August 2007 – Page 3

Who will I support? – part eight

Part eight of my series begins what will be a six-day blitz of installments, one that I discussed earlier. This time I’m going to look at the candidates’ stance on entitlements. You can see where I stand on Social Security and Medicare by following the links. I’ve sort of expanded the Medicare realm into a discussion of where the candidates stand on health care and the government’s role in general.

This will be a fairly long chapter, although not as long as I thought it might be as many candidates still don’t touch that “third rail” of Social Security. And this also continues the two-point incrementalism I’ve followed, the subject is worth 19 points. However, I can pretty much guarantee no one will get all 19; to be honest, it’s going to be a matter of whether they lose points.

As always, I start with the GOP and first up in alphabetical order…

Sam Brownback begins with this on his Social Security ideas:

The Social Security System is facing a demographic crisis that will someday affect the financial viability of the Social Security Trust Fund. Projections for the financial solvency of the Trust Fund show that as baby boomers begin to enter retirement there will be an increase in the number of people drawing social security benefits, and yet a corresponding decrease in the number of working people who provide those benefits. Clearly, this will present a crisis within the system. We must firmly resolve to keep our commitment to current retirees and those preparing to retire. Further, we must modernize the system to ensure that Social Security is financially sound for our children. I believe every American has a stake in this debate, and I will continue to keep the dialogue open as we work toward a solution.

Then he tackles health care here:

Our healthcare system will thrive with increased consumer choice, consumer control and real competition. I believe it is important that we have price transparency within our health care system. This offers consumers, who are either enrolled in high deductible health plans or who pay out-of-pocket, the ability to shop around for the best prices and plan for health care expenditures. Also, the existing health insurance market forces consumers to pay for extra benefits in their premiums, such as aromatherapy and acupuncture, which tends to increase the cost of coverage. Instead, consumers should be able to choose the from health care coverage plans that are tailored to fit their families’ needs and values. Accordingly, individuals should be allowed to purchase health insurance across state lines. Finally, I believe that consumers should have control over the use of their personal health records. I have a proposal that would offer consumers a means to create a lifetime electronic medical record, while, at the same time, ensuring that the privacy of their personal health information is secured and protected.

Over time, the socialized medicine model has shown to deprive consumers of access to life-saving treatments and is downright inconsistent with the spirit of the American people to be free from unwanted government intervention. I will continue to work at the forefront to create a consumer-centered, not government-centered, healthcare model that offer both affordable coverage choices and put the consumer in the driver’s seat.

Unfortunately, Rudy Giuliani ranks health care as one of his “12 Commitments” but hasn’t elaborated on it yet as I write this.

Mike Huckabee talks about health care here.

Also placing his thoughts on the health care issue online is Mitt Romney. There are several sublinks to follow there as well.

Tom Tancredo places both a description and a slightly different .pdf link on his site. The Tancredo link to health care is here and Social Security here. These are the text portions.

The two major problems are the high cost of care and the number of uninsured. Tort reform and immigration enforcement would save the system billions and drive down costs. In California alone, illegal immigrants cost the system $800 million annually and have forced 84 hospitals to close.

As for the uninsured: as many as 25% of them are illegal aliens and should be deported or encouraged to leave. For citizens and legal residents who are employed by businesses which cannot afford coverage, I favor association health plans which band small businesses together to access lower cost insurance. For those out of work, state governments should be the primary source of relief, although I would not rule out federal incentives or limited subsidies to make sure families who have fallen on hard times are not without coverage.

And Social Security:

There is no question that the system is broken. Projections show that by 2016, the only way to avert its collapse will be deep cuts in benefits, heavy borrowing, or substantial tax hikes. The best suggestion I have heard is to switch from a defined benefits approach to a defined contribution approach with payroll tax funded private investment accounts. These accounts would be made available to young workers and function similarly to 401Ks.

Wrapping up the GOP side is Tommy Thompson and his healthcare proposal.

Now for your reading “pleasure” is the Democrat responses. Most of these turn out to be just links. Of course they’re just something else as well but I’ll have fun ripping them apart later.

Joe Biden, in third person, on health care:

Joe Biden believes that to protect jobs, compete in a global economy and strengthen families we have to have to address out-dated health care system. The next president will have to deal with two challenges: containing the growing costs of health care and providing access to the 47 million Americans who don’t have health insurance.

Joe Biden believes we need to take three steps to contain the cost of health care: modernize the system, simplify the system and reduce errors. He supports the transition to secure electronic records so that people can provide their doctors and nurses with vital medical information in real time. He believes there should be a uniform, efficient system to submit claims.

Joe Biden believes the path toward a 21st century health care system starts with the most vulnerable in our society. He would expand health insurance for children and relieve families and businesses of the burden of expensive catastrophic cases. He supports states that are pursuing innovative alternatives to make sure that everyone has access to health care and believes we should use data from these states to evaluate what works best in providing affordable access to health care for all.

Hillary Clinton has both an issue page and a feature page regarding health care.

With a sort of rare appearance in this forum, Chris Dodd goes into both health care and, as he terms them, senior issues.

John Edwards doesn’t do a double-dip, it’s just health care for him too.

Mike Gravel has a few guts as he’s the rare Democrat taking a stab at Social Security:

Senator Mike Gravel wants to put real money, rather than borrowed money, in the Social Security Trust Fund, investing it properly and identifying the interests of individual beneficiaries so they can leave their surplus funds to their heirs. He also calls on Congress to stop raiding the Social Security Trust Fund. This is key to ensuring that Social Security will be around long after the Baby Boomers are gone for the next generation of Americans who have paid into it.

Also he has the obligatory look at health care:

Senator Gravel advocates a universal health-care voucher program in which the federal government would issue annual health care vouchers to Americans based on their projected needs. Under the Senator’s plan, all Americans would be fully covered and would be free to use their vouchers to choose their own health care professional. No one would ever be denied health insurance because of their health, wealth, or any other reason. A universal health-care voucher plan will also relieve American businesses of the financial responsibility of insuring their workers while ensuring that their workers get adequate care.

Dennis Kucinich has FOUR different links on his site, calling them Social Security, Medicare Bill, Seniors, and Universal Health. Policy wonk in action.

Barack Obama simply deals with health care.

So does Bill Richardson.

The question now becomes, “how much do I agree with all of these viewpoints, and how many points will I assign?”

Particularly on Social Security, Sam Brownback almost seems to fill space with his paragraphs. While I’m sure I’ve been accused of doing the same thing, I’m not running for President either. He does talk some in his health care segment about a consumer-centered model (which is good) but I’m afraid he’s going to use the federal government to enforce it. I suppose overall this is good enough for just 4 points, there’s not a lot to like here.

It’ll be interesting to see what Giuliani comes up with, but not having the data now will affect his end score and may cost him my endorsement.

