February 2010 – Page 3

Alexis’ Law needs to move

Last year, Delegate Michael Smigiel of District 36 introduced HB60, dubbed “Alexis’ Law.” As Delegate Smigiel explains, the law is a pretty simple fix to a problem which occasionally erupts.

This is an easy bill that claifies that ANY judge can hear a motion for a protective order for the victims of sexual predators. The bill is named after a child who was sexually victimized by an adult and subsequently stalked by her victim (I presume the Delegate meant attacker) in violation of the protection order. The States Attorney interpreted the law that only the judge who issued the order could enforce the order. Alexis was so traumatized that the only escape she felt she had was to cut her wrists. Thankfully, she survived and is getting the help she needs. We need to make sure that no other children are victimized by such loopholes.

Just like Jessica’s Law a few years back, the biggest obstacle in the way is the punk who runs the House Judiciary Committee, Delegate Joe Vallario. He’s well-known for sticking common-sense legislation in his proverbial desk drawer and killing it.

But Jessica’s Law got passed because Marylanders put the pressure on Vallario to allow it to come to a vote, and thousands lobbied the remaining members of the committee to vote in its favor. This requires a similar effort, and the list of Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee follows (needless to say the Republicans are already on board.)

Chairman: JOSEPH F. VALLARIO, JR 410-841-3488
Democrat, District 27A, Calvert & Prince George’s Counties
Email: joseph.vallario@house.state.md.us

Co-Chairman: SAMUEL I. (SANDY) ROSENBERG 410-841-3297
Democrat, District 41, Baltimore City
e-mail: samuel.rosenberg@house.state.md.us

CURTIS STOVALL (CURT) ANDERSON
Democrat, District 43, Baltimore City
(410) 841-3291, (301) 858-3291
e-mail: curt.anderson@house.state.md.us

BENJAMIN S. BARNES
Democrat, District 21, Anne Arundel & Prince George’s Counties
(410) 841-3046, (301) 858-3046
e-mail: ben.barnes@house.state.md.us

JILL P. CARTER
Democrat, District 41, Baltimore City
(410) 841-3782, (301) 858-3782
e-mail: jill.carter@house.state.md.us

FRANK M. CONAWAY, JR.
Democrat, District 40, Baltimore City
(410) 841-3189, (301) 858-3189
e-mail: frank.conaway@house.state.md.us

KATHLEEN M. DUMAIS
Democrat, District 15, Montgomery County
(410) 841-3052, (301) 858-3052
e-mail: kathleen.dumais@house.state.md.us

BENJAMIN F. KRAMER
Democrat, District 19, Montgomery County
(410) 841-3485, (301) 858-3485
e-mail: benjamin.kramer@house.state.md.us

SUSAN C. LEE
Democrat, District 16, Montgomery County
(410) 841-3649, (301) 858-3649
e-mail: susan.lee@house.state.md.us

GERRON S. LEVI
Democrat, District 23A, Prince George’s County
(410) 841-3101, (301) 858-3101
e-mail: gerron.levi@house.state.md.us

VICTOR R. RAMIREZ
Democrat, District 47, Prince George’s County
(410) 841-3340, (301) 858-3340
e-mail: victor.ramirez@house.state.md.us

TODD L. SCHULER
Democrat, District 8, Baltimore County
(410) 841-3526, (301) 848-3526
e-mail: todd.schuler@house.state.md.us

LUIZ R. S. SIMMONS
Democrat, District 17, Montgomery County
(410) 841-3037, (301) 858-3037
e-mail: luiz.simmons@house.state.md.us

KRIS VALDERRAMA
Democrat, District 26, Prince George’s County
(410) 841-3210, (301) 858-3210
e-mail: kris.valderrama@house.state.md.us

JEFFREY D. WALDSTREICHER
Democrat, District 18, Montgomery County
(410) 841-3130, (301) 858-3130
e-mail: jeff.waldstreicher@house.state.md.us

Just as a reminder of how difficult some of these Delegates made it when Jessica’s Law went through the first time, this 2007 article from Red Maryland by Mark Newgent reminds us of the process.

There are 22 members on the House Judiciary Committee, of which 6 are Republicans. Oddly enough, Smigiel didn’t list Democrat Kevin Kelly of District 1B – I presume based on his past bipartisan voting record Smigiel doesn’t see him being a threat.

