Economic stimulus proposals tend to focus on the short-term.  Since much of that money will end up buying imported goods, its economic benefit here in the US will be diluted.  There may be a role for stimulus, but it should be thought of as short-term relief more than an economic fix.

The way to help the economy over the long term and recreate lost jobs is to reduce the cost of doing business, especially the cost of employing workers in the US.  That is why I favor cutting employer-paid payroll taxes.  Also, we need to reduce businesses' health-care costs.

Cuts in corporate income taxes, proposed by some candidates, would benefit companies that are already profitable (and hence paying income taxes), but would do nothing to transform unprofitable manufacturing operations into profitable ones.

For more of Samuel Berry's views, please visit
http://www.berry2008.org

Vice President Cheney is right, about Iran at least.  The United States must not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. 

Time is not on our side.  All the international diplomacy, UN deliberations and compliance deadlines have merely provided Iran with more time to perfect its uranium enrichment process.  While Iranian President Ahmadinejad claims that Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, Iran is in reality inching toward nuclear weapons capability.  By some estimates, it may be able manufacture such weapons by 2009.

What further sanctions are available against Iran to force it to abandon its nuclear ambitions?  While we cannot take the military option off the table, our immediate focus should be to obtain a worldwide embargo on Iranian oil exports.  This would be the first sanction regime to hit Iran hard, as it derives eighty to ninety percent of its export earnings from oil.

If countries such as China and Russia are not willing to cooperate in an embargo, then we must consider legislation to impose some economic sanctions against those countries as well.  Nuclear proliferation is an important enough issue to warrant such tactics.

Sanctioning China and Russia to obtain their cooperation is surely a less draconian step than launching a military strike against Iran.  The military option should be considered a last resort, partly because Iranian missiles are poised to make a retaliatory strike on our bases and allies in the region.

Reports on Iran's nuclear program are expected in November from Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Javier Solana of the European Union.  In these reports, we should look for a realistic plan to verify that Iran's program has an exclusively peaceful intent going forward.  Failing that, the United States should seek a UN Security Council resolution establishing the oil embargo.  At the same time, we should open direct talks with Iran about its nuclear program.

For more of Samuel Berry's views, please visit
http://www.berry2008.org

In his September 13, 2007 policy speech on Iraq, President Bush repeated his theme that American efforts at stabilizing Iraq from a security perspective will lead to political reconciliation there.  According to the President, U.S. troops continue to make progress toward pacifying the country, and the bulk of those forces need to remain.

Perhaps so, but I became uneasy when the President predicted a continued military involvement in Iraq beyond the end of his term of office.  I still believe our troops should be out of Iraq by early 2009.  Six years of the Iraq war is more than enough.  Indeed, I don't think any of the war's advocates contemplated, in 2003, that we would be making such a long-term commitment.  After all, the original purpose of the invasion was simply to remove weapons of mass destruction.

I would withdraw American forces from Iraq by Spring, 2009.  We need to refocus our energy on rebuilding the military and securing our ports and borders.

For more of Samuel Berry's views, please visit
http://www.berry2008.org

One of the major problems with the bill is that it streamlines the path to permanent residency status.  True, our country's need for migrant agricultural workers should be filled by immigrants holding a temporary (but renewable) work visa under a guest worker program.  This status, however, should have no relationship to permanent residency.  After the season is over, these workers should take their savings and go back to their home country where the money would encourage economic development.

The Senate bill does contain some good ideas.  It would enhance border security.  Employers would be required to consult a national employment eligibility system.  Such a database would assure legal status and could be used to enforce the temporary nature of the work visa.

The bill's guest worker program, however, needs to be redesigned.  Guest workers should be required to return home more frequently than provided in the Senate bill (at least annually) to insure that they maintain contact with their home country.  Workers currently here illegally should be allowed to participate in this program immediately (without regard to a quota).  I am opposed to the imposition of a fine, but I also see no reason to provide to illegals or new migrants a path to permanent residency.  As provided in the bill, those with a criminal record should be screened out of the guest worker program.  Visas under the program ought to be subject to a quota equal to available jobs in the agricultural sector.

I do not think we need to expand quotas for long-term work visas based on special skills.  Instead, we should insist that U.S. citizens be given preferential treatment for jobs requiring education or skill.

For more of Samuel Berry's views, please visit
http://www.berry2008.org

If conservatives want to hold the White House in 2008, our candidate must convey a vision for the future.  This was Ronald Reagan's great strength.

At last week's Republican debate, the candidates had little opportunity for this because the format did not allow for opening or closing statements.  Perhaps in future debates one or more candidates will set forth a coherent strategy for America.

If I were included in any of the debates, I would try to promote the following goals:

Improving our economy's competitiveness by reducing the cost of doing business.  This would include lessening the burden of employers' payroll taxes and health care costs.

Restoring fiscal discipline in Washington and insuring the solvency of Social Security and Medicare.

Doing our fair share to fight global warming while encouraging China and India to do likewise.

I believe a conservative can win in 2008 and achieve these goals while remaining faithful to our pro-life principles.

For more of Samuel Berry's views, please visit
http://www.berry2008.org