I really, really like what Mike Huckabee has to say about health care. He nails what I see as two main points – allowing more consumer choice and letting states be laboratories with their own programs. Unfortunately he doesn’t go into Social Security at all so I can only award half the points. I think the only minor quibble I have is with tax credits for health insurance; not that it’s not a good idea, but it doesn’t go with my tax philosophy. He gets 9 points of 19.

Mitt Romney is most known for the health insurance mandate he secured in Massachusetts. While he claims that this is the best way to avoid government-mandated health care (by allowing people to choose their own insurance programs), the fact that one must make a choice bothers me most. It’s an idea for the hopper but I don’t think it’s the most wise one, so I let Mitt have 3 points because he doesn’t discuss Social Security either.

I have to give Tom Tancredo credit for addressing both the Social Security and health care issues. Establishing private accounts for Social Security (similar to what President Bush has proposed) is a good half-measure to stabilize the program, although I’d prefer it “wither on the vine”. Got to start someplace, though. Tancredo also gets credit for noting that the illegal immigration problem does affect the health care issue, but he’s not one to move away from the employer-based health insurance system like Mike Huckabee is, choosing instead to create larger groups for coverage. Nor does he rule out federal subsidies. Overall, the half-measure for Social Security and small steps in the right direction for health care get Tancredo 7 points.

Tommy Thompson also goes sort of halfway on health care, correctly seeing that preventative care is a key to reducing costs and advocating the industry use technology in a more integrated way. But, like Romney, he also wants insurance mandated for all which subtracts points. He also fails to get into Social Security so I’ll match the Romney total and give Tommy 3 points too.

For the Democrats, I’ll give Joe Biden credit for (like Tommy Thompson) discussing the role of technology in the health care field. He sounds a lot like Thompson, but also wants to expand the federal role where insuring children is concerned. And since he doesn’t discuss Social Security, it’s practically a wash. I guess I’ll give Biden one point since I gave Thompson 3, partly because he doesn’t go as far as some of his more leftwing cohorts do.

Hillary doesn’t talk about Social Security, only about what’s being called HillaryCare – more federal government mandates, regulations, and spending. So she’ll only lose 9.5 points.

Chris Dodd definitely goes after the AARP vote with a laundry list of proposals, including being dead-set against Social Security privatization. On the health care front, he envisions a Romney-like health insurance plan for all based on what members of Congress receive. But I have the same issue as I do with Romney – while coverage can be consumer-based, you have to be covered. And while I’d certainly prefer to have health insurance, some may not. It’s not the worst idea in the world, but too much of a mandate for me. Dodd will be docked 15 points.

John Edwards wants to require everyone be insured too, but doesn’t make it consumer-based like Dodd does. Since he also doesn’t touch the Social Security “third rail” I can only dock him 9.5 points too.

On Social Security, I’m sure the “real money” that Mike Gravel wants to put into it comes from higher FICA taxes. That’s the only way to pay for everyone who’s eligible now and in the future. But I do give him credit for wanting to allow unused benefits to be passed on to heirs. It’s a sort of privatization-lite, so I can’t dock him for Social Security. The health care vouchers are also an intriguing idea that might be better tried at a state level. I guess instead of “money follows the child” it’s “money follows the sick.” I will give the man credit for innovation in both categories and add 3 points to his score.

Dennis Kucinich says, “Health care is a right that all Americans deserve.” He also is tooth and nail against Social Security reform of any sort. Please read the Constitution and tell me where either of these are in it. Kucinich also claims Michael Moore is in favor of his health plan. 19 points off.

In deciding to drive profitability out of both business (employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan) and health insurance (Obama will prevent companies from abusing their monopoly power through unjustified price increases and force insurers to spend more funds on patient care instead of keeping exorbitant amounts for profits and administration), Barack Obama is laying the groundwork for socialized medicine like Great Britain has – quite inefficient. He loses 9.5 points solely because he doesn’t go into Social Security either.

With Richardson, it’s more of the same. So he’s out 9.5 points as well.

It’s amazing just how much Democrats want the government to be who you depend on should you get sick. Makes me sick thinking about what would happen if they win next year.

Anyway, we move on to the revised standings, starting with the GOP. Mike Huckabee widens his lead as we’re in the backstretch:

Mike Huckabee, 32 points
Tom Tancredo, 26.5 points
Rudy Giuliani, 22 points
Duncan Hunter, 17 points
Ron Paul, 13.5 points
Sam Brownback, 11.5 points
Mitt Romney, 4 points
John McCain, 3 points
Fred Thompson, 2 points
Tommy Thompson, -5.5 points

For the Democrats, it’s looking like a Kucinich runaway as far as wacko socialism goes. But that’s not surprising. Meanwhile, some of these guys make Mike Gravel look like a moderate in comparison.

Mike Gravel, -16 points
Joe Biden, -35.5 points
Bill Richardson, -41.5 points
John Edwards, -48.5 points
Barack Obama, -54.5 points
Hillary Clinton, -55.5 points
Chris Dodd, -57.5 points
Dennis Kucinich, -76.5 points

Tomorrow we look at one of my “favorite” issues, taxes. This is a big opportunity for a GOP breakout.

Sorry about being away!

But it wasn’t my fault…my server company was down for 14 hours and literally just came back minutes ago.

So….any suggestions for a good RELIABLE local server company? A similar event happened about a week or so ago and I was down for several hours there too. Thanks for killing my readership numbers.

Now it’s back to my “vacation.”

Shorebird of the week 8-9-2007

Zach Clark makes his home debut in this picture, July 17 against Hickory.

When he’s on, watching this week’s SotW is like watching the infielders taking their fielding practice between innings as opposing batters beat Zach Clark’s offerings into ground ball outs. Last Thursday I went to a game he started and that was exactly how it went as Zach threw a complete game (7 inning) 4-1 victory over Kannapolis. It impressed me enough to make him Shorebird of the Week a week later.

And after looking into Zach’s numbers, that start wasn’t an anomaly – all four of his Delmarva starts have been what’s considered a “quality” start (3 or fewer earned runs in 6 or more innings.) A guy with a WHIP of 0.87 on your staff will certainly be one who can be leaned on to keep you in games. He’s given up 21 hits and just 5 walks in 30 innings with a 2-1 record for Delmarva, and carries a stellar 1.50 ERA.

Oddly enough, for the second week in a row I picked a guy who the Orioles didn’t pick with a draft choice. The Orioles signed him up last year and the native of Wilmington, Delaware has bounced about the Orioles system already – Bluefield and Aberdeen last season; Frederick, Aberdeen, and Delmarva in 2007. He did struggle to open the season in Frederick, allowing 14 hits and 11 runs in just 7 1/3 innings, so he was sent down to a more appropriate level to continue his career. Having just turned 24, he’s not all that far away from getting another shot with Frederick if he can continue to do what he’s done here.