Of the 16 Democrats, seven of them were not involved in the 2006 Jessica’s Law controversy because they hadn’t been elected yet. These would be Barnes, Conaway, Kramer, Levi, Schuler, Valderrama, and Waldstreicher. If we can get these seven on board to join the GOP and Kelly, the vote would be 14-7 (the Chair generally does not vote) to get it out of committee and that sort of overwhelming bipartisan majority may work to help convince Vallario he needs to step aside on this one. Granted, since 11 of the 16 Democrats on the committee have lifetime monoblogue Accountability Ratings under 5 it’s a hard job convincing many of these about common-sense legislation but the fact they passed Jessica’s Law umanimously in 2007 gives me hope.

Once this makes it to be considered by the Judiciary Committee, certainly this should be a no-brainer – especially since committee votes are now included in public records.

In the department of “I’ll believe it when I see it” – Mikulski out?

Update 3 8:45 a.m. – Sean O’Donnell of the Baltimore Examiner cites Cillizza and two other sources to quash the rumor – for now. Certainly this is a case study on the power of the internet – now the question becomes who the original source was.

It’s also worthy of noting that The Vail Spot, which had just over 200 readers in the previous week, has had over 20,000 readers since 2 p.m. yesterday when the rumor was picked up. (He has an open Site Meter – for now.)

Update 2 7:30 p.m. – Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post tweeted earlier this afternoon: “Rumors that Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) is retiring are NOT TRUE, according to informed D source.”

We’ll see. This means it’s the word of an “impeccable” source vs. an “informed” source. More below.

Update 1 5:45 p.m. – I spoke briefly via phone with fellow candidate Dr. Eric Wargotz who agreed with me – he’ll believe it when he sees it too.

Senate candidate Daniel McAndrew notes that this rumor isn’t really new, but “if true, then the next question will be who, in the Democrat party, will have the better chance trying to keep the seat from flipping. This is likely to be very interesting given the rash of others retiring.”

Another source who preferred to be unnamed cautioned me that Mikulski looked healthy and was getting around fine at the recent MACO conference, so the foot injury has apparently healed.

I’ve also been told that there’s a high possibility Rep. Chris Van Hollen may jump in if Mikulski quits – he’s been “gearing up” for a Senate run. Obviously if the Democrats lose dozens of seats in the House Van Hollen could be a fall guy as DCCC head.

Main story:

A blogger heretofore unknown to me by the name of Rich Vail may have dropped a bombshell on Maryland politics and created a gamechanger movement by citing an “impeccable source” who says Senator Mikulski will not seek another term.

His post on The Vail Spot, if true, sets a lot of machinery into motion.

Obviously having another open Senate seat (a second in four years) could convince a number of prominent Maryland Democrats to leave the safety of their offices for a run – one name mentioned in the comments was Attorney General Doug Gansler, with another being Governor O’Malley. This could also convince any of Maryland’s seven Congressional Democrats to move up as well.

If you go back and look at the 2006 race for the seat eventually won by Ben Cardin (to replace the retiring Sen. Paul Sarbanes), Cardin’s main competition came from onetime NAACP head Kweisi Mfume – no other Democrat secured double-digit support. But Mfume has laid low politically since his 2006 defeat, making it questionable whether he would try again.

Most of the Democrats’ Senate seat bench, then, comes from the ranks of already-elected Congressman and state officials, with only Gansler, O’Malley, Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown, and Comptroller Peter Franchot haviing run statewide. Of that group, Brown might be most likely to make an attempt, perhaps couching it as a bid to place a black person back into the ranks of the Senate (Roland Burris of Illinois, who was appointed to succeed President Obama, did not stand for election this year.)

While the Democrats’ bench isn’t the largest one around, the side with an even more shallow bench is the GOP. Their group of elected officials who have run statewide is exceedingly small: former Governor Bob Ehrlich and the man who ran against Mikulski last time, State Senator E.J. Pipkin. Pipkin could well decide to go again if Mikulski retires and not worry about the First Congressional District race which he’s been rumored to consider entering.

The more intriguing possibility is Ehrlich, who’s not officially entered the GOP race for governor but has had the field essentially cleared for him by the withdrawal of three people previously interested, most recently onetime Congressional candidate Larry Hogan. Since the latest polls have Ehrlich trailing a governor in Martin O’Malley who’s only marginally popular statewide and Ehrlich doesn’t want to be placed in a position where he’s likely to lose, the open Senate seat could pique his interest.

Obviously that prospect would dim the hopes of the five people who have already entered the Senate race and would get a boost from not having to run against an entrenched incumbent. I’m going to ask them for comment and update the post if I get any.

However, before we get too far along and despite the fact Vail has laid out a good case for Mikulski’s retirement, it remains to be seen whether this is rumor or scoop. Yet given the other political news of Senate retirements (with the most recent shoe to drop being Mikulski’s fellow Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana) it’s not out of the question that Mikulski may feel it’s her time to go. On the other hand, though, Bayh faced a much tougher potential re-election fight than conventional wisdom pegged for Mikulski – so the health issues she’s faced lately may indeed be taking their toll.

