Up in the Second Congressional District, GOP candidate Larry Smith is challenging his four rivals to eight hour-long debates on various issues. But considering he has more to gain than two of his rivals (who serve in the Maryland General Assembly) that’s probably a pipe dream – not to mention they would likely be in session several nights a week.

But the key complaint Smith has is simpler: “This election should not be decided on who has the most insider endorsements, but rather who would be the best representative of the voters of the district.” All that is true, but if these debates were to come to pass I would hope that a conservative runs them, rather than the debacles we have seen with the GOP Presidential debates and their “gotcha” questions.

I wish Mr. Smith the best of luck in going to Washington.

Another Congressman wanted to make sure that there are no excuses to halt the exploration for natural gas in Maryland.

Last week Andy Harris held a hearing regarding the EPA’s findings in groundwater research in an area where fracking (hydraulic fracturing) is being performed. The EPA study is being questioned by experts who contend the study is being biased to show groundwater contamination which isn’t there.

“This hearing exposes how the EPA is willing to use junk science to promote unnecessary fear about the safety of hydraulic fracturing in an attempt to carry out the President’s climate change agenda,” said Harris. “The testimony was clear that this study is not applicable to Marcellus Shale, so hopefully Governor O’Malley won’t use this flawed study as an excuse to advance his own climate change agenda.”

Both Harris’s opening statement and the webcast are available for inspection. You may recall this was the hearing where a documentary filmmaker (not friendly to the oil and gas industry) was ejected for not seeking the proper credentials beforehand.

Speaking of oil and gas, the prospect of a gasoline tax strikes fear into Maryland drivers. I’ve already covered this at some length, but I wanted to point out a quote from a release I received from Maryland Business for Responsive Government concerning the Purple Line, a proposed light-rail system between New Carrollton and Bethesda. MBRG states:

The governor claims the increase is necessary to fund transportation projects, including the Purple Line, a $2 billion light-rail boondoggle meant to run between Bethesda and New Carrollton. This unpopular scheme could result in more than 300 families being tossed out of their homes through eminent domain.

This project is typical of leftist transportation policies that seek to redistribute wealth from automobile commuters – the vast majority – to the handful who prefer a government-subsidized ride. According to the latest Census Bureau data, only 5.2 percent of Marylanders take public transit. The absurdly optimistic forecast that 60,000 will use the purple trolley means the subsidy will be $33,000 per daily rider. It would be cheaper just to hand each of them a free car. (Emphasis mine.)

Isn’t that what liberals want to do anyway? Traffic will be just as bad, and the subsidy worse because the train will go from suburb to suburb. Unless someone has done the traffic study to prove this is a popular route not directly served by highways, I suspect this will indeed be a colossal waste of money. On the other hand, at $5 million per lane mile we could build a 4-lane expressway from Salisbury to Dover to connect to the existing improved section of Delaware Route 1 and have money left over for building a few needed interchanges at major highways. That would do a lot more good for Delmarva’s economy.

Instead, Martin O’Malley wants to build a slew of wind turbines around the state and off Ocean City. Maybe he should go watch this before he spends our tax dollars tilting at windmills:

I would imagine that a number of people who live out in Western Maryland and can’t cash in on the Marcellus Shale natural gas underneath their property have fallen for this racket – and I mean that in a literal sense. Just wait until they build these offshore and another Hurricane Irene lumbers by just off the coast. You don’t need to worry about that with fracking.

Last week I pointed out some of the GOP reaction to Martin O’Malley’s State of the State address. But I missed this one, and it’s pretty cute. Delegates Susan Aumann and Kathy Szeliga had their own take:

However, I have one objection – I hope they’re not playing ‘Angry Birds’ while they’re supposed to be taking votes or attending a hearing. Aside from that, they are right on target. And as others have pointed out, losing the Amazon sales via the ‘app tax’ could really hurt their bottom lines. Not so much here, but I like having the option open – at least for my friends.

Now let’s talk a little bit of activism. At the last WCRC meeting speaker Cathy Keim described what Election Integrity Maryland is doing, but in passing remarked about efforts in Wisconsin to verify recall signatures – a process rife with fraud thanks to multiple signatures from selected signers and obviously fake names like ‘Mickey Mouse’ or ‘Adolf Hitler.’ Regardless, these were supposed to be counted unless the validity of the signatures is challenged.

Verify the Recall is looking for volunteers to help with the effort of checking for duplicate signatures and against the database of existing voters. It would be utterly hilarious if the petition effort was found to have come up short because of the absolute and insidious fraud perpetrated by Big Labor and other anti-Scott Walker liberal groups.

Voter integrity will be one of the subjects of the next Worcester County TEA Party meeting at 6:15 p.m. on Friday, February 17 in the Ocean Pines Community Hall. They’ll also receive a legislative update from Delegate Mike McDermott. Hopefully I’ll get on-the-spot coverage from my correspondent over Worcester County way.