The only knock that scouts could have on Clark is that he’s not a great strikeout pitcher, so he may need to develop a better out pitch to succeed at a higher level. But a guy who’s relatively economical with the pitch count and can eat innings will have a place in most organizations for awhile.

Thoughts before a few days away

Away from active blogging, that is. I’ve already set up the next several days of posts except for the Shorebird of the Week which I’ll write later tonight once the game is over. It’s not that I don’t enjoy writing posts on a daily basis but I need a few days away to do stupid stuff like see my family and relax after some pretty intense days at work.

But fear not, faithful readers, while the content may be prewritten it’s still fresh to you and I’ll still be about to moderate comments. I’ve had quite a few lately so I’m beginning to think this Congressional race is heating up. And since the Ames Straw Poll occurs this coming Saturday, the GOP presidential field may shrink by the time I return. At the moment, Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani are the leaders for my endorsement, but we still have five parts to go and they get progressively more important – so a misstep by one or both of those two could open things up for another candidate.

Speaking of the Congressional race, I found out the other day that the August WCRC meeting is slated to have Congressman Gilchrest as our speaker. This will be August 27th. I know that more info will be on the WCRC website in the next few days because I just sent our webmaster the summer edition of our relaunched newsletter. (By the way, Andy Harris will also get his turn but I’m not sure we can get Joe Arminio a slot because of other upcoming events that are detailed in the newsletter.)

And there’s one other thing I wanted to get into before I spend a few days away. Lately there’s been a lot of controversy amongst the local blogging world, a little moreso than usual. Obviously we have one person who claims to be top dog with thousands of readers a day…well, good for him. I read the site once or twice a day myself, and he does a pretty decent job running around to cover some of the goings-on in town.

There was a comment this gentleman made on another blog that noted that my readership is down somewhat since he stopped linking here. While it is the case I have fewer readers than I did a couple months ago, something tells me that this is true for many websites of a political nature since we’re between political seasons. I’ll be honest though, it is down from its peak and, while I’m not ecstatic about it, I’m confident that it will come back up as the arrival of cooler weather brings people back to political mode.

I do want to bring up a few numbers though, something this other person’s not willing to do. I keep my Site Meter stats on a weekly basis and have since April of 2006. This is the evolution of readership in that time:

April 17, 2006 (first full week) – 229 visitors
August 7, 2006 (one year ago) – 480 visitors
January 1, 2007 – 679 visitors
Jauuary 15, 2007 – 1,065 visitors (first 1,000+ week)
April 16, 2007 – 1,829 visitors (all-time high)
August 6, 2007 – 1,120 visitors

So I’ve lost some readership but I assumed I would because I decided to do a tradeoff back in early June. At that time I decided I couldn’t be a true news site, in part because of time constraints and also because two or three other local bloggers were covering that territory well. Thus I shifted focus more to statewide and national issues that affect us locally. This shift probably explains the fact that while my readership is less locally it has a larger base. It may also explain why my readership’s not huge but I still rank on the list of Maryland’s most influential blog sites.

And I still think I have the BEST readers of any of the local websites because they obviously comprehend what I say and make good comments based on the arguments I make – some agree, others dissent.

So as I take a few days off enjoy what I’ve placed up for your inspection over the next week. I might be pretty fired up by the time I get back with a lot of pent-up writing to do.

The third voice in the room

Since I put up items from the incumbent and initial challenger, it’s only fair that I share something I received from Republican Congressional candidate Joe Arminio. What’s odd is this actually came to me because of my membership on the Wicomico County Republican Central Committee, not through monoblogue. But you’ll get to read it anyway – I feel that the voters should know as much about the officeseekers as possible.

Arminio bills the e-mail as “Candidates Compared” and the short piece is entitled “Send American Way Leaders To Congress.” I’ll give him points for keeping it short and making it a WordPad file I can easily clip and paste!

According to State Senator Harris, the big news is that Congressman Gilchrest has been moving away from the Republicans—away from the Right—and toward the Democrats. But this simplistic view reveals more about Harris than about the complex agenda of Gilchrest.

To make sense of the Republican primary in the First Congressional District, a vital digression is needed. There is this movement afoot to transfer all power from the American people to multinational bureaucracies and corporations. Big business is hardly all bad, but today the globalists, those who would close down the republic and subordinate us to multinational corporate elitists, and those who go along with the globalists knowingly or not, have become a strong force. The globalists and their helpers are not easy to identify; they call themselves liberals, moderates or conservatives, as always, but watch out, for they undermine the independence of America, that is, rule for, by and of the American people.

Politics is no longer one-dimensional (left-center-right); it is now two-dimensional or a matrix, that is, there is the conventional or traditional dimension—are you on the left, center or right?—and the new dimension, are you for the independence and sovereignty of the country (nationalist) or not (globalist)?

It turns out that Gilchrest advances globalist (and neoconservative) trade policy. Hence his long standing support for job-killers such as NAFTA and CAFTA. What did the 18th century economist Adam Smith and Karl Marx both say about this kind of trade? It would dissolve the nation-state. Also Gilchrest advances globalist, radical environmental policy, insofar as he champions the Delmarva Conservation Corridor. The language of the Corridor is eerily similar to the language of the UN Convention on Biodiversity, and the Convention, among other things, promotes the “global commons” at the expense of individual countries ruled by their respective peoples. The incumbent deserves praise for protecting native Chesapeake Bay oysters but his tilt toward globalist environmental notions threatening sovereignty and private property rights outweighs such good. Yet another globalist (and neoconservative) measure Gilchrest promotes is UNESCO, which, among other things, is subverting American schools and nurturing “world citizens” who are easy prey of multinational corporate interests. There is another big point about Gilchrest. Why has he been silent about the build up of a North American Union? 26 of his colleagues in the US House have found the courage to sponsor legislation opposing this foul proposed merger of the United States, Mexico and Canada. Special interests—corporations–would rule the new Union. Speaking about this North American Union, why has Harris been silent about it, too?

Harris is right that Gilchrest is breaking ranks with the GOP as a whole on such matters as Iraq, and taxes and spending. But breaking ranks on Iraq is not necessarily bad. What is certainly troubling (and not pointed out by Harris) are the votes in ’02, ’04 and ’06 that Gilchrest cast in lockstep with the GOP, which neoconservatives dominate, to raise the federal government debt by 50% from $5.8 Trillion, in 2001, to $8.9 Trillion, today. What is even more troubling is the silence of Gilchrest (and Harris) about the immediate severe threat the public and private debt is posing for the economy and how comprehensive emergency measures must be taken, lest the public suffer greatly and become more vulnerable to globalists.

On the issues of gun ownership and family values, Gilchrest has always been, in the traditional sense, left of center. But his positions on such things—and anyone else’s for that matter—ought to be related to all other positions, especially those affecting America’s independence. I may disagree with someone who is left of me on guns and the unborn. If that other fellow is not a globalist, he and I are, at the end of the day, still Americans. If I encounter someone who is a globalist, that is another matter, even if he were an avowed pro-life and 2nd Amendment man.

