Alabama Federation of Republican Women

Elois Zeanah has a broad background in politics, government, and volunteerism.  She has a  B.A. from the University of Alabama.  A native of Alabama, Elois moved back home to retire in 2003 from Thousand Oaks, California, where she lived for 27 years.

While in California, Elois served on the City Council for eight years including one year as mayor.  As an elected official, Elois was elected the Best Civic Leader four times in the Los Angeles' Daily News "Readers' Choice Awards".  She also managed and won seven local electoral campaigns.  In addition, Elois served as a commissioner on the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreational Area and was founder and president of a coalition of homeowner associations.  Before moving to California, Elois worked in Washington, D.C. for several presidential appointees.  These included the White House, the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

Since retiring to Alabama, Elois has been very active in Republican politics.  She is currently president of the Alabama Federation of Republican Women.  Prior to her election, Elois served as AFRW's 3^rd vice president and 1^st vice president and as chair of AFRW's illegal immigration issues committee.  She received the 2006-2007 biennial award as the "Most Valuable Member of the Alabama Federation of Republican Women" and the "Most Volunteer Hours" award for 2005-2006. 

Elois has served several terms as president of her local Republican Women's club, which won the "Most Outstanding Club" award for 2006-2007 and 2008-2009.  She is a member of the State Executive Committee and has served as secretary of the Alabama Republican Party 6^th District and of the GOP Tuscaloosa County Executive Committee.  In September 2007, Elois was appointed by Governor Riley as a commissioner to the Alabama's Patriotic Immigration Panel.  

Elois has also been active in non-partisan organizations and received the West Alabama Distinctive Woman of the Year Award for Lifetime Achievement in 2009.   Her favorite non-political past-times are leading student tours as a docent at the Warner Museum of Young American Art and writing for her blog "voice for voters". 

Morning Bell: Big Government, Big Business, Big Problem

Posted By Conn Carroll On February 8, 2011 @ 9:10 am In Enterprise and Free Markets,First Principles

In what Politico is calling "the first whiff of the desperation inside the White House about the slowness of the economic recovery," President Barack Obama spoke to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce yesterday, claiming: "I understand the challenges you face. I understand you are under incredible preasure to cut costs and keep your margins up. I understand the significance of your obligations to your shareholders and the pressures that are created by quarterly reports. I get it." No. No, he doesn't.

President Obama went on to say, "Even as we eliminate burdensome regulations, America's businesses have a responsibility as well to recognize that there are some basic safeguards, some basic standards that are necessary to protect the American people from harm or exploitation. Not every regulation is bad. Not every regulation is burdensome on business. A lot of the regulations that are out there are things that all of us welcome in our lives." Sounds nice. But then the President went on to defend Obamacare, which requires hundreds of new regulations, raises taxes by more than $500 billion, and has already forced the Department of Health and Human Services to grant more than 700 waivers to President Obama's political allies.

Any successful market economy does require some basic rules of the road to function. But there is a big difference between a general system of rules that applies equally to everyone and an invasive regulatory scheme that rewards the politically connected. If the President truly wants to "get it," he should read Bruce Caldwell's new Heritage paper "Ten (Mostly) Hayekian Insights for Trying Economic Times." As Caldwell notes, Friedrich Hayek stressed the necessity for clear and certain rules for markets to work effectively, but he also recognized the dangers that government regulations brought to the table. Specifically, Hayek noted that new regulations (1) always target the causes of the last crisis, not the next one; (2) insert uncertainty into the market place; and (3) are hijacked by strong special interests. On that last point Hayek wrote:

We must finally mention another instance in which it is undeniable that the mere fact of bigness creates a highly undesirable position: namely where, because of the consequences of what happens to a big enterprise, government cannot afford to let such an enterprise fail.

Caldwell notes that this passage is almost certainly referring to President Jimmy Carter's first bailout of Chrysler in 1979. Fast forward to Sunday's Super Bowl and the federal government is still bailing out Chrysler. Even as the company spent almost $9 million on the longest Super Bowl ad in history, Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne announced he was seeking a "better deal" on taxpayer-financed government loans.