As I have the last two times, I’ll go through the sites I’ve added on my sidebar. Both of these are national sites which many of you have already heard of, but I had heretofore overlooked Instapundit and The Right Scoop. Not anymore. You may also notice I enhanced my link to the Maryland Democratic Party with a new widget in order to be fair and balanced.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t wish a happy 101st birthday to our late fortieth President, who was the first  President I cast a vote for in 1984 and for my money hasn’t been equaled in my lifetime before or since. Rest in peace, President Reagan, for you are sorely missed. The centennial hoopla may be coming to a close but the legacy remains.

I couldn’t figure out how to embed this “Made in America” video, but I found it interesting when I watched it. I’m generally in favor of free trade and against strict protectionism, but if the difference is as small as they claim then buying American is worth it. Perhaps the claim of using 5% more American products would create 220,000 jobs is a bit dubious, but I’m sure it wouldn’t hurt.

Our nation needs to take steps in regaining its onetime prominence as a leading manufacturer. But it’s interesting to note several of the companies prominently mentioned have at least one plant in a right-to-work state. I can’t ascertain whether these are all non-union shops, but chances are fairly good – given that only about 1/10 of the private-sector workforce is unionized – that these good, honest American jobs don’t come with the union label.

Not that Maryland is making any quick moves to join the ranks of Virginia and other right-to-work states – this year, HB91 hasn’t progressed beyond first reading. But the group New Day Maryland pointed out to me a couple other bills of interest in the General Assembly this term to keep an eye on, and I thought I’d pass along the word.

House Bill 23, the Dedicated State Funds Protection Act, would prohibit the fund-raiding Governor O’Malley is almost as well known for as his constant zeal to raise taxes. And House Bill 43 would allow appropriations bills to be subjected to the same referendum process as those bills not dealing with appropriations. (The last remaining legal straw opponents of the in-state tuition for illegal aliens referendum are grasping for is that the bill is an appropriations bill, although it’s not.)

Both these bills have a hearing scheduled for 2 p.m. on January 31. I presume written testimony is acceptable, too.

Of course, if you would like to provide more than testimony in writing and want to be a bulldog for individual rights and liberty in a state which isn’t as free as its moniker might claim it is, you may be interested in an upcoming event.

A “Citizen Watchdog Training Seminar” is being held on Saturday, February 4 at The Gathering Place in Clarksville, MD. For only $35 per person ($25 for students) to cover the cost of lunch and materials, participants will receive training in several areas:

• How to be an information activist
• How to use investigative reporting tools and skills
• How to impact the state and local government budgetary process
• How to hold elected officials accountable using social media

Sponsored by Maryland CAN and the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, this seminar should be an interesting look at how to become a better citizen activist.

Citizen activists of another type are what Obama For Against America looks for. This is an excerpt from a recent e-mail I received from them:

Supporters of the President are organizing house parties in thousands of neighborhoods across America to watch the State of the Union on January 24th.

But I checked a little while ago and there wasn’t one planned yet in your neighborhood.

The State of the Union is one of the best chances we’ll have this spring to bring new folks into this campaign and our organizing work. We’ve got to make the most of it. (Emphasis in original.)

I have news for Jeremy Bird, who sent me the e-mail: you likely won’t have one in Salisbury and if you did it would be hosted by the same insufferable twerps who regularly tell us they know what’s best for us. If I were to throw a party for the State of the Union show, it would be for the response:

Tea Party Express, the nation’s largest tea party political action committee, is announcing that Herman Cain will be delivering the Tea Party State of the Union response at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on the evening of January 24, 2012.

(snip)

Sal Russo, Chief Strategist of the TEA Party Express, added:

“We are enthusiastic that a successful conservative governor like Mitch Daniels of Indiana will be giving the Republican response. I know that both Governor Daniels and Mr. Cain will contribute important ideas for the future of our country.”

I guess the only way to otherwise make the SOTU interesting would be to make a drinking game out of every time President Obama blames Republicans or a do-nothing Congress – unless you were taking shots of diet Pepsi, I wouldn’t advise driving afterward. Normally I just read it afterward because I have better things to do with my hour, but I would be interested in hearing what Herman Cain has to say.

Returning to items of state interest, the Eighth District Congressional race got a little more star power:

Nationally recognized investigative reporter and international religious-freedom advocate Ken Timmerman announced he will challenge incumbent Rep. Chris Van Hollen in the 8th District of Maryland, vowing to rein in out-of-control federal spending, promote jobs through growth, and maintain a strong national defense adapted to the challenges of tomorrow.

“In just three years, the Obama administration, eagerly assisted by Chris Van Hollen as Chairman and Ranking Member of the Budget Committee in Congress, has racked up a breath-taking $5 trillion in new debt, and now they are asking for $1.2 trillion more,” the Montgomery County conservative said.

“The scandalous enactment of Obamacare, with its special interest waivers and the potential bankrupcy of our health care system, is a poster child for everything that is wrong with Congress. Chris Van Hollen had a chance to work toward getting our fiscal house in order. He failed. Now he needs to go,” said Timmerman. (Again, emphasis in original.)

Obviously the best-selling author will have an edge in name recognition, but he also has some political history – Ken ran before and lost, finishing fifth out of eight in the Republican U.S. Senate primary 12 years ago. Granted, this was before he wrote his most successful books.