Obviously this is a developing story I’ll stay on top of.

Upping the ante

Well, isn’t this conveeeeeeeeenient (spoken in a Church Lady voice).

Last week I talked about Organizing For Against America wanting 1 million volunteer hours to spread the lies about Obamacare – no surprise they got that goal, which I thought was a little weak considering there’s 13 million on the e-mail list. Here’s their breathless announcement:

In just the last 3 days, OFA volunteers like you have pledged an incredible 4,000,000 (and counting!) hours to support members of Congress and candidates who fight for real health reform.

We can prove to Congress that health reform is good policy and good politics, but we need to go as big as possible. So today we’re setting a new goal: 5 million hours pledged.

If we hit it, the country will know. We’ll be running an ad with the final tally in USA Today, the nation’s largest newspaper. And to make sure your voice is heard where it matters most, we’ll run radio ads in critical states and districts, featuring local voters announcing the pledge total from their area.

(snip)

Beginning soon, we’ll talk to voters state-by-state, district-by-district, about why it’s important to stand with those who fight for progress and reform — and reject those who stand with big insurers to protect a status quo that is devastating our economy, families, and businesses. (Emphasis in original.)

We can rewrite that last sentence to say: Beginning soon, Organizing Against America will go back to lying like a rug to promote our takeover of 1/6 of the national economy by wiping out private health insurance companies.

That and I’ll be listening for those radio ads around here since we’re represented a Democrat who’s been reticent to join the rest of his party, believing (correctly) to do so would be political suicide.

Bet the TEA Partiers can log 10 million hours, but we’re not going to pay for an ad in USA Today to crow about the accomplishment – we’re just going to get to work.

An annual ritual we can do without

This is the time of year most Americans receive their W-2 and 1099 forms, putting into motion the annual process of calculating the maximum amount they can get back from Uncle Sam.

Before April 15, many Americans will devote hours attempting to make sense of the tax laws for that elusive refund while others simply throw up their hands and hire a tax professional to handle their returns. It’s an industry which fetchingly promises their customers the largest tax refund they can get – if only Americans got an actual return on investment when that check arrived from the Department of the Treasury. Few people who receive tax refunds realize they’re simply being paid back the interest-free loan they gave to the federal bureaucracy the previous year.

Over the last decade or so, a few thinkers have attempted to convince Americans there’s a better way. Steve Forbes based two unsuccessful Presidential campaigns in 1996 and 2000 on the concept of a single-rate flat tax with few deductions, while Rep. John Linder of Georgia has spent the past decade introducing a consumption-based solution dubbed the FairTax to each new session of Congress.

While both methods are long on merits and could easily be adjusted to rates assuring sufficient funds for necessary government programs, there’s one element missing from these alternatives which prevents them from getting traction inside the Beltway or in any state capital.

America’s complex tax code allows Washington to control behavior through reward or punishment. In his recent State of the Union address, President Obama noted, “We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families…We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college.”

Most readers would nod their head in agreement because these are behaviors which tend to lead to productive lives. But if you become too productive by earning too much money, suddenly you’re a target. And a favorite weapon of Washington insiders is pegging these tax breaks to income, phasing them out if your family’s take-home pay starts to creep over a certain threshold considered “fair” by those in charge. President Obama campaigned on “sharing the wealth,” and if you happen to be someone who makes over $250,000 he considers your wealth his to share.

Yet figures compiled by the Heritage Foundation tell a different tale, noting that the top fifth of income earners saw their share of taxation increase from 81.2% in 2000 to 86.3% in 2006 – on only 55.7% of total income. Even under the Bush tax cuts panned by Democrats as “tax cuts for the rich” the high income earners as a whole shared far more than they made. While either of the proposed alternative methods of taxation would still come down harder on those who make large salaries, they wouldn’t tend to single producers out for punishment.

This fairer, flatter approach to taxation, though, flies in the face of a governmental philosophy that exists to redistribute wealth and thousands of lobbyists who make their living pitching new regulations and tax code designed to benefit those who stroke their checks at the expense of business competitors or political opponents. These are the people who are perfectly happy to maintain a complicated, unfair system where its sheer complexity bullies taxpayers into not taking every allowable deduction and where errant filers are guilty until proven innocent.

It’s a system long overdue for fundamental change, and soon we’ll have the opportunity to elect politicians with the spine to undertake it.

Michael Swartz, an architect and writer who lives in rural Maryland, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

This effort for Liberty Features cleared February 4th.