This is what happens when big government and big business get in bed together: The taxpayer loses. President Obama went on to claim that all of the government "investments" he is pushing would be for "projects that are determined not by politics." That is simply impossible: If it is the government that is making the investment decisions-whether they be for high-speed rail, electric cars, or solar power-then those decisions are by definition political. How can the President deny this simple fact?

The President ended his speech with an abridged history of the New Deal, noting that "the relationship between the President and business leaders during the course of the Depression had been rocky at times" but that at the onset of war, Roosevelt "gathered his family and he explained that he was going to head up what would become the War Production Board. ... Not only did this help us win the war; it led to millions of new jobs and helped produce the great American middle class."

There are indeed some parallels between the Great Depression and Great Recession. As President Obama noted at the beginning of his speech, today's Chamber of Commerce supported his Recovery Act, just as 1933's Chamber of Commerce had supported FDR's 1933 National Industrial Recovery Act. FDR massively expanded the power and reach of the federal government, causing entrepreneurs to leave their money on the sidelines. President Obama has done the exact same thing. But let's hope the parallels end there. As President Obama explicitly acknowledged yesterday, the New Deal didn't end the Great Depression; World War II did. A "War Production Board" where big government and big business are one big happy "family" may have been enough to win World War II, but it will not "win the future." 

Revealing Reagan's True Legacy

 by Edwin Feulner, Ph.D.

It's been more than six years since our nation bid farewell to Ronald Reagan, born 100 years ago this month. Yet it seems at times as though he never left.

Consider how Reagan's name surfaced repeatedly after the most recent State of the Union address as pundits - both liberal and conservative - weighed the speech's effectiveness. His Photoshopped image is on the cover of Time, his arm draped around President Obama.

"If Obama has bounced back from the drubbing his party took at the polls last November," Richard Norton Smith writes in the magazine, "it is in no small measure because he has been acting positively Reaganesque as of late."

Acting, perhaps, but not governing. It's worth reminding ourselves as we mark the centennial of Reagan's birth what he accomplished - and how.

It's important to do this in part because much of what passes for praise of Reagan is veiled criticism. Reagan is hailed, for example, as a great communicator. And with good reason: Few politicians could match his rhetorical skill and his ability to articulate great themes that resonated with the American people.

But that's where many on the left stop. What they really seek to emulate is not his policies or his agenda. They hope that if they study his methods, a little of his "magic" will rub off on the liberal policies that have proved such a hard sell over the past two years. Dress the liberal agenda in Reaganesque terms, and the electorate is yours, right?

What condescending nonsense. It wasn't just Reagan's ability to communicate that endeared him to millions of Americans. It was the fact that he was articulating their most deeply cherished beliefs. It went well beyond the optimistic outlook - which, although welcome, is something any president can attempt. It was because he spoke in direct terms that avoided the usual buzzword approach we get from Washington.

He used that approach to say what many Americans thought: Taxes are too high - let's cut them. Inflation is too high - let's tame it. The Cold War can be won, not managed, and the world made safer for everybody - let's do it.

The fable of the left (the hard left, anyway - many others are coming around) is that this was all smoke and mirrors. But the facts tell a different story. Starting from the "stagflation" mess his predecessor handed him, Reagan created a genuine economic miracle. After a three-stage tax cut and a reduction in government growth, our economy began to expand - by 31 percent from 1983 to 1989 in real terms. Americans of every class - rich, middle-class and poor - saw their wealth increase.

It was our nation's longest peacetime expansion in a long and prosperous history. By decade's end, we had added the economic equivalent of a new Germany to our gross national product. Inflation was cut by two-thirds, interest rates by half. Unemployment dropped to the lowest level in 15 years.

Even before the end of his first term, the signs of distinct progress were unmistakable. Small wonder that Reagan's famous "Morning in America" campaign resonated with so many voters, leading to a landslide re-election in 1984. Starting from the "stagflation" mess his predecessor handed him, Reagan created a genuine economic miracle.

People loved him for it. That's why so many politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, seek to portray themselves as latter-day Reagans. To decide whether they deserve this mantle, however, consider this quote from his farewell address:

" 'We the people' tell the government what to do; it doesn't tell us. 'We the people' are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast."

Only a politician who agrees with this - and governs accordingly - can be considered Reagan's true heir.

Ed Feulner is president of the Heritage Foundation