(And, as an aside to prove the fact some people just can’t get enough of seeing themselves on a ballot, two other contenders from that particular 2000 race are running again – George English is also in the Eighth District race as a Democrat and Robin Ficker is running for the Sixth District Congressional seat as a Republican.)

Speaking of national politics, you may have noticed that from time to time I point out items from or link to the Maryland Juice website. Something I just found out is that David Moon, who writes that website, is also the press contact for the Demand Progress group. While I normally don’t agree with their aims, Demand Progress was front and center on the SOPA/PIPA protest, and for that they deserve a pat on the back. As I said the other day, I don’t mind having people on the other side with me when they’re in the right.

Lastly, I want to debut a new feature that is probably appropriate for this irregularly-scheduled segment.

From time to time, I find new websites to link to but they may not necessarily be apparent to the average reader who sees my site daily because I just place them on my existing link lists.

But over the last month or so I found a couple good sites and I thought this was as good a venue as any to showcase them, so here goes. On a local level the Easton Savvy website looks promising, while Jen Kuznicki is an up-and-coming conservative writer and Mark Levin follower from Michigan.

Something I’m going to try and do more often is quality control on my links, pruning ones which don’t update all that much (thus, losing my interest) and finding new venues which look promising. So read and enjoy them after you go through what I have to say.

Update: Since I pruned a few links this evening, I also added a few and changed some around:

• The former Confederate Yankee site is no more, but CY co-writer Bob Owens has his own site now.
• She doesn’t post every day, but Zilla of the Resistance looks like a worthwhile read.
• It used to be Crisfield News, but now Patty Hancock has her own name on the site.
• I also moved the Maryland Society of Patriots site off the Free State bloglist and into the Political Links section.

I’ll probably add more in the coming days, but the Zilla blog gave me something to think about. I’ll post my thoughts on it tomorrow so stay tuned.

Reactions? Well, pretty much what I expected. Needless to say, Mark Green at Energy Tomorrow was critical of the decision, stating President Obama wasn’t after jobs but “settled on a different calculus – re-election politics.” The American Petroleum Institute writer also pointed out the Keystone project had been under review for three years, plenty of time to gauge environmental impact. This is particularly true when one considers the Keystone XL pipeline could have run close by the existing Keystone pipeline already in use.

Closer to home, it’s clear that Senator Ben Cardin is out of touch with Americans who would rather not see surging gas prices become a way of life. Instead, the state’s junior Senator said in a release that proponents were “putting expediency and corporate interests ahead of the many…concerns.” Again, Senator Cardin must have missed the point: the project was reviewed for three years. It may be worth reminding Big Labor about this statement from Cardin a few months from now.

On the other hand, one of his possible Republican opponents gets it right. Rich Douglas was appropriately outraged about Obama’s lack of foresight, saying he and his allies “knifed American workers in the back…the administration and (certain members of) Congress sent a message to American workers – drop dead.”

And I loved this passage regarding Cardin’s opposition:

Each election season, the U.S. Congress and Senate Majority – to which Mr. Ben Cardin belongs – protest their undying affection for American workers and their families. But when push came to shove on Keystone, when Mr. Cardin and other Senators could have hammered some sense into Foggy Bottom and the Oval Office, where were they? In the head.

Indeed, Douglas served as a Navy submarine machinist’s mate, so he’s qualified to make that blunt assessment.

Equally caustic was the response by local Congressman Andy Harris, a portion of which I’ll pass along:

“We can’t wait for the President because his inaction will hurt the American economy and consumers through higher energy costs. The time to act is now and that’s why I’ve cosponsored H.R. 3548 which takes the authority to approve the Keystone Pipeline out of his hands. This bill allows the project to move forward and encourages economic growth and job creation through the construction of the pipeline.”

Good for him; unfortunately the bill may be too little, too late.

There’s a hard reality at work here: the Alberta oil sands are already being exploited and a number of countries want the oil from them. It’s not a stretch to believe that a pipeline couldn’t instead be built westward toward the Pacific, and that China would be more than willing to make it happen. While President Obama’s actions and the unforeseen event of the Deepwater Horizon disaster have contributed to the rise in gasoline prices since Obama took office, we can’t overlook another key fact: we’re not the only developed nation thirsty for oil. Already a portion of what we refine here is shipped overseas, and the fact we haven’t built a new refinery in over three decades doesn’t help matters either.

(If Obama wanted to create shovel ready jobs, he could also dust off a proposal President Bush had several years back – he offered a plan to use closed military bases as sites for new refineries. More importantly, though, Bush wanted to streamline the permitting process for expanding capacity, whether at new or existing sites.)

In time, it is theoretically possible that Americans could get all of their oil from either one of three places: on American soil, in the waters off America’s shores, and the friendly neighbor of Canada, which is already our leading foreign supplier. Because of various factors, around 5 out of every 8 barrels of oil we use already comes from domestic supplies or Canada, and according to another EIA summary we peaked in foreign oil dependence back in 2005. Sadly, rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline may force us to reverse that downward trend and leave us vulnerable to the prospect of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz or tensions in other regions of the world.