Benefits with friends

This is a tale of two (actually, three) good events in one weekend – if circumstances permit I plan on being at two. Let’s start with next Saturday, February 20th:

You actually have two chances to attend, one during the afternoon and one during the evening. My guess is that the six bands (in alphabetical order they are Bluelight Special, Corey Franklin, Not My Own, Proof Of Love, Reconcile520, and The Permilla Project – someone who reads this may let me know the actual lineup order) will play about a half-hour set apiece with a few minutes set aside for setup, then do it over for show #2. It promises to be a long day for the performers but an entertaining day for the patrons.

One thing this doesn’t tell me, though, is a cost – apparently there is a freewill donation but there are special deals available, at least according to Reconcile520’s Facebook page.

However, you might need to be a little extra generous with your donations on this one. This is a comment from Progressive Delmarva, where “Reconciled1” is one of the contributors:

By the time the civic center added all their extra fees.. the room is costing us roughly 1800 bucks. We were originally told $758 then you add a 10% building improvement fee, .25 a chair rental and set up fee, security, event staff, stage manager, paramedic on site, etc… the room was waaaaayyyy more then first quoted. We had volunteers to do all of this but they refused and said it had to be through them. Our stage manager had an inside track in there and it was taken in front of the board to see if they would donate the room but the board turned it down.. The reason we aren’t selling tickets before the concert at the box office is because there is another added cost to do that. With all things considered, we have roughly $5,000 into the operating cost when you add in the sound and light company and the use of a back room for the bands to hang out during the concert.

We have a restuarant that is feeding us all but we have to use another building for that because the Civic Center wouldn’t allow them to cater in. We would have to us their catering if we want to eat. Live and learn…….. The next concert will most likely be held somewhere else.

This got me thinking back to the first Salisbury Skatepark fundraiser, which was also held at the Civic Center – but subsequent ones were held in other locations. Maybe that’s why.

As far as the bands go, the two I’m most familiar with are The Permilla Project (I’ve seen them at the Salisbury Festival) and Not My Own, which has been featured occasionally on 93.5 the Beach’s “Local Produce” show. So the show should have a fair dose of original music along with some cover stuff too.

Then Sunday brings another benefit show – this one benefitting a different cause.

We all know about the tragic death of Sarah Haley Foxwell late last year, and the Wicomico Child Advocacy Center is using her name (presumably with the permission of her family) to raise money and awareness for their cause. It’s a little different fundraiser for them than I am used to, since the last couple years they have auctioned off special gameworn items from the Shorebirds. Last year’s auction was a bit of a downer because of all the rainouts the team suffered, so this is a different opportunity to contribute to the cause and hear more local music.

(There’s also free food, a silent auction, and 50/50 raffle to help raise money beyond the $20 admission price.)

In this case the bands will be Wes Davis, Agent 99, and Vivid Season. (Yep, this is why I included the Vivid Season video last night.)

I’m more familiar with these bands, although I’ve yet to see Vivid Season live. Wes Davis is a frequent player at Salisbury area events, including the Salisbury Festival, and has performed a number of times on Ocean 98’s “Live Lixx at Six.” And many of the events featured in my Weekend of Local Rock series have been graced by the sounds of the ladies of Agent 99, so I’ve seen them at least a half-dozen times. With the possible exception of Wes Davis throwing in an original composition or two, expect to hear a wide range of classic and modern rock standards remade in each band’s image.

If you haven’t been able to get out this weekend to cure your cabin fever, next weekend may present an opportune time to do so.

Friday night videos episode 23

This will be a somewhat abbreviated version which focuses less on politics and more on other fun stuff. I just have to remember to set these up to the proper format for my revised site.

Jim Rutledge is among five Republicans running for the United States Senate seat in Maryland. This is one of several videos he’s placed on his website to explain his views. (In the interest of fairness, I looked on his main competitor’s website and he has no videos – if I find he has a Youtube channel I’ll put his up.) This is called “The Bankrupting of America.”

A much more famous former (and future?) candidate graces the spotlight here. After the commercial (since this comes from the CBS News site) you can watch the entirety of Sarah Palin’s address to the TEA Party Convention in Nashville.

Since Palin’s speech was so long, I’m going to shift gears and add a couple local music videos I stumbled across. Each week I make an effort to be near my radio at 9 p.m. Sunday to catch the show “Local Produce” (it’s on 93.5 the Beach.) One of the hosts is Bob Daigle and in replaying my Semiblind video I featured last fall (“Right As Rain”) I found they did the same song acoustically at the 93.5 the Beach studios. Here’s that video.

And the original, plugged version I had from last October. The sound’s not as good but it’s interesting to hear the difference.