Harris, meanwhile, has done some good in Annapolis. But he does not bring vital clarity to this race, failing to warn us about the globalists in general and to protect us from their policies. As reflected in his campaign web site, he is silent on, among other things, the true economic plight of the country, the North American Union, present trade policy, the Delmarva Conservation Corridor and UNESCO. What is more, Harris aids the globalist (and neoconservative) agenda on immigration. Although he would bar illegals, he has said nothing about reversing changes to the law, beginning in 1965, that have allowed far more legal immigration to occur than we can assimilate and that have created explosive population growth typical of Third World countries.

One hopes Harris is not a neoconservative. Perhaps he has received bad advice. Neoconservatives tend to be right of center on guns and the family, which, I feel, is good, yet, on balance, do more harm than good where sovereignty and the relationship between the people and corporations are concerned, advancing a number of globalist policies. They narrow discourse and would have us believe politics is only one-dimensional, namely, left-center-right. Above all, it can be shown that they have deviated from American Way (nationalist) policies, which made American great, and which a long line of Republicans, including Lincoln, McKinley, Roosevelt, Coolidge, Taft and Eisenhower and the Reagan vision, and some Democrats, more or less upheld.

What we desperately need are more American Way leaders in Congress.

To be quite honest, I’m sure Tony Caliguiri, Kathy Bassett, and the rest of the Gilchrest team are ecstatic about having a third candidate jump into the race and split the anti-incumbent vote up. On the other hand, there’s a little less of a benefit to the GOP at-large if it’s perceived that Gilchrest will win easily over two challengers – there’s less potential for people who are Democrats but strongly support Wayne to cross over and register Republican solely to vote for him in the primary.

Regardless, this is an interesting introduction to the respective county central committees by the challenger. I’m sure we’ll hear more as the campaign carries on.

A guy who doesn’t read monoblogue

Martin O’Malley obviously doesn’t read monoblogue or else his minions wouldn’t send an e-mail to me that says…

Dear Michael,

I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your help and support over the last six months.

But this is half the fun of being on the standard Democrat mailing lists, to get e-mail that a) gives me a good laugh and b) I can pick apart point by point. His note is in italics, my responses in standard font. I’m going to rework the order of paragraphs slightly too.

During the campaign last year, we came together to fight for the working families of our state. And as this Sunday’s Washington Post points out, together we have made tremendous progress. Read the Washington Post Article.

We’ve made historic investments in K-12 education and school construction…

Part of the increase was simply mandated by the General Assembly in the Thornton bill. But has the money produced any results? If you want more bang for the education buck, why not throw your support behind charter schools; or, even better, allow money to follow the child?

…passed landmark environmental protection legislation…

I assume he means the Clean Cars Act, certain to drive our area’s auto sales to Delaware or at least ratchet up the cost of cars so that the more-polluting old ones stay on the road longer. But he could mean the additional restrictions on stormwater drainage or even the upcoming limit on the amount of phosphorus in your dishwashing detergent.

…froze college tuition increases…

This so that everyone pays for the added costs of educating the child, not the user – plus nothing is said about room and board costs and the numerous “fees” that now are added into the college student’s tab. We won’t even go into the idea O’Malley’s party supported of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.

…protected families from hidden taxes and fees…

Given that a number of Democrats are openly supporting hikes in the sales tax and gasoline tax, I suppose old Martin is right on the button there. These taxes and fees aren’t being hidden so don’t say that we who wish prudent, responsible, and accountable government didn’t warn you.

…and passed a first in the nation living wage for Maryland workers.

One where there was no fiscal statement done so your party cheerfully had NO IDEA what the cost would be to the taxpayer. To be fair, as passed the bill only applies to contractors doing work for the state. (But just wait, the camel’s nose is under the tent now.) Of course those employers aren’t going to eat the difference, they need to make a little bit in the bargain as well.

But there is more to accomplish to improve our quality of life and meet our common goals to:

Strengthen and grow middle class families, and family farms and businesses;

Yet you want to raise taxes on those same families by increasing the gasoline tax and sales tax, not to mention expanding greatly the number of services liable for the payment and collection of sales tax?

Improve public safety and public education in every part of the state;

How about improving public safety by getting tough on illegal immigrants who plague parts of our state? Meanwhile, let’s improve public education by adding and encouraging choices in how a child is taught, not sucking up to the teachers’ unions every chance you get.

Expand the opportunities of learning, of earning, of enjoying the health of the people we love – and the land and water we love – to more people rather than fewer.

Yes, get government out of the way and we can accomplish that.

Over the next few months, we will need to come together again to get our fiscal house in order and overcome the obstacle presented by the $1.4 billion structural deficit that we inherited.

Martin, you also inherited a $2 billion surplus that you chose to spend down to the bare minimum allowed. So you made the choice not to address the structural deficit.

And we will do so in a way that is fair to Maryland’s working families, that invests in our shared future and where giant corporations pay their fair share.

I suppose I don’t qualify as a working family because I’m single and make a decent living. But aside from that, why is it that on the one hand you want giant corporations to pay what you consider a “fair share” – in other words, higher taxes to drive them out of state like MBNA was several years ago – but on the other hand you subsidize them to provide jobs that pay just a mediocre wage (like at the Allen poultry plant in Hurlock.) If you want giant corporations to pay their fair share, how about lowering corporate taxes for all and making the state more business-friendly so more corporations are here to add to your pot?

I look forward to working with you over the next few months to continue the progress we have made in fighting for Maryland’s working families, and our children.

It’s always about the children, isn’t it? Martin, if you really care about the children, encourage them to start working toward the 50 year plan I’ve proposed – one that will give them a safer world that they’re more able to succeed in using their God-given talents, not government handouts.

You know, I can’t wait until my next e-mail from the O’Malley camp. Maybe the next one will explain why the higher taxes his party passed and their version of a nanny state ready and willing to wipe our ass is good for us.

Another “Gilchrest on the Long War” moment

I told you about this letter on Friday and this morning I’m going to share the contents.

Dear Mr. Swartz:

Knowing of your interest in ensuring America’s success in Iraq and war on terrorism, I wanted to share with you some thoughts concerning our long-term strategy.

As you know, in late 2003, US and Coalition forces swiftly ousted Saddam Hussein from his brutal dictatorship. Disbanding Saddam’s military was decided necessary in dismantling Saddam’s power hold. However, in the process, this unleashed a brutal power vacuum that thrives today along religious and cultural lines. Over time, security conditions have dramatically deteriorated in much of Iraq to the point where Iraq’s society, unfortunately, is coming apart at its seams.