But President Obama can burnish his reputation among those who believe the alternative energy fairy will come down and make our cars run on magic pixie dust. At least they may as well believe this since it’s about as logical as using food for fuel or subsidizing hybrid cars to the tune of $250,000 apiece. (Oh wait, we already do those things. But I still think the pixie dust is far-fetched.)

It looks like America’s loss may be China’s gain, while Canada stands to benefit regardless.

Last year two bills were introduced, one in the House and one in the Senate, that could radically damage the internet as we know it. In the Senate, the version is known as the Protect IP Act, while its House cousin is called the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA. Backers of the bills claim they are necessary to prevent the theft of intellectual property, but to find out what these bills really are about one can just follow the money – the national Chamber of Commerce, which favors the bill, claims that Hollywood studios, record labels, and publishing houses collectively lose $135 billion a year from piracy.

So how would this affect me? Well, you know that neat little feature I do called Friday Night Videos? In theory, putting up a video of a song originally recorded by some other artist – whether I recorded it or not – wouldn’t leave just little old me liable; oh no. This bill also drags my service provider and search engines into the equation as well, making it an enforcement nightmare and perhaps, over time, the perfect vehicle for ridding the internet of websites someone doesn’t like. Those who back the bill claim it’s only about foreign websites which pirate the best Hollywood has to offer, but that’s just a starting point. All because I’m doing my part to promote local music.

In fact, the initial push against these two acts used teen sensation Justin Bieber as an example, for he became an internet sensation by covering R&B songs as a youngster. Because he was singing copyrighted works, Justin would be violating this law. My counter to this argument, though, is that re-exposing these old songs may recreate interest in the originals so the pie isn’t sliced into more pieces but instead becomes bigger.

On the other hand, I have original content on this website which is copyrighted (just scroll down to the bottom and you’ll see indeed I claim the copyright.) Granted, I don’t monetize my content or put it behind some sort of paywall like several newspapers have done, but I do get a little pissed off when people steal my stuff without acknowledgement. I can understand the frustration some feel when this piracy happens, but there are already copyright laws on the books to cover this. (Actually, all I ask of those who wish to use my content is giving me the credit for writing it and providing a backlink to the appropriate portion of my site.)

So I fall into the camp of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” There’s no doubt that $135 billion is a lot of money, but as I pointed out earlier there’s a dynamic effect as well. Someone is making a lot of money from selling Justin Bieber’s records, and that money may not have been spent if not for him. And we’ve heard this same story before – the VCR is going to ruin Hollywood, song sharing is going to destroy the recording industry, and so on and so forth. Hollywood is just trying to get the government to protect their profits – there’s nothing wrong with the system as it stands, and the possibility of having hordes of high-profile lawyers checking content will have a chilling effect on discourse, much like the Fairness Doctrine did for radio.

But internet providers aren’t taking this lying down. Today (since this post went up at 12:01 a.m.) a significant part of the internet will “go black” to protest the possible adoption of these new laws. Included in the protest are some of the internet’s heaviest hitters – Google, Mozilla, and Wikipedia are just a few. (WordPress.org, the front site for the company which wrote the software enabling me to bring this and all my other posts to you, is also a participant.)

And the pressure is working. I normally don’t have a lot of good things to say about our state’s junior Senator, but Ben Cardin was a sponsor of Protect IP who now won’t vote for it as currently constituted. It’s a small step in the right direction, anyway.

Another complaint registered by some is that many of the groups who are leading the fight against Protect IP and SOPA are far-left groups. That is true, but groups like the Heritage Foundation,  TEA Party Patriots, and FreedomWorks have allied with them to create a bipartisan coalition against the cause. I don’t mind having people on the other side with me when they’re in the right.

The internet doesn’t need a gatekeeper, and as we’ve seen too many times the best intentions of government go astray rather quickly once the camel’s nose gets under the tent. But rather than put my website down for the day and go black, I’m going to leave this post up and encourage you to contact your representatives and Senators to tell them SOPA and Protect IP are bad ideas.

But you might want to have a phone book handy to look up the numbers. Use that as a reminder of what the post-SOPA internet might be like.

The population of the District of Columbia is growing faster than that of any state in the country, according to a new U.S. Census report that shows an acceleration of a trend in which largely skilled and educated workers have flocked to the city’s resilient local economy and its well-paying jobs connected to the federal government.

I don’t begrudge people getting jobs, but shouldn’t we be trying to lessen the influence of the federal government?

And a reason for the growth Hill cites in the story strikes me as ironic:

Former Mayor Anthony A. Williams, who served from 1999 to 2007, is credited with starting the trend with a pro-development, business-friendly agenda that helped revive the downtown commercial districts and neglected neighborhoods while improving schools and public safety.

So are we to assume that a conservative agenda would create growth? That’s the way I read this, as the Radical Green platform can’t stand development and wants to punish business aside from a few certain favored industries. Lord knows our federal government doesn’t have a “pro-development, business-friendly agenda” with the guy in charge now, not by a long shot. Yet that approach turns out to be a boon for Washington; unfortunately their gain is our pain.