The solo which comes in about 2:30 works much better plugged in.

Lastly, this band is a local band called Vivid Season who’s taking time to help a good cause (as you’ll see in a post tomorrow. This is called a “tease.”)

Since the song is from their website, I don’t think they mind sharing.

Hope you enjoyed the extra music after the politics. If I can find enough good stuff from local bands I may make that a larger part of future FNV episodes – I figure I deal with politics five or six other days a week (depending on time of year) so why not let my hair down – what little I have – on the weekends, right?

Just how essential is “non-essential?”

As the large majority of my readers know – I’ll say large majority because readership is fairly Delmarva-centric but others from across our land stumble onto the site as well – this neck of the woods just endured two significant snow events in a week’s time (and may get another half-foot for the Presidents’ Day holiday.) In each case, state and local government shut down as did the gears of Washington, D.C. Only “essential” workers needed to come in while others were told to stay home or placed on the (aptly-named) “liberal leave policy.”

The obvious question to ask, then, is just how these positions can’t be cut in an era where we all need to cut back on our personal spending due to unemployment, lack of raises, or cutbacks in hours. Sure, there will be some government workers added to the unemployment rolls for a time but leaving capital in the private sector will eventually allow these workers to be absorbed back into the labor pool.

Of course, some would ask about the services which these temporarily furloughed workers were performing to make them non-essential. One example could be the paid staff at one of the many attractions run by the federal government and closed during the height of the storm. Tourism wasn’t exactly bustling during this time when everyone was hunkered down.

Perhaps the biggest shock was the news reports that these unexpected furloughs cost taxpayers $350 million in lost productivity for 3 1/2 days off. Some did their work from home, but if you take that figure and assume 200 days’ work per year it seems like an easy $20 billion cut right there without even breathing hard. It was a tough go for us in the mid-Atlantic region but out in flyover country people survived the lack of non-essential federal services pretty well.

Then again, if the definition of lost productivity includes not dreaming up needless regulations and lobbyists losing a chance to buttonhole their bought and paid for members of Congress on their newest rentseeking schemes (which only qualifies as productivity in the bizarro world of Fedzilla,) $100 million a day might not be a bad price to pay considering the federal government now spends over $10 billion per day.

We are approaching a point where the federal government is taking in less than 60% of what it spends (a $1.6 trillion deficit on $3.8 trillion budget.) Just to make things even we would need to cut entire departments or seriously curtail entitlement programs, or both. The Blizzards of 2010 proved that not everything is a vital function of government; however, the weaning of dependency needs to spread far beyond the borders of the District of Columbia.

Often I write about returning to a government based on the Constitution and much smaller than what we’re saddled with today. Those who more or less agree with me banded together into TEA Parties and eventually took that message to the “belly of the beast.” I’m certain that the vast majority of them would be willing to give up some cherished government service or entitlement as their sacrifice to the cause. To be truly independent and free requires losing the chains of dependence and slavery that Washington puts on us, and the elections of 2010 and 2012 could provide the key.

At that point, perhaps the next “storm of the century” won’t be such a big deal because the federal seat of government will command much less importance in life.

Note: while I was crossposting this to Red County, I ran across a great article by Chip Hanlon about those TEA Partiers – it’s well worth reading. Some places will need these protests longer than others will as there are governmental bodies who are getting the message.

Does the GOP listen to a minority – or its base?

Longtime readers may know that some of my readers are on the opposite side of the immigration issue as I, and the other day one sent along a report attempting to convince me of dire consequences if the GOP doesn’t follow the Democrats as the party of amnesty. One of the findings of this report by America’s Voice is that Latinos distrust the GOP on immigration and switched over a four year period from being Bush voters to Obama voters. Then again, one needs to question the mindset of the group when the report is released in a press conference with:

The America’s Voice report “The Power of the Latino Vote” was released yesterday during a telephonic press conference with Eliseo Medina, Executive Vice President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU); Janet Murguía, President of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR); and Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America’s Voice.

Undoubtedly, each of these groups has an interest in unfettered immigration, particularly the SEIU – you don’t think they’d love to organize these low-skill workers for the millions in union dues they can shift to the Democratic Party?

Given that backing, it’s no wonder they try to convince Republicans they have the wrong view; but in truth even if the GOP completely changed its position to advocate for amnesty they’d be better off attempting to woo voters in downtown San Francisco. In many respects the Latino population is like the black population and will likely languish in poverty the same way, just with poverty pimps who speak Spanish.

On the other hand, the base that the GOP counts on doesn’t want amnesty, and it’s a stance which appeals to those union households who were the backbone of the Reagan Democrats.

