per cent said they needed more information. Only 24 per cent thought the US government should prevent the transaction from going through, while 55 per cent thought it should allow it and another 21 per cent said they needed more information.

Some 58 per cent thought politicians’ concerns about the deal resulted from a lack of understanding, while 26 per cent thought they had legitimate concerns. Another 16 per cent attributed the politicians’ actions to other motives – universally unfavourable.")

The whole issue has been totally politicized without proper and necessary analysis.

DeLay Victory

Congrats to Tom DeLay for easily defeating three rivals in his GOP primary down in Texas. Mr. DeLay got 61 percent of the 3-way vote. It’s really the first piece of good news for House Republicans in quite a while. And even though it’s red state Texas, this development could conceivably mean that corruption charges against the GOP will not carry as much weight in November elections as suggested by many pundits.

We shall see…

The Cards Will Soon Be Revealed

Rumsfeld, Rice and Cheney have all been out in force recently, warning Iran of dire consequences stemming from the rogue nation’s commitment to its nuclear program, as well as its clandestine infiltration of Iraq where Iranian forces foment turmoil.

The heat from Bush’s “Power Trio” comes as the subject of Iran's nuclear program is set to be addressed by the U.N. Security Council. Matters were certainly not helped with Iran threatening Americans with “harm and pain” today.