Obviously there will always be a group of people who work in government, even if it is rightsized. There are legitimate functions which need to be performed and can only be done through that arena. But I wouldn’t mind seeing the population of the District of Columbia decline, or simply grow only because Washington is a nice city with plenty of tourism possibilities because of its history. Those who thrive because of the ever-increasing size and scope of the nanny state are the ones I’d love to see get real jobs – after all, the world needs ditch diggers too.

Let’s look at it district by district:

• Obviously the First District has been made more safely Republican, as former State Senator Andy Harris won the seat in 2010 and hasn’t seen any significant Democratic opposition yet. At one time State Senator Jim Mathias was thought to be interested in running, but that may not be in the cards due to a increase in the GOP base there.
• In the Second District, where Dutch Ruppersberger has been in office for several terms, the name originally linked to a run was Delegate Pat McDonough. But he’s been waffling over the last months over whether to run for that seat or a statewide U.S. Senate seat; meanwhile former Senate Minority Leader Nancy Jacobs stepped down from that post in order to explore a Second District run.
• In the Third and Fourth Districts – John Sarbanes and Donna Edwards, respectively – no member of the General Assembly has stepped forward to make a challenge. In those cases, we’ll probably have to wait until they retire.
• As noted above, Tony O’Donnell is challenging Steny Hoyer in the Fifth District.
• The Sixth District is a bipartisan circus as Democrats gerrymandered the district into being much more Democrat-friendly than the previous rendition, presumably as a favor to State Senator Rob “Gas Tax” Garagiola to run. But the GOP has its share of politicians doing battle, with current State Senator David Brinkley being joined by recently-deposed former Senator Alex Mooney in the fray – a challenge which also leaves the state GOP scrambling for a Chair during an election year. All of them will have to deal with longtime incumbent Roscoe Bartlett.
• So far the Seventh and Eighth Districts, represented by Elijah Cummings and Chris Van Hollen, have also been quiet.
• Along with the possibility of Delegate McDonough seeking a Senate seat against incumbent Ben Cardin, some have also spoke about a primary challenge from State Senator C. Anthony Muse of Prince George’s County.

Obviously some of these running will survive the primary, but it will be an interesting exercise in time management to see how they juggle the prospect of a primary battle with the demands placed on them by the “90 Days of Terror” known as the annual General Assembly session. It so happens the filing deadline is also the opening day of the 2012 session and the primary itself will occur just a few days before sine die. Particularly in the Sixth District, this fact may handicap those serving in the Maryland legislature who face opponents which can devote more time to the race.

There’s no question that serving in legislative office at a local level is considered the best training for higher office: many of those who serve in a local Council or Commission graduate to become Delegates or Senators, and in turn they gain the experience voters seek in electing Congressmen and Senators. Fully half of Maryland’s Congressional delegation once served in the Maryland General Assembly.

Obviously those who are seeking election this time, with the cover of incumbency to protect them if they should lose, hope to add to that total.

I’ll let Andy Harris pick things up from here:

“Americans need the truly ‘shovel-ready’ jobs and economic investment that the Keystone XL Pipeline will provide,” said Rep. Andy Harris (MD-01). “The plan that the House majority has introduced is an excellent compromise that will extend tax cuts to the middle class, create tens of thousands of jobs, and will help secure America’s energy future. I am deeply disappointed that President Obama has promised to veto this bill to extend tax relief to our citizens over the Keystone pipeline provision that actually creates jobs without spending a dime of taxpayer money while lowering the price of gasoline and diesel as well.”

Yes, President Obama is threatening to veto the measure. So much for compromise.

Either one of the two points below would then be true. Come to think about it, maybe both are:

• President Obama doesn’t really want to create jobs. Well, perhaps he doesn’t unless they happen to be either government jobs or positions in an industry he favors. But I have news for the President: there aren’t any green jobs; shoot, right now there aren’t many jobs period. Or:
• President Obama really has no desire to cut taxes. To be honest, this tax cut he gave out was relatively insignificant to working families. But he certainly wants to lower the boom on more successful working families by increasing the taxes for couples that make over $200,000.

I’ll grant that the Keystone XL pipeline probably won’t do a whole lot for our local economy since it will run through several states in the Midwest. But the additional oil supply will help us in the long run by stabilizing gasoline prices, as Congressman Harris points out.

But if we do elect a new President next year, I hope Congressman Harris – assuming he’s re-elected, for which he’s an odds-on favorite at the moment – will begin to advocate solutions for our tax code which are more permanent and will begin the process of weaning the government off an income-based tax collection. Ramping up a consumption-based tax, as Herman Cain proposed with his economic plan, would serve this purpose.

Electing conservatives isn’t enough – we need to elect those who have the courage to act. Whether you like President Obama or despise his policies as much as I do, the one thing you can say is that he acted in trying to get his agenda done. We may only have four years to undo the damage he did, although I suspect that if a true conservative succeeds Obama he (or she) will have a full eight years to make a difference. But we’ll all have to roll up our sleeves and get to work – something sorely lacking with the Obama regime.

And now for something completely different:

The first of six opening round tilts in my best local blog poll is over, and the first semi-finalist will be Right Coast Conservative.