A Zogby poll conducted in November asked a cross-section of Americans their views on immigration with specific attention paid to business executives, union households, and small business owners. As documented by the Center for Immigration Studies, these groups overwhelmingly believe that amnesty is not the way to go.

Something tells me that a number of these people also comprise a goodly portion of TEA Party activists – the ones who stayed home on Election Day 2008 because they were disillusioned with a GOP candidate who was perceived as pro-amnesty in John McCain. Yet even the pro-amnesty side concedes that:

Last week, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) sent a political warning to his fellow Democrats: if immigration reform doesn’t pass, as promised, Latinos won’t vote.

Thus, the threat posed by the pro-amnesty side may be a hollow one, and I’d rather take my chances on not losing the votes of the TEA Party people who have been ready and raring to go to the polls by stopping amnesty than worry about Latino voters who may or may not show up – chances are that the heavily Latino districts would vote Democrat anyway just as heavily black districts do.

Do we need immigration reform? Yes, we do. But the first steps need to be making our border more secure and verifying that illegals aren’t getting the jobs Americans can do, along with reforming the visa system to help us root out scofflaws who overstay.

The question becomes whether we are a nation which sacrifices the rule of law for the almighty buck, and allowing those who cross illegally to become legal citizens without significant penalty flies in the face of those law-abiding immigrants who went about chasing the American Dream the right way. While Ronald Reagan was a great President, one of his biggest mistakes was agreeing to amnesty for millions of illegals in 1986 – it was the root of the immigration problem we have now.

Hit back twice as hard!

Well, well, well…even the folks at Organizing For Against America sound worried about election prospects. Think our side has an effective strategy going or what? Mitch Stewart must:

As we head into an election year, the new strategy for killing reform is claiming that members of Congress who vote for it will suffer at the polls.

For months, our opponents have spread lies about reform to scare voters away. But the simple truth about what reform would actually do — save jobs, guarantee all Americans affordable, stable coverage, and significantly reduce the deficit — is something most Americans strongly support.

The question is, come November, will the voters know the facts?

OFA supporters have asked for a way to show every member of Congress that if they fight for reform now, we’ll back them up this election season.

That’s why we’re launching “You fight, we’ll fight” — a volunteer pledge bank where you can commit your time to back up candidates and officials who fight hard for health reform.

We’re shooting for 1,000,000 hours pledged to spread the word to fellow voters. And if we get there, we’ll publish the total hours pledged in USA Today, so there will be no doubt that health reform is both good policy and good politics.

(snip)

President Obama has made it crystal clear that he has no intention of walking away from health reform — and this movement has made its desire to fight on just as clear.

And many members of Congress are already working hard by his side to get the job done. But for those on the fence about whether or not to proceed, knowing you are there to back up a courageous stand can make all the difference.

Your volunteer hours can have a huge impact no matter where you live. You can make calls into critical districts where health reform champions are in jeopardy, write letters to the editor, volunteer for nearby campaigns, or even just talk to friends, family, and neighbors to help cut through the special interest spin.

We’ll offer lots of ways to get involved between now and the elections in November, and you can decide which are right for you — the important thing right now is to publicly show your commitment to fight for those who make health reform a reality.

(snip)

We’ve certainly faced setbacks in this fight. But as President Obama told OFA supporters last week, that only means we need to work that much harder. (Emphasis in original.)

The problem for Mitch and his gang is that Americans DO know the facts, and they don’t want the significant changes threatened in the legislation. By the way, the legislation won’t save jobs, doesn’t cover everyone (even proponents agree that millions would be left out) and isn’t deficit-neutral because no Congress has the guts to cut Medicare payments to make it even out. Those aren’t lies – sorry, Mitch.

Anyway, I happen to recall that the Organizing Against America database reaches about 13 million e-mail addresses, so they only need a small percentage of them to pledge to reach 1,000,000 hours. Doesn’t really seem like that ambitious of a goal when you compare it to the number of hours TEA Party volunteers and participants have put in. I’m sure it took the million-plus in Washington on 9-12 last year more than an hour to express their views.

But it’s interesting I received this e-mail and it may be because I happen to live in a district where a Democrat went against his party to vote no on reform. I don’t recommend hanging your Congressman in effigy to get the point across, but something in the pro-liberty tactics worked and Frank Kratovil just said no. Naturally he left his opposition open to change based on factors within the bill, but for now he’s on the right side of the issue and the reason is he’s not suicidal when it comes to re-election.

While polls may suggest that Americans want some sort of health care reform, this solution isn’t what they desire. If it were truly popular, why would most of it not be adopted until 2013?

