Op-Eds

Op-eds 09/11/2015
Putin's Push for Power
Op-eds 05/29/2015
My plan would protect patients
Op-eds 05/22/2015
The Wall Street Journal: In Search of an ObamaCare Breakout
Op-eds 04/14/2015
Wall Street Journal: A Make-or-Break ObamaCare Moment
Op-eds 03/11/2015
The Hill: Government must encourage cyber threat information sharing to combat hacking
Op-eds 08/2/2014
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Why I took President Barack Obama to court
Op-eds 05/6/2014
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Coverup on Benghazi does make a difference
<b>Originally printed in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, May 6, 2014</b> Fifteen months ago, I asked then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton why she hadn't simply picked up the phone and talked to the Benghazi survivors to find out what had actually happened. Instead of being straightforward, she deflected this uncomfortable question with a now-infamous question of her own: "What difference, at this point, does it make?" The answer to that question and the motive behind this administration's lies and coverup are finally becoming quite clear. The belated release of a Sept. 14, 2012, talking points email from deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes proves that senior White House officials were fully engaged in directing the coverup and perpetuating the lies. According to the Rhodes email, the goal of the administration's Benghazi spin was "to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy." This was in spite of the fact that within hours of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack, the administration knew — or certainly should have known — there was no protest.
Op-eds 04/28/2014
The Washington Post: It is time for the West to move ahead without Russia
<b>Originally printed in The Washington Post, April 25, 2014 </b> We recently visited Norway, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Moldova. In each country, our allies want a stronger immediate response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its ongoing subversion of Ukraine. They also believe, as we do, that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s latest acts of aggression require an enduring strategic response from the United States, Europe and NATO. It should be clear to all that Putin’s Russia has taken a dark turn. There is no resetting this relationship. We cannot return to business as usual. Western countries had high hopes for our relationships with Russia after the Cold War and acted on that basis. We provided billions of dollars to help Russia’s transition from communism. We created new mechanisms for consultation. We expanded trade. NATO committed not to deploy significant military capabilities onto the territory of new alliance allies, even as it expanded. In short, the West sought to include Russia in the promise of a Europe whole, free and at peace — a vision we still believe would benefit all participants.
Op-eds 02/25/2014
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Reform federal program to connect classrooms
<b> Originally printed in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, February 21st, 2014 </b> Based on how much we spend, every child in America should be getting a world-class education, which would include connecting our classrooms to digital opportunities. To get there, the federal government doesn't need to spend more money — the Federal Communications Commission already runs a program called E-Rate that distributes over $2 billion to schools and libraries to purchase communications services each year. What we <em>do</em> need is real reform in Washington and an end to the waste, fraud and abuse inherent in the current program.
Op-eds 02/5/2014
The Hill: Congress, not the FCC, should set Internet policy
<b>Originally published in The Hill, February 2nd, 2014</b> Today, Americans access broadband Internet almost everywhere. We are using it to talk, view, tweet, post and pin at home, at work, in our cars and on the move. As much as broadband is changing the way we live, it also challenges the decades-old assumptions behind the regulation of communications networks in the United States. For years, the federal government regulated telecommunications providers as if confining them to lanes on a racetrack: one lane for traditional telephone service, another for wireless and yet another for cable. Each lane was assigned different rules by the government because it came along at a different time, operated with a different business model and utilized service-specific technologies.