After a strong start, Julie Brewington’s site saw a rally from the Shorebirds’ blog which placed it ahead for a time. But much like their team’s performance in 2011, the Shorebirds site couldn’t hang on in the late innings as a strong push from RCC readers carried Julie’s site in the end. Right Coast Conservative received 143 votes and moves on, while the Delmarva Shorebirds Blog gathered 66. The Pocomoke Public Eye did not receive a vote.

The second round is up now, and it has an interesting draw to be sure.

Certainly the allegations of sexual harassment – and that’s all they were, since all we had was the word of women of questionable character, amplified by a group of people who wished to clear the path for the re-coronation of King Barack Obama – did damage to Cain’s campaign. And I’m not so sure these accusers and their liberal handlers didn’t play on the racist fears and mystique about black men that certain white women have by stressing these so-called relationships.

So what were they afraid of? Was it the fact that a black man, who actually is derived from parents who both were black and was not a mulatto who took advantage of his black half when it suited him, could be a viable and successful conservative candidate? Or was it the 9-9-9 economic plan, which would introduce a consumption-based aspect to the tax system and begin to loosen the grip of statists on the nation’s purse strings because they would have a harder time regulating behavior?

Whatever the reason, I find it particularly galling that no one bothered with these allegations when Cain was polling about 5% or so. It was only when he became a threat that all these stories hit the airwaves as an October surprise one year early.

I’ve also heard the criticism about the mishandling of the whole story by his campaign team, which was proof of how incompetent his advisers were. Of course, many of these charges were leveled by political insiders who would have lost face had Cain succeeded without the help of high-powered consultants. Unlike Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, though, Cain wasn’t going to get any help from the press insofar as presuming the accusers were “trailer trash” like Bill Clinton’s campaign operatives did or just burying inconvenient facts like the press did for Barack Obama. Amazing how they were were fooled by that “clean, articulate” black guy who really had nothing to say besides the platitudes of hope and change.

With Herman Cain we actually had hope for real change, and I’m convinced that’s why some wanted him out.

So Cain moves to “Plan B”, which appears to involve the same sort of activism Sarah Palin is engaging in. Of course, the cynics will consider this selling out and part of the deal all along, but since I have no monetary stake in the race and I still trust the guy I will take him at his word and eagerly wait to see who he endorses.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Cain’s lucky endorsee was Newt Gingrich, since both hail from Georgia and they had their own debate. Perhaps that debate was Herman’s own Plan B should he have to exit the race – if you recall at the time Gingrich was only polling in the upper single digits and his rise neatly coincided with the beginnings of the allegations against Cain. Personally, I’m not all that enamored with Newt because I think him too much the Beltway insider when we need someone to come in and clean up Washington. (And a Cain endorsement of Gingrich would only bring up the joke about one womanizer supporting another.)

In my pecking order that I established the next in line was Judge Roy Moore, but I don’t think he’s taken the steps to move beyond testing the waters and at this late date may not even be able to get on all the ballots. So it’s really down to Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul. Unfortunately, I have such a large problem with Paul’s extremely isolationist foreign policy that I can’t get behind his bid. He takes a prudent course of action and places it on a massive dose of steroids.

So I encourage people to take a second look at Bachmann’s campaign. Indeed, she’s only polling in the low-single digits but so was Herman Cain at one point.

I suppose the biggest disappointment in all this is the timing. Those who have been around awhile will remember that in 2007 I embraced the campaign of former Rep. Duncan Hunter of California after a serious look at the issues. Eventually Hunter failed in his bid, but this was after at least some of the votes had been cast and he was only drawing a tiny percentage. We didn’t even get the courtesy of voting for Cain.

Once again we get an object lesson on why politics is so screwed up. A good man with good qualities and good ideas is drummed from the race by rumors and innuendo, and our very nation will be the worse for it.

And they wonder why so many refuse to participate in their community. Herman Cain is now the poster child for that phenomenon.

The Washington establishment’s reaction to the runaway spending is a policy of austerity and pain.

Democrats would cause austerity and pain on the individual by raising taxes, thereby shrinking family and business purchasing power.

Republicans would cause austerity and pain to government by cutting spending and thereby shrinking the services and income transfers government provides.

Clearly, shrinking government is preferable to overtaxing the American people but we must remember that there is a third alternative to pain. It is the path of innovation and growth.

So the question is whether Newt is really serious about cutting spending – after all, he is running for the Republican nomination, isn’t he? Newt would rather target his cuts around the edges, like this:

The key to today’s budget problems is to recognize that there is a world that works (largely but not entirely in the private sector) and there is a world that fails (bureaucracies in both the public and private sectors). With even a little creativity, we should be able to maximize the world that works and eliminate the world that fails.

For instance, if we applied modern private-sector management systems to government they would save up to $500 billion a year. That is three times the goal of the Super Committee.

Newt points to a website called Strong America Now, which claims that a quarter of all federal spending is wasted and advocates the Lean Six Sigma model in order to shrink spending down to size. (I’d say that number is quite low, but then again it all depends on your definition of waste.) While it’s a good idea to point this sort of thing out time and again, the trouble is that we’re working within the same parameter – if the system is irreparably broken, nothing can save it. Moreover, this working within the system will likely suffer the fate of most government estimates – the actual amount saved will likely fall short of expectations. And certainly the cuts will be just fine and no one will dispute the need for them until someone’s ox is gored, and there are a lot of sacred cows running around Washington.