I’m curious to see when the ad will appear in USA Today, although I suspect it may be awhile. But I’ll bet TEA Party activists can easily top whatever the (probably made-up) figure Organizing Against America comes up with. When the Democrats have to come up with trickery in order to pass this bill, the message should be like the new third rail of American politics: touch that “yes” button when Obamacare comes up for a vote and you’re dead at the ballot box.

I can commit some time to helping make sure foes of freedom are defeated in November; how about you?

Those things which divide us

The other day I began a Facebook group based on political belief. This nascent group isn’t large and it may sound controversial, but hear me out before you condemn.

The group is called “Answer just ONE question on the Census.” My contention is that the only question which should be answered on the upcoming Census form is the one where you state how many people live in your dwelling because the only mandated purpose for the census – according to the Constitution at any rate – is to determine numbers for proportional representation to Congress. If America has 300 million people and 435 representatives to Congress, then the only thing truly necessary to know is how much of a multiple of 690,000 or so live in each state so we know the proper number of Congressmen a state should have. For Maryland that will likely remain eight and for Delaware one.

The important question on the standard Census form is Question #1: “How many people were living in this house, apartment, or mobile home on April 1, 2010?” It’s the population snapshot which determines the count they need.

But Question 2 asks about additional people (related or unrelated) not included so they can “contact respondents whose forms have incomplete or missing information.” Since there is no need for additional information, it seems to me this can be used to hound nonresponders. Perhaps this question is innocent enough, but it leads to more divisive questions.

The third question asks about the status of your living arrangements, whether you own or rent. The answers are “used to administer housing programs and to inform planning decisions.”

This is where the Census starts to creep well beyond its appointed scope. Then Question 4 asks for your phone number “so they can contact respondents whose forms have incomplete or missing information.” No, the government does not need my telephone number because who knows where that data may end up. Same with Question 5, which asks for the name of each person living in the home.

Question 6 asks about gender, in part because “many federal programs must differentiate between males and females for funding, implementing, and evaluating their programs.” Now back in 1790 when this was first asked this might have made sense because the voting franchise was unavailable to women, but we took care of that with the Nineteenth Amendment.

The next question (#7) asks for age and date of birth, in part for “forecasting the number of people eligible for Social Security or Medicare services.” It’s a handy way to continue the transfer of wealth of working-age folks to those seniors who rely on entitlements. That gravy train is soon coming to an end because the Ponzi schemes are unsustainable.

But the two truly dividing questions begin with Question 8: “Is Person (x) of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?” As the Census people explain, “state and local governments may use the data to help plan and administer bilingual programs for people of Hispanic origin.” Aren’t we supposed to speak English in America? Similarly, Question 9 asks about race in order to cover any other minorities.

More troubling is the data on Question 9 goes to the purpose Question 1 is supposed to: “State governments use the data to determine congressional, state, and local voting districts.”

YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DIVIDE BY POPULATION! NOT BY RACE, NOT BY GENDER, NOT BY WHETHER WE OWN OUR HOME OR WE DON’T – NOT BY ANYTHING EXCEPT “AMERICAN!” This is the one situation where the old Bob Seger song “Feel Like A Number” should apply.

Question 10 just asks about whether the people in Question 1 stay somewhere else. Compared to the other ones, it’s fairly innocuous.

The Census is sold as an innocent method to get what a community deserves – radio commercials pit it as a method to assure we have the classrooms we need or the traffic signals a growing area has to have. But there are other ways of getting that information – school systems annually count their enrollment and traffic counts are easy to obtain.

Perhaps the biggest problem I have with the Census is that “each question helps to determine how more than $400 billion will be allocated to communities across the country.” It’s a signal of just how far the nation has gotten from Constitutional government and become addicted to the spoils of Fedzilla largesse.

But if you answer just one question on the Census, it confounds the process and hopefully sends a message to Washington that we as a nation refuse to be divided. As it is, the system pits black against white, man against woman, poor against wealthy, and old against young in a never-ending battle for taxpayer funding.

I thought the idea was “united we stand”, so why should we assist the overly mammoth federal government in dividing us? Just answer Question 1 and send the form back. Let them call; that’s all the info they’re getting out of me.

A blizzard of budgeting

While the 2010 election is over eight months away, in sitting here watching the snow come down yet again this gives me an insight on writing a relevant post; one about the role of government.

One thing we expect for our tax dollars is snow removal, but this fickle and historic succession of snowstorms will certainly strain budgets in the affected counties and states. I’ve lived in Maryland for six winters now and some of them had less snowfall in toto than we’ve had in the last two weeks. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen 2 feet or more of snow in the backyard, and obviously that makes clearing highways a dicey process, let alone running a plow on the side roads.