I regret that we were unable to formulate a post-Saddam strategy that anticipated Iraq’s complete social and political collapse and the onslaught of violent conflict, but these are the conditions we face today. And while our military continues to make heroic sacrifices, Iraqis have failed persistently to make the necessary compromises needed to unify the country and stop the bloodshed.

The nation has received a new assessment on Iraq from the Administration that is a mixed, but generally not positive assessment of our progress. There are, however, clear and present dangers that confront our current strategy in Iraq. Cycles of violence and bloodshed continue to escalate while the stress on our military mounts. As asserted by our commanders and military experts, troop levels under our current policy cannot be sustained past March of 2008. These critical variables remain at odds with our current strategy and are converging to make it almost impossible for the United States to sustain the long-term solution that is needed in Iraq.

Clearly, we need a new direction in Iraq, the Middle East, and our general fight against international terrorism. The war against violent extremism, unfortunately, will have to be fought much longer than a “surge” in troops can last. Exhausting our force policing Iraq’s civil war leaves us too vulnerable on other fronts.

This new direction should be based on the recommendation of the Iraq Study Group (ISG), and include a redefining of the mission for our troops, a deliberate and strategic withdrawal from central Iraq, and new and strengthened diplomatic efforts with Iraq’s neighbors and the international community. I am pleased that the President is beginning to quietly implement some of these recommendations under the direction of Secretary Gates, a former member of the ISG, including intensified campaigns to enlist constructive efforts from Iraq’s neighbors and the international community and acknowledging our forces cannot police an indefinite civil war.

My vote on July 12, 2007 on HR 2592 was part of this effort to introduce a new strategy. It must be made clear that the bill does not require a complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq, it does not affect funding, and it allows the President to determine the troop levels for this redefined mission. The bill, however, does encourage the administration to redefine our mission in Iraq, away from policing the civilian warfare, redirecting our troops to critical missions like fighting terrorist groups as al-Qaeda, training Iraqi troops, securing Iraq’s borders and providing security for our military and diplomatic missions in the Middle East. Moreover, it will serve to ensure our allies in the region that our mission is to support the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Iraq, but also enforce the notion that we are not a permanent occupier.

Immediate withdrawal is not an option – the consequences unknown, and quite possibly catastrophic. That is why I have voted against measures in the House, including HR 2237 on May 10, 2007, which would seek a complete withdrawal of US troops within 180 days of enactment and prohibit any funds from being used to continue critical missions that our troops are engaged outside the civil war. That is also why I continue other critical assistance to Iraq, including measures to increase funding for economic and reconstruction assistance programs for Iraq under the FY08 Foreign Operations bill; this was the President’s request and is consistent with the ISG recommendations, but not included in the bill under the Democrat leadership.

The troops are doing a magnificent job under difficult circumstances. They have my unequivocal support. I would never vote to cut funds for their mission, but i think it is important to support a mission which is politically, economically, and militarily sustainable. I cannot support a combat mission that fails to recognize the long-term and sustainable efforts needed in this vulnerable region.

I appreciate your taking the time to express your thoughts on the crisis in Iraq. Please remain in touch.

Sincerely,

Wayne T. Gilchrest

Member of Congress

First of all, Wayne misspoke on the bill number he voted against on July 12, it’s HR 2956 and I’ve linked to the version passed by the House. The problem I have with that bill lies in two areas: it mandates a “reduction” of troops beginning within 4 months of passage and speaks about a “limited presence” of troops after April 1, 2008. So al-Qaeda and its Iranian allies (who we’re fighting by proxy in Iraq) would have a date certain to shoot for and ramp up their efforts to secure safe areas for them that we’re forced to abandon.

I’ve talked about having a permanent presence in Iraq like we have in Germany or Japan, not as conquerors but as a forward deployment for the region. I may concede on that if it can be proven to me that the base I think we have in Bahrain (it’s either there or Qatar) can be effective enough to do that task.

But a look at history shows that it usually takes several years to establish an effective republican government. In the case of the United States it took 11 years to go from Declaration of Independence to Constitution, meanwhile fighting the British forces trying to subdue our fledgling government for the first seven years. (It’s astute to note that we didn’t fight alone, either, we had some measure of help from France.)

Not only is maintaining Iraqi security important, but let’s not forget that the larger goal is to defeat the forces of radical Islamic fundamentalism. The strategy that led to deposing Saddam was to deny the enemy a base of operations while ridding the world of a supplier of WMD’s to those who would love to use them on us. And I’m not convinced that some of the WMD’s Saddam claimed to have aren’t sitting in a country allied with his former government, such as Syria.

In the last Democrat administration, it was thought important enough to place our troops in Bosnia to combat what was then reported to be ethnic cleansing of an Islamic population. In general, while Republicans may have argued the validity of the mission, they allowed the Commander-in-Chief to command as he saw fit. Unfortunately, over the last 4 years we’ve seen the Democrats not extend the same courtesy to a Republican president, which is shameful on their part.

Very few questioned the need to respond to the attacks on 9/11 at the time. Thus far, we’ve escaped a further terrorist attack thanks in part to the leadership of a President who said from the start that this would be a Long War. Unfortunately, our Congressman has chosen to break ranks from a party that seems to understand that victory over this foe wasn’t necessarily going to be easy, quick, or follow the normal course that wars have in the past.

I say while the strategy may have to shift here and there, the eventual aim should be nothing less than wiping out the threat we face. By voting in the manner he does, I have little confidence Wayne Gilchrest shares my view.

Standings report: early August

Yeah, I’m a few days late. I like to do this at the end of each month but you know that I like doubleheaders too. Since the Shorebirds had back-to-back ones this week, I didn’t get to the standings report until today.

Speaking of the Delmarva nine, going into tonight’s game against Asheville the Shorebirds are 18-23 for the half and buried in 7th place in the SAL North. Only the woeful Hagerstown Suns are holding them up at the moment. With 29 games remaining on the schedule, the trouble isn’t the seven game deficit they currently trail Hickory by, it’s the five teams that fall between Delmarva and the first-place Crawdads. Both Lake County and Lakewood rest 3 1/2 back, Greensboro is 5 1/2 out, meanwhile West Virginia and Lexington are 6 1/2 back and 1/2 game ahead of Delmarva with identical 19-23 marks. Aside from Hickory, the SAL North is the weaker of the two divisions.

Of the 29 games left, 15 are away from Perdue Stadium (trips to Greenville/Augusta and Lake County/Hagerstown) while 14 are within the friendly confines (3 more against Asheville, 4 against Lexington, 3 against Hagerstown and 4 to finish the campaign against Lake County.) To have a realistic chance at the second half title, Delmarva would have to win 21 or 22 of its remaining games. Hickory is on a pace to go 42-28 so they would need a bit of a collapse by the Crawdads as well.