My contention is that we need to shrink the services and income transfers government provides in order to bring the federal government to heel, so if Newt doesn’t want to do that I can’t get behind him very well. (I will admit in this case, though, that Newt is right about the idea of block-granting Medicaid to the states.) Being an advocate of a smaller, less powerful federal government I believe the idea of austerity there would bring some pain, but it would only be along the lines of a “you might feel this stick” pain when you’re giving blood or getting a flu shot. In the long term, the patient is much better.

To be perfectly frank, I would have less of an issue paying higher taxes in the state if I had the assurance that the federal government would shrink accordingly. The problem we have now is that all three levels of government seem to want to take more and more, and none of them will look into their proverbial mirror and ask themselves if what they are providing can’t be done better at a lower level or through the private sector. Placing a private sector model on government may be some improvement, but in terms of political philosophy it’s no different than lipstick on a pig. Unfortunately, my fear is that any money “saved” by the ideas espoused by Strong America Now would just be transferred to some other department, agency, or bureau in an ever-expanding statist paradise.

Perhaps I can borrow a phrase Newt made famous to describe the approach we should take. In my view, it’s time for government to “wither on the vine” but I just don’t think Newt is the guy to make it happen.

Except there is no such thing yet. Like this fiscal year, where Democrats in charge during 2010 failed to pass an actual budget and counted on continuing resolutions to keep the government going, those inside the Beltway will have to subsist on a continuing resolution or two or three until the budget is finally hammered out – don’t count on that anytime soon because fiscally conscious Republicans only control the House while the Senate and White House are controlled by spendthrift Democrats who never met an entitlement they didn’t like.

To put it mildly, this situation is a complete joke. The federal government only takes in a little more than $2 trillion per year yet continues to act like there’s some sort of giant money tree just waiting to be harvested so folks who are deemed deserving can have part of the “Obama stash.”

It won’t be popular to say but I also contend that many of those on Social Security and Medicare are just as clueless as the hapless inner-city Detroit women portrayed in the radio interview. The amount you have paid into those systems is likely exhausted and now you, too, are living on the “Obama stash.” Truth hurts, doesn’t it?

Even to sunset the program will require a tremendous financial sacrifice on the part of those far too young to collect because we have raised two generations (including mine, sadly) to believe that we are entitled a government check and “free” medical services when we retire. As for me, well, part of the reason I do this writing gig is that it’s not something I wish to retire from. Hopefully as I get older more people will see the wisdom of my ways and I won’t miss the $45,000 or so thus far Social Security has extorted from me – because I have zero expectation of getting it, unless it’s in dollars comparable in worth to Weimar marks.

Tangent to this, one has to ask as well: how many people are completely tapped out after the economic calamities of the last three years? I wasn’t alive during the Great Depression (nor were my parents of an age to understand it since they were born in 1935 and 1940) but I’m pretty convinced we’re going through Great Depression II.

Of course there were people and groups which prospered during the 1930s just as there are now. But too many of them have to do with the government while there are too few success stories in the private sector. All we really need the federal government to do are those things spelled out in the Constitution – betcha if we returned to that standard we’d figure out how to cut the federal budget in half, eventually. Yet I’m convinced a piece of the puzzle we need to add is the sunsetting of entitlement programs.

Another fiscal period comes to a close today as well, which is why I’ve been hearing from a whole lot of politicians over the last week or so. Undoubtedly a strong fundraising quarter will help candidates for office out by either bolstering their chances or perhaps scaring off would-be challengers.

It’s strange, though, that the end of the fundraising quarter seems to be the only time I hear from many of them. I guess that’s the same old story, too – a government in Annapolis and Washington that’s out of touch.

His latest scheme goes like this:

Middle-class families shouldn’t have to pay a higher tax rate than millionaires and billionaires.

So President Obama has proposed the “Buffett Rule,” which would require the wealthiest Americans to pay a tax rate at least as high as the middle class. Republicans are already calling this “class warfare,” and they will fight this plan with everything they have.

Yeah, that will do wonders for investment and job creation. So I don’t call it ‘class warfare’, I call it ‘sheer stupidity.’

In essence, what Obama seems to want to do is raise the capital gains tax rate for people making over a million dollars. (Needless to say, the White House didn’t have details as of this writing. We have to pass the bill to see what’s in it.) Now, Warren Buffett may have his stamp of approval on it because he makes scads of money and apparently won’t mind giving more to the federal government. (To which I say, Mr. Buffett, you can feel free to stroke a check to the United States Treasury whenever you want, instead of fighting the IRS every chance you get.)

But let’s say you are a moderately successful business owner. Well, first of all, someone who is successful will know how to figure out a loophole to avoid paying these taxes in the first place – that’s how someone like Warren Buffett can get away with supposedly paying a lower tax rate than his hapless secretary.