Yet my fear is that we overcompensate next year and expect more storms of the century in the budgetary process. Certainly many scientists see us entering a long-term period of cooler weather than we’ve come to expect, but it’s highly unlikely that the winter of 2010-11 will see our area become ground zero for winter storms again. A manner of comparison can be drawn with hurricane seasons – some seasons Florida is hit hard, sometimes it’s the Texas Gulf Coast, and at times the Outer Banks seem to be in the crosshairs. Last year we even had the variation of an eerily quiet hurricane season.

But these storms have also proven that we can’t simply count on government to bail us out.

I have good friends who live in rural Delaware, and last weekend’s storm meant they had to do without power for the better part of two days. Obviously part of their issue was being in such a remote location, but the utility claimed they couldn’t get their trucks onto their road because it wasn’t plowed. As it turned out, the government didn’t plow their road – a local farmer did. (More importantly, the farmer helped the community by bearing the cost himself for the gas and use of his tractor.)

On a larger scale, allocation of a finite amount of resources is a tricky thing. Ask someone who was looking for a snow shovel this week whether they wished they’d purchased one a month ago and the answer would likely be yes. But, based on the experience of previous winters people felt no need to invest in a snow shovel. They do invest in bread, milk, and toilet paper on a usual basis, though, but you’d never know that with the panic buying which has occurred over the last couple weeks.

However, it is easier for private enterprise to find scarce resources than it is for a bureaucracy to do so – that Titanic is much more difficult to turn around once the course is reset. It’s for this reason I’ve often opined that there are a number of services which may work out better if done by the private sector than the public sector, and snow removal is one. No, it’s not foolproof and there is the possibility of corruption in awarding such a contract as opposed to having county or state workers do that job in addition to other tasks, but I think it’s worth exploring due to the obviously cyclical example of weather.

It also goes without saying that next winter may see a slew of entrepreneurs who will see the booming business private snow removal has done over the last month and hope to cash in next year. This could make the price of snow removal via private contractor more attractive – so why not consider the option?

One other thought occurs to me as I listen to the news of several roof collapses affecting poultry farmers.

With the difficulty these businessmen have had in erecting new chicken houses because of EPA regulations, will the damage from this storm hasten the long, slow decline of the poultry industry Delamarva is enduring? The industry is supposedly moving south already, so this storm just may be a fatal blow to some growers.

These chilling thoughts aren’t exactly the type preferred to get through what’s become a historically rough winter, but we as a region need to ponder them since we have little else to do as we’re buried farther in snow today.

Who’s running the government now?

This from Americans for Limited Government explains a lot. A few excerpts:

An email sent from an Service Employees International Union (SEIU) lobbyist to Democratic members of the U.S. Senate shows that the SEIU had advance knowledge of when key votes on Craig Becker were to be held. Becker is one of Barack Obama’s nominees for the National Labor Relations Board.

The email was released by Jeri Thompson, co-host of the Fred Thompson Show. Thompson described the email as “marching orders to the Senate HELP Committee, telling them what their schedule was going to be.”

According to the email sent from Alison Reardon, legislative consultant for SEIU, “Your attendance at is crucial to appointing Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Please attend Thursday’s HELP Ex. Session to report out President Obama’s nomination of Craig Becker for Senate confirmation.”

The memo continues, “This is the highest priority for organized labor, and Majority Leader Reid will file Cloture on Friday 2/5, and has assured us that Senate will vote to end debate at 5 p.m. Monday 2/8.”

The email also asks for Senators to confirm their attendance at the executive session of the HELP Committee.

In essence, the Senate was working at the beck and call of the Service Employees International Union. Talk about buying access! Their millions in campaign contributions sure are coming in handy as far as that goes.

Fortunately, it doesn’t look like the Becker nomination will go through because the GOP has another helper against him: Senator Ben Nelson, in full panic mode after word of the Cornhusker Kickback got out, has signaled he’d join with the GOP in filibustering the nominee. So the SEIU will be thwarted for now into getting their toady onto the National Labor Relations Board. (The vote today was 52-33 to invoke cloture with Democrats Nelson and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas joining the GOP cause.)

But just imagine if ExxonMobil or Halliburton had been behind a memo such as this – do you think the mainstream media and leftist bloggers wouldn’t be screaming about impeachment hearings? Yet most of what we’ve heard about this issue from the folks at the mainstream media (like this CBS News example from today) talks about how business groups held his nomination up, not the machinations to grease the skids.

Obviously the situation ended well, but the question remains whether this sort of influence exerted by the SEIU and Big Labor in general is too much for America’s good.