The news is much, much better for the team representing my birthplace. As they go for a Governors’ Cup threepeat, the Toledo Mud Hens are now blowing out the rest of the IL West. They’ve opened up an 8 1/2 game lead on Indianapolis and sport the loop’s best record at 66-48. My only caution is that the 2003 Mud Hen squad started August similarly and finished on a 5-24 skid. Oh, do I remember that collapse. But aside from a handful of games against Norfolk, Durham, and Richmond (total of eight) they finish inside their division so they won’t have to watch the scoreboard – the Hens can take care of business on their own.

Now to the big leagues. It’s pretty much the diehards who are following the Orioles and Nationals now. And the team goal for both should be to not finish last in their division. Since the O’s are 10 games up on a terrible Tampa Bay squad that shouldn’t be difficult to achieve.

At 51-57 the O’s would need to finish 30-24 for a breakeven season. Since they’re 14 1/2 games back of the Red Sox and 10 out in the wildcard race, that’s really all the Orioles have left to play for. And after concluding this series underway with Tampa Bay, Baltimore plays three teams in the thick of the playoff chase, hosting Seattle and Boston before starting a roadtrip with the Yankees. After that, they play easier teams as they conclude that trip in Toronto and return home for a long homestand with Texas, Minnesota, and Tampa Bay again. Going into Labor Day weekend they hit September on a trip to Boston and Tampa Bay (yeah, they play the D-Rays a lot.)

Meanwhile, at the start of the season it appeared the Nationals could hit the century mark in losses. While they’re by no means the cream of the National League crop, they have rebounded into a halfway decent team and are battling the Florida Marlins to get out of the NL East basement. At 49-60 after a 9-25 start, the Nats have a real good shot at posting a respectable 75 wins. They’re actually closer to the NL East leader (New York) than Baltimore is to the Red Sox, 13 games back. The same goes for the NL wild card as they’re 9 1/2 out there.

Will the Nationals make a sensational playoff run? No, but as I noted they can finish with 75 to 80 wins this season and that’s not a bad base to build from as they open their new park next season. It might be difficult to keep momentum this month though as they wrap up their series with the Cardinals and embark on the first of two long West Coast trips this month (San Francisco/Arizona and Houston/Colorado/Los Angeles) that sandwich a short homestand with Philadelphia and New York. Going into Labor Day they face the Giants and continue that homestand with Florida.

I was a little bit pissed this morning when I checked the standings and found out the Tigers lost again to slip behind the Cleveland Indians. Not only have the slumping Tigers (losers of 8 of their last 10) fallen out of the division lead, now Seattle is nipping at their heels for the wild card lead as the Mariners are only 1/2 game back. At 61-47 the Tigers and Mariners are even in the loss column while the New York Yankees lurk 2 1/2 out.

The Tigers just opened a huge homestand with division rival Chicago, to be followed by Tampa Bay and Oakland. But the stretch between August 14-27 will likely determine their playoff fate. The Tigers play 13 straight games against the AL Central-leading Indians and the Yankees – the first 6 on the road, the last 7 at home. Then they head off to Kansas City and Oakland again as Labor Day passes.

So now you’re up to date on how my teams are doing. After Labor Day I’ll wrap up the minor league teams and take another look at how the bigs are doing. Hopefully Detroit will be firmly cemented back where they belong, in first place.

Radio days volume 6

Maybe this should be subtitled, “Time to make some choices.” I definitely want to expand on a point I began to make while I was on the show today.

And maybe I’m my own worst critic, but I didn’t think I did all that good of a job defending my point of view. I have to say John was lucky that he hit his bottom of the hour break when he did because I was a little perturbed about the subject he brought up, health care. I think he forgets that health care is NOT a right. I mean, I’m sorry his dad passed away from cancer and that the cost of health care is quite daunting, but placing the government in charge of it or even just mandating insurance coverage – all that will do is drive prices and premiums up farther and make it even more difficult to afford medical care. After all, while Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, etc. are “free” to the end user, all of us who actually pay taxes pay for it. The vicious circle will continue to spiral out of control and the government will be “forced” to increase taxes to Carteresque levels to shoulder the cost of every hangnail our citizens (and selected non-citizens) receive.

I suppose today is what happens when you place two people who are both ADD-types in the same place and try to have a discussion. We sort of went all over the map on a lot of things but I’m not sure that any lasting points were made. Unfortunately, I didn’t really have the opportunity to do some of the preparation I would have liked for the show, but that’s the breaks and I suppose I have no one to blame but myself.

I do thank John for giving me the opportunity to say my piece. We do have somewhat of a good point/counterpoint going – “John, you ignorant slut” – and it might be fun to do again. By the way, I saw Joe Albero pointed out on my prior post that we had one call. It’s only because I noticed it that John even picked that one up! What’s odd about their studio is that if John’s speaking to and facing a guest (or his laptop), he can’t see the phone easily nor can Captain Jim. So leave it to the guest to notice the blinking light!

Now it could be that most radio studios are set up like that – honestly before this year I’d never been in one. Unfortunately I don’t think DBC can move that phone too easily. It is fine for Bill Reddish because he doesn’t take calls when he has in-studio guests and faces forward (toward the phone) during his show when he’s doing the news, but if John’s facing his guest as he has with me on the two occasions I’ve been on his show he’s not going to see the phone flash.

That takes care of the nuts and bolts, and I’ll give myself a C minus for the day. Having brought up the point and also having a little bit of time to mull it over and formulate the thoughts that will go into the remainder of the post, let’s see if I can do some A plus writing.

The main point I wanted to get into besides the Long War and the GOP Congressional race was brought out by the Minneapolis bridge collapse. Working for a company that also has a Professional Engineer on staff, I get a little more insight on how our infrastructure really is and the shape it’s gotten into. Without being too technical, the calamity in Minneapolis isn’t going to be commonplace anytime soon but neither is it going to be as rare as a bridge collapse should be. Fortunately, most engineering of the sort is governed by codes and practices that reflect a conservative safety factor. From what I’ve been able to gather the Interstate 35W tragedy was a confluence of several factors, most importantly an obsolete design style and an unusual loading pattern where the loads were to one side and slowly moving. Another important factor present in that area of the country but not nearly so much here in Maryland was the amount of road salt used. Obviously the frequent freeze-thaw cycles create minute cracks in the concrete and the salt used corrodes the steel supports. It’s not quite Engineering 101, but fairly close.

The theory I really wanted to explore though is that of priorities. Obviously today John Robinson and I spent a lot of time arguing about the Long War and health care. Both take a good deal of money out of our pockets, and for the moment I’ll hold off on whether that is money well spent by the federal government.

But a new push for infrastructure spending is going to take another slice of the fiscal pie rapidly being devoured by the federal government as is, not to mention state and local entities. It’s becoming a question of what’s most important, and everyone already partaking in the federal largesse won’t want this monetary suitor taking any of the share they already have. They’ll scream, “you can’t cut spending on my program!!” and find a set of “victims” who would be hurt by any spending decline.

