PRAs are A-Okay
In "Losing the Social Security Battle" (April 18), Stephen Moore wrote, "Senate Republicans are now crafting a compromise proposal that takes personal accounts off the table."
It is absurd to think that after having worked tirelessly to educate the public about the need for Social Security reform and the benefit of voluntary Personal Retirement Accounts, Republicans would take PRAs out of the solution to fix Social Security for future generations.
Indeed, Republicans have been working hard to get Democrats to the table--reaching out to their colleagues on the other side of the aisle to find a solution to save and strengthen Social Security. However, Moore's article was factually incorrect in stating that Republicans have taken voluntary PRAs off the table. All ideas remain on the table, and PRAs continue to be the centerpiece of Republicans' plan to save and strengthen Social Security.
Now is not the time to criticize Republicans for trying to negotiate a deal with Democrats or to say that their plan is "floundering." Republicans remain committed to incorporating PRAs into the Social Security program now so that they have the time needed to grow and help sustain the overall program.
PRAs provide individuals--not the government--with control and ownership. They give individuals flexibility with their retirement savings, rather than a fixed income check from Washington, D.C. And they hold the promise of a greater return for future generations than what they are promised by today's Social Security system.
As the dialogue continues, Republicans remain committed to implementing PRAs into Social Security, engaging Democrats, and looking at all solutions that allow Social Security to remain a program on which our children and grandchildren can depend.
Sen. Rick Santorum
Washington, DC
A Lightning Bolton
Regarding Stephen F. Hayes's "'I Don't Do Carrots'" (March 21): I assume that the hesitation to support John Bolton's nomination as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations has been based on concern over the nominee's reputation for tough talk, and for his oft-repeated criticism of the U.N. and other international organizations. There may have been a time when such concerns had merit, but that time is not now.
I have known and worked with John Bolton for more than a decade. He has a remarkable ability to analyze the most complicated foreign policy problems, and an equally remarkable ability to express himself. I did not always agree with his policy recommendations, but even on those rare occasions it was a close call.
That John often publicly debates issues "with the bark off" is true and is at the heart of much of the opposition to his nomination.
Yet given what we all know about the sorry state of the U.N., it is time that we were represented in that body by someone with enough guts to demand reform--and to see that whatever changes result are more than window dressing.
It is clear that the future of the U.N.--and of America's role within that organization--is in question. Who better to demonstrate to the member states that the United States is serious about reform? Who better to speak for all Americans, including Senate Democrats and Republicans, who are dedicated to a healthy U.N. that will fulfill the dreams of its founders?
Ambassador Bolton will be an articulate and effective critic. He will not be irresponsible in his pursuit of reform because he is smart enough to know how counterproductive that would be.
But neither will Bolton seek compromise with those who profit from--and seek to preserve--the status quo ad infinitum.
Lawrence S. Eagleburger
Charlottesville, VA
Tunisian Pluralism
Reuel Marc Gerecht's "What Hath Ju-Ju Wrought!" (March 14) unfortunately includes a number of inaccuracies regarding Tunisia.
Gerecht ignores, for instance, the fact that democratic pluralism is a reality in Tunisia, based on the reforms initiated by President Zine el Abidine ben Ali since 1987.
The last two presidential elections were in fact pluralistic and the incumbent was challenged by other contenders for the office of president. Six political parties are today represented in parliament and a total of eight political parties are active in the country.
Political parties, including those of the opposition, are represented in local, regional, and national councils. They are also entitled to public funds to finance their campaigns and various activities including the publication of their own newspapers. Whether in parliament, in various public forums, or in the media, there is a vibrant political debate in Tunisia.
Gerecht did not have to borrow a page from any other book to understand the reason why Tunisia has invited Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon to attend the World Summit on the Information Society, scheduled to take place in Tunisia next November. All world leaders, including Prime Minister Sharon, were invited by Tunisian president Zine el Abidine ben Ali to attend this United Nations event.
Tunisia has unwaveringly supported peace efforts in the Middle East and reform in the Arab world. For many years already, it has taken a principled stand against all forms of extremism and terrorism.
Its relationship with the United States is based on a 200-year-old tradition of friendship and cooperation and a common commitment to the values of moderation and liberty.
Taoufik Chebbi
Embassy of Tunisia
Washington, DC
Second Coming
Katherine Mangu-Ward has done a great service in exposing the myths of Jim Wallis ("God's Democrat," April 11), the most preposterous of which is that his politics are neither left nor right, but biblical. While Mangu-Ward's analysis of the "young Jim" and "old Jim" is on target, I have good reason to believe she misses the mark in concluding that the "old Jim" hasn't been successful in attracting followers.
In late 1971, I was an undergraduate at a prominent evangelical Christian college and helped to organize a campus visit by Jim and his Post-American buddies (they were all guys). At the time, many of my friends and I were enamored by Jim's "radical" Christianity and found it a welcome alternative to the suffocating politics of so much of what was still then called Christian fundamentalism. Over the years my political worldview changed while Jim's clearly hasn't.
After his initial impact among my college generation in the early 1970s, Jim's star sunk in the 1980s and 1990s--only to rise again in the past several years. As a professor at an evangelical Christian college today, I have watched in amusement as a new generation of evangelical college students has rediscovered Jim Wallis.
Recently, however, my amusement has given way to alarm, as it has become clear that Wallis and his agenda are no passing intellectual fad. The sad reality is that anti-Western, anti-American, anti-capitalist, and anti-Israeli biases infuse the academic culture of many evangelical Christian college campuses.
Fueled by a professoriate that embraces the same leftist agenda as that of their colleagues in the secular academy, these Christian professors are making great strides in reorienting the political leanings of the coming generation of evangelical leaders. The resurrection of the evangelical left is real, and its influence is growing.
And make no mistake about it: The second coming of Jim Wallis has played an important role in all this.
Dean C. Curry
Grantham, PA
Berger's Whopper
Regarding Sandy Berger's light sentence for his theft and destruction of government documents at the National Archives (Scrapbook, April 11): There is the distinct smell of a cover-up here.
I do research for the U.S. government at the National Archives, and have for almost 15 years. There are very clear rules of behavior when it comes to handling archival documents, all of which are government property.
Theft and destruction of such documents are felonies and should have resulted in a minimum of over one year in jail and a hefty fine for Berger, no matter who he is or was. To reduce it essentially to a misdemeanor, especially the "destruction" aspect of the affair, does serious damage to the public's respect for the authority of the National Archives and its contents.
Now any fool will steal documents and destroy them and--using the "Berger Ploy"--receive the same light sentence that Berger got. Before Berger's disgraceful conduct, if you or I had done what he did, we would have been singing the "Jail House Blues."
This whole affair stinks. The congressional committee that oversees the National Archives should look into what kind of lousy deal was struck, by whom, and why. Then let the firings begin.
Max Friedman
Arlington, VA
Zero Tolerance
Olivier Guitta's article on the Saudi Arabian education system ("A Nation at Risk," April 4) was excellent. However, the 2003 study of Saudi schoolbooks that Guitta cited was a joint project of the American Jewish Committee and the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace.
Guitta only mentioned CMIP. The full study is available on AJC's website ( www.ajc.org).
Kenneth Bandler
American Jewish Committee
Washington, DC