Second of all, this scheme seems to forget that the highest income brackets are already the most heavily taxed because we have a steeply progressive tax system – the top one percent (which is an income level of just $380,000 a year) makes 20% of adjusted gross income but pays 38% of taxes. Meanwhile, the bottom half (making under $33,000 per year) receives 13% of of income but sends in just 3% of the tax burden.

But third and most importantly, look at the effect the ‘millionaire’s tax’ had in Maryland. Not only did capital flee the state, the actual amount received fell far short of expectations. Those who can afford it – the truly wealthy – can always send their money offshore to avoid taxation. It’s the hard-working business owner who will have the stark choice of either having less money to invest in their companies and create jobs or “going Galt” and intentionally making less money in order to skirt the law. That’s not the American way, but it’s the way of socialism. Cloward and Piven would be proud.

The true alternative is the one Obama and his ilk won’t pursue because they can’t stoke the flames of class envy if it’s adopted, nor can schemers in Congress use the tax code to reward their friends and punish achievers who step out of line. By repealing the Sixteenth Amendment and enacting a consumption-based tax, the wealthy would pay their fair share because as a rule they consume more in taxable items than the middle-class or poor. And if the government doesn’t make enough to pay its bills, the better alternative is to cut spending.

So far among Presidential contenders Herman Cain’s ’999 Plan’ has come the closest to this ideal, but there is room for alternative ideas which would truly make the tax system one where everyone has ‘skin in the game.’ All President Obama wants to do is skin the producers alive just to elicit a cheer from those who get their jollies out of soaking the rich – then wondering why they can’t find a job.

But all is not lost. My friends at the Patriot Post are trying a new tactic to reverse the decline, and it’s called the Breach of Oath Project. As they state:

To enforce our Constitution’s limits on the central government, we believe a formal legal action is necessary. This action, if successful, would require that all members of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, first and foremost, abide by their oaths “to support and defend” our Constitution, under penalty of law, and thus, comport with its enumerated “few and defined powers” (Madison) of the federal government. The current scope of federal activities provides abundant evidence that many members of those three co-equal branches have long since abandoned their oaths, and, at present, there is no recourse for prosecution to enforce compliance.

So far, over 68,000 citizens (who may or may not run afoul of the Attackwatch.com website) have signed on in an effort to establish legal standing – failing that, the Breach of Oath goal is 500,000 signatures in order to codify this into law.

Obviously, this isn’t a last resort, but I’m sure most Americans don’t want to go through another War Between the States or a similar armed rebellion. When you have groups like the Three Percenters (which, by the way, predates the TEA Party) who are no longer willing to give in to the overreach of authority, well, something has to give. Obviously change by ballot is preferable to change by bullet, which seems to be the norm in Third World countries. While our economy is in the tank, we’re not at Third World status – yet.

Unfortunately, we seem to have a President who is hell-bent on ruling by fiat instead of going through the proper established channels. Perhaps that’s one reason “birthers” have continually questioned his citizenship, with a new development being a question about the Social Security number President Obama uses. (I suppose a good check on this would be to simply run the Social Security numbers of both President Bushes, President Clinton, and President Carter and see what comes up. And my other question – would the woman who did the original research be called a “Socialer”?)

Over the last century, pretty much since the Progressive Era of the early 1900s, we have seen an erosion of liberty on a number of fronts – some even trace it back to Lincoln’s very pursuit of the War Between the States as the beginning of the end of state’s rights.

The crowning achievements of the Progressive Era were the ratification of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments – the Sixteenth, as we all know, gave the government the right to tax income and all the power inherent within that right. The Seventeenth made Senators glorified members of the House since both bodies became popularly elected. No longer were Senators selected by the state legislatures in order to stand up for the rights of states under the Tenth Amendment.

Two decades later, we received an onslaught of big government with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, with the most lasting effect the creation of our largest entitlement (read: Ponzi scheme), Social Security. Thirty years later, the Great Society begat Medicare and Medicaid.

Nor were Republicans immune – President Nixon created the regulatory Goliath known as the  Environmental Protection Agency and President George W. Bush added prescription drugs to Medicare, yet another entitlement. On the other hand, no President – not even Ronald Reagan – has significantly reduced the size and scope of the federal government. What we need is another President Harding, who slashed the federal budget in half during his brief two-year tenure. Considering about 43 cents of every dollar of federal spending is borrowed, cutting spending in half would indeed bring us back to a slight surplus without raising taxes one thin dime.

(I realize we didn’t have the vast system of entitlement spending back then as we do now – Harding had the advantage of easy spending cuts from the military that was still bulky from World War I. But you get the point.)

And those who deride Warren G. Harding because of the Teapot Dome scandal which plagued the latter part of his short term in office – well, how about the Gunwalker scandal we have now? Seeking monetary gain through underhanded means is one thing, but trying to subvert our very laws to create a perceived need for change quite another.

If we were indeed a nation where the rule of law held sway, perhaps we would be in the midst of an impeachment trial right now. But Senators accountable to voters instead of selected by a state legislature aren’t the best of jurists – after all, they let President Clinton get away with clearly lying under oath. So what’s another coverup in the Oval Office?

Americans should expect better. Let’s get this situation cleaned up before bad things happen – sign the Breath of Oath petition.