The day is coming when we as American society will face a stark choice – have an ever-expanding government at all levels take a larger chank out of our paycheck or make government at all levels prioritize their spending.

Since I’ve already brought up Bill Reddish once in this post, let me bring him up again. During the heated debate over the Salisbury city budget Bill noted that, as he saw it, the city had five spending priorities – water/sewer, fire/EMS, police, garbage pickup, and roads. In general and at any level the idea of government should be “to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations.” (That’s straight from the Republican Principles.) Rather than each individual maintaining the road in front of his or her house, in return for the usage of public roads each of us pay taxes to the county or state to maintain them. And with roads come the necessity of bridges, otherwise we on the Eastern Shore aren’t getting too far.

So let me ask you, the reader: are you willing to pay additional taxes so the government can add another item to its already-burgeoning plate of things it does? Or, do you ask yourself if having a small stipend at your retirement or 18 kids in a classroom instead of 21 is more important than making sure the bridge you drive over is safe or the sewer pipe your toilet flushes into doesn’t leak?

What saddens me is that more and more people seem to be willing to allow the government to reach farther and farther into their wallet in order to have them play nanny state and make their life decisions for them. I suppose that’s what upsets me the most about today because, even though I like the guy personally, John is just wrong on so many levels regarding the impact government should have on one’s life that it’s not even funny. (Of course, this is a guy who wouldn’t have minded an 80% tax rate yet also said that if Maryland keeps raising their business taxes he’ll up and move his shop to Delaware.)

So this little post is my way of setting the record straight on what I wanted to say today. I’m not the most effective at saying what I mean to on the radio but I don’t have to as long as I can keep saying my piece here.

In my last post you may recall I alluded to a letter I received today from Wayne Gilchrest. I think what I’m going to do is run that on Sunday. Tomorrow I’m going to take a day off from politics because with the back-to-back doubleheaders the last two nights I missed my normal month-end standings report post. So I’ll indulge myself with that tomorrow and get back to the serious stuff as people check back to start the work week.

Just a reminder…

Yep, back on the radio again come 3:00. It’s WICO-AM, 1320 on the radio dial. And since John has a bad habit of FORGETTING to give out the phone number, it’s (410) 742-1320.

Also, as I predicted about a week or so ago, I moments ago walked out to my mailbox and, lo and behold, there was a letter from Congressman Gilchrest. I have not sat down and read it in full; however, glancing at the contents it looks like his excuses for voting with the Democrats to withdraw from Iraq. Maybe I’ll bring it to the studio with me. Regardless, I’ll be posting it later tonight since it IS a public document, official business (according to the envelope.)

So be listening and call in!

Who will I support? – part seven

After a relatively short post on Tuesday, I’m back to a more lengthy one today as we tackle an important part of any national candidate’s platform – energy independence.

I didn’t do this as part of my 50 year plan (truthfully an oversight on my part) but I’ve devoted many posts to the subject so I’ll give you the Cliff’s Notes version of where I stand.

I support oil and natural gas drilling in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico (among other places) in order to secure as much domestic product as possible.
While renewable sources are the wave of the future, allow the market to dictate how much of an impact they have.
For a large part of my life, I’ve lived within 50 miles of two nuclear plants (Davis-Besse in northern Ohio and Fermi 2 in southeast Michigan) as well as two oil refineries (BP and Sunoco, both in Oregon, Ohio.) No major environmental problems occurred in either case so I feel confident in building more of both where needed.
While energy efficient buildings and automobiles are smart choices, that choice should be made by the end user, not the federal government.

Now it’s time to see how the candidates match up to my stance. Of course I’ll start with the Republican contenders.

Sam Brownback:

Due to years of neglect and short-sighted domestic policies, America is on the verge of an energy crisis. Our supply of energy has not kept pace with our demand. Today our nation produces 39% less oil than we did in 1970. This leaves us dependent on foreign suppliers, who often do not have America’s best interests at heart. This Congress, I co-sponsored the Dependence Reduction through Innovation in Vehicles and Energy (DRIVE) Act. This bill aims to reduce our oil consumption by 2.5 million barrels per day in ten years by taking an innovative, market-based approach that relies on advanced technology and an expansion of renewable fuels. I will continue to fight for energy independence.

On his website, Rudy Giuliani just updated his view.

Mike Huckabee weighs in on his website as well.

Mitt Romney also takes advantage of the internet to show his views, including video.

Tommy Thompson:

Governor Thompson believes America must become more independent in its energy needs and break reliance on foreign oil. We must begin with greater investments in renewable energy, like ethanol, so we can bring these technologies to market faster and more efficiently. And we must come together and deal with our changing climate.

I was a bit surprised that only five GOP officeseekers discussed energy. On the Democrat side, we get six who mention the topic at some length.

Joe Biden:

Joe Biden believes that domestic energy policy is at the center of our foreign policy and economic policy. Most of the world’s oil is concentrated in nations that are either hostile to American interests or vulnerable to political upheaval and terrorism. Our oil dependence undercuts the advance of freedom and limits our options and influence around the world because oil rich countries pursuing policies we oppose can stand up to us and undermine the resolve of our allies. Profits from the sale of oil help fuel the fundamentalism we are fighting. High energy prices hurt business’ bottom line.

Joe Biden’s first priority is energy security. He believes we can strengthen security by reducing our oil consumption by increasing fuel efficiency, transitioning to farm-grown fuels like ethanol and biodiesel, and expanding the use of renewable energy. But we cannot stop there. Joe Biden would make a substantial national commitment by dramatically increasing investment in energy and climate change research and technology so that that United States becomes the world leader in developing and exporting alternative energy.

Hillary Clinton looks at energy on her site.

Also taking advantage is Chris Dodd with his insights.

John Edwards needs to run his blowdryer too, so he has this to say.

Dennis Kucinich, among other ideas, wants to put NASA in charge.

Barack Obama‘s not left out either.

Finally, Bill Richardson surprised me with a good idea on veterans affairs Tuesday. He attempts to continue the string here.

As I mentioned on Tuesday, there are now 17 points at stake. Starting with Sam Brownback, here’s how they’re going to be assigned.

No, Sam, it’s drill, drill, drill! You are correct in citing the diminished refinery capacity but I just noted up above I want the market to take care of the amount of oil we use. Picking an arbitrary number to reduce consumption by (2.5 million barrels a day) via federal law isn’t the right way to solve the problem. I’m taking off 7 points from your score.

In reading Rudy Giuliani’s approach (one of his “12 Commitments”), I feel it’s a little vague in speaking to where the market works and where the government interferes, but overall it’s a good set of solutions. The only exception I take is saying, “America’s government, corporations, and individuals must engage in efficiency and conservation efforts that reduce demand for oil, without damaging America’s competitiveness worldwide or our standard of living.” If he inserted the word “voluntarily” I’d be much happier. As it stands, I’m still quite impressed with what he says and Rudy will pick up 14 points.

Mike Huckabee is quite ambitious (“We will achieve energy independence by the end of my second term”) but doesn’t quite get to Rudy Giuliani’s level of detail. Mike talks about conservation in a general sense along with exploration and alternative energy sources; however, he does list nuclear power first among the alternatives, which is a plus. He is correct when he points out that federal efforts are “haphazard and often pointless” but advocates “set(ting) aside a federal research and development budget that will be matched by the private sector.” It creates an opportunity to continue being pointless, unfortunately. I applaud the willingness of Mike to involve the private sector but don’t see the need for federal dollars for this effort. Overall, I’ll give Huckabee 11 points.

I like Mitt Romney’s advocation of drilling in ANWR and along the outer continental shelf. But three of the ideas he speaks about in his website videos give me pause: subsidies, “floor” prices, and maintaining or increasing CAFE standards. None of these are free-market solutions and with that much interference in the economy, I feel Romney should be docked slightly – I’m deducting two points from his score.

Tommy Thompson talks about two losing points: “investing” in the inefficiency of ethanol, and dealing with our changing climate. The only way most people in government want to deal with a changing climate is through higher taxes, such as a “carbon tax.” This is a wrong-headed approach and will drop him into negative territory as I deduct 10 points.

Flipping over to the Democrats’ side, Joe Biden also likes the job-killing (not to mention possibly driver-killing) raising of CAFE standards, along with adding to the ethanol craze and raising our taxes to “dramatically” increase our “investment” in climate change and energy technology. So he’ll pretty much cut the market out and not seek to use resources we can easily attain. I’m taking off all 17 points.

Hillary Clinton also covets a batch of market-killing items like taxing oil companies and mandating 20% of electricity be created from renewable sources by 2020. She also hits me where I live:

Hillary would require all federal buildings to steadily increase the use of green design principles, energy efficient technologies, and to generate energy on-site from solar and other renewable sources. By 2030, all new federal buildings and major renovations would be carbon neutral, helping to fight global warming and cutting the $5.6 billion that the federal government spends each year on heating, cooling and lighting.

As I’ve said, I have no objection to more energy-efficient buildings, but the idea that federal buildings help to promote global warming (aside from the hot air coming out of Congress) to me is laughable. She’s docked all 17 points too.

Chris Dodd is way, way, way out there. Corporate Carbon Tax? 50 MPG fuel economy in 10 years? Corn as fuel instead of food? Okay, maybe not the last one but he does state that, “The Dodd Energy Plan would set the goal of renewable fuel usage in cars and homes at 8.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2008 and steadily increasing to 36 billion gallons by 2022.” And we will eat what? Another instance where I regret I can only take off 17 points.

Let’s see. For John Edwards…tax on “polluters”, check. Job-killing higher CAFE standards, check. Government “investment” (e.g. higher spending), check. And of course, he doesn’t stop there. How about a “GreenCorps” as part of AmeriCorps? Or a new “global climate change treaty”? (Didn’t we reject the Kyoto Protocol once already?)

Now I will give him a slight bit of credit for bringing up “smart” electric meters which display both usage and price. If a utility wants to make that investment they should be encouraged to. But not the federal government. He loses 16.5 points.

Dennis Kucinich would sign Kyoto in a heartbeat and has worked with Mikhail Gorbachev on a “Global Green Deal”. Enough said, 17 points off.

Barack Obama also has a laundry list of items increasing the size and regulation of the federal government. The sad part is that he’s talked a few Republicans into helping him support these measures. He also wants to make a Faustian bargain with auto companies where the government helps pay for retiree health benefits in exchange for investment in technology to make more fuel-efficient vehicles. Not only does that interfere with the auto market, he gets the daily double of placing the government even further into the realm of nationalized health care. You guessed it, another 17 point deduct.

And I had such high hopes for Bill Richardson to actually break away from the pack. Guess not. While he says on the one hand, “Market-based principles should guide our energy policies, laws and regulations. We must support competition in energy markets by bringing forward new technologies, efficiencies, and energy sources,” he then says in the very next sentence, “We can do so by setting high standards and providing incentives, and allowing the private sector to respond.” Now wouldn’t providing government incentives influence the free market? Another 17 point loser.

Man, all of these Democrats practically sound the same, spewing their bullshit about global warming and such.

The GOP field shuffles once again. Like I said, this was a possible high-impact category and indeed it helped two fortunes in particular (while really hurting two others):

Mike Huckabee, 23 points
Rudy Giuliani, 22 points
Tom Tancredo, 19.5 points
Duncan Hunter, 17 points
Ron Paul, 13.5 points
Sam Brownback, 7.5 points
John McCain, 3 points
Fred Thompson, 2 points
Mitt Romney, 1 point
Tommy Thompson, -8.5 points

Meanwhile, by shutting up, Mike Gravel helped himself out pointwise on the Democrat side.

Mike Gravel, -19 points
Bill Richardson, -32 points
Joe Biden, -36.5 points
John Edwards, -39 points
Chris Dodd, -42.5 points
Barack Obama, -45 points
Hillary Clinton, -46 points
Dennis Kucinich, -57.5 points

My next subject is almost certainly a trap for Democrats and may ensnare some GOP folks as well – I’m going to delve into entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. Yep, that third rail. I’m not afraid to touch it, we’ll see if the candidates still are.

Shorebird of the week 8-2-2007

Paul Winterling has returned to the Shorebirds and is finding a bit of success.

For the second week in a row, a guy who played just part-time for the 2006 edition of the Shorebirds is my pick as Shorebird of the Week. Paul Winterling played in 6 games here last year and was sent down from Frederick last month in order to get more at-bats than the Keys could give him. All told, last night he played in just his 33rd game this season.

Paul is an unusual story. Most American-born players enter the pro ranks after being selected in the amateur draft, but Paul didn’t hear his phone ring after completing college at Johns Hopkins. Essentially he was signed by his hometown team as Winterling hails from the town of Glenelg. And while it’s a great opportunity for Paul, the trouble in his case is that he’s not really regarded highly as a prospect, thus playing time is hard to come by sometimes as the Orioles want to see players they actually drafted or signed from other lands get the lions’ share of the exposure.

Since rejoining the Shorebirds in mid-July Paul has seen a few more at-bats, hitting .290 in his 11 games thus far (9 for 31.) He does have a good power stroke going for him – between Frederick and Delmarva he’s hit 5 home runs in just 99 total at bats. Combined his .232 average isn’t special, but with regular play he’s seemed to improve at the plate.

Hopefully Winterling, who just turned 24 this week, can get a fair shot at proving himself with the Shorebirds during the remainder of this season and turn himself into a prospect worth watching in 2008.