Inside the Beltway – Page 43

Kratovil speaks his piece

I guess I’m going to have to start early with a request I made last year during the campaign season for Bill Reddish to let me know who his 7:40 a.m. guests will be on the “AM Salisbury” radio show. I was caught unaware this morning but managed to listen to most of his interview with First Congressional District hopeful Frank Kratovil of Queen Anne’s County.

The overall theme Frank had was that it was a time for a change. Noting that “I think we can have more effective leadership than we have in Washington”, Democratic hopeful Kratovil spoke during the 10 minute interview mostly on the issues of Iraq and immigration.

In his personal view, Frank thought the “decision to go in(to Iraq) was incorrect” and talked about his support of the Iraq Study Group report, which tends to favor diplomacy over military action to root out and eliminate the terrorist problem. (I happen to think the name of the confab was incorrect, it should’ve been “Iraq Surrender Group.”)

Hindsight is quite easy when things aren’t going as well as hoped. I seem to recall the vast majority of Americans (possibly including Mr. Kratovil) were chomping at the bit in late 2001 and 2002 wondering when we’d get even for the attacks of 9/11, and chastising President Bush for attempting diplomacy to resolve the situation. One word I did not hear escaping from Frank’s lips today was “victory.” Like Congressman Gilchrest, Kratovil would be a cheese-eating surrender monkey and vote for withdrawal just as soon as he was sworn in.

On the other hand, I agree with Kratovil’s call to “enforce the (immigration) laws we have”, but I wonder if he would feel that way given the Democrats’ tendency to support amnesty in order to gain the favor (and raw numbers) of Hispanic voters. He did speak about his experiences regarding the illegal immigrant problem affecting his own job as State’s Attorney for the county, but will that translate into votes against the party line? There’s a reason I bring this up.

The other day I received a press release from Andy Harris’s campaign talking about how often Wayne Gilchrest has strayed from the GOP party line. The study, done by the website cqpolitics.com, noted that Gilchrest voted barely 50% of the time with his party. It so happens that Gilchrest is both the top (or bottom) Republican in Congress by that measure and number one amongst all Congressmen.

On the Democrat side the least loyal House member is Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi. However, he still votes the party line 69.2% of the time in this study from 2007. Only four Democrats held under 75% loyalty to the party. Simply put, despite the Democrat challenger’s tough talk on immigration and the “law and order” approach instilled in him by his job, Frank is very likely to be a reliable vote in the liberal “D” column on at least some issues his district would like him to vote for in a conservative manner. Obviously, he’s also going to favor maintaining the ineffective (if not downright disastrous) leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer in the House as well.

With the support of the Maryland Democrat machine (including Governor O’Malley) behind him, the chances are quite good that Kratovil will face either Wayne Gilchrest or GOP challenger Andy Harris in the general election come November, 2008. It will be an interesting sight to see whether Kratovil runs right and fakes left or vice versa once the campaign begins in earnest next year.

Who will I support? – part one

Welcome to those of you seeing this through Carnival of Maryland 11. This is the first of a series that will continue on Tuesdays and Fridays through August.

As many of you know, I still haven’t made up my mind regarding who I’m going to support for the GOP presidential nomination. So it’s high time I did it.

Most people have some pet issue that they base their support on. I’m definitely not a one-issue person in that my support isn’t based on a candidate being simply pro-life, pro-gun, anti-judicial activism, or wherever their passion lies. As frequent readers know, my issue base is much more broad and, while it’s generally considered conservative, I don’t subscribe to the portion of conservatism that advocates Constitutional amendments regarding flag burning, abortion, etc. Much as the recent immigration fight had its opponents (including myself) that advocated simply tightening enforcement of existing laws, by and large I’d like to see Congress and the federal government as a whole follow the Constitution they already have, with a few additions that I spoke about previously.

But the first part of my decision comes on the issue of eminent domain and property rights. This is how the game will be played:

Each issue is worth a certain number of points. In this case, eminent domain ranks 12th on my list of the most important issues so it’s worth just 5 points. Other issues will rank accordingly higher and be worth more points.

The points are not static. In this example I only found three candidates who had an explicit position on the eminent domain issue – thus only three get a score right now. But if I find out later about other candidates with a view on the subject I’ll amend the scores accordingly. This will also hold true if one or more do a John Kerry-style flip-flop.

And most importantly, if a supporter wants to pitch their guy and give me evidence to back up the statement they make, I’m open to changing scores. But like Ronald Reagan I’m going to “trust but verify.”

To make this an easier read, I’ll go by the following rule. Having perused all the major candidate websites today, some have their issues page as just one page with short descriptions and others do separate pages for each issue. Particularly when they get to the most important issues, it’ll be wise on my part to simply link to a page rather than make the articles much longer. So if there’s a separate page, I’ll post the link to follow and if not I’ll quote directly.

So here goes. The three candidates who get my initial score are all Republicans: Jim Gilmore, Duncan Hunter, and Ron Paul. Gilmore has separately paged what he terms the “National Property Rights Initiative” and writes about it in Human Events; meanwhile, Hunter and Paul are more brief so I’ll reproduce their statements below.

Duncan Hunter:

Kelo property rights/eminent domain decision by the Supreme Court:

I am deeply concerned with the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision greatly broadening local government’s use of eminent domain in Kelo vs. New London and believe it is important that Congress protect the property rights of private landowners and curb the government from excessive regulatory takings. It is for this reason that I voted in favor of expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives regarding the majority opinion in the Kelo case.

Additionally, I cosponsored H.R. 3268 (Gingrey-GA), the Eminent Domain Tax Relief Act of 2005, which abolished the capital gains tax on private property taken by the government through eminent domain. I also voted in favor of a legislative amendment Congressman Scott Garrett (R-NJ) offered to H.R. 3058, the FY2006 Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, prohibiting federal funding from being used to improve or construct infrastructure support on lands acquired through the use of eminent domain of private property for private development.

Ron Paul:

Property Rights and Eminent Domain

We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches.

Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada.

We also face another danger in regulatory takings: Through excess regulation, governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties — all without paying “just compensation.”

Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.

All three have written thoughtful pieces on the subject. But Gilmore’s plan had just a little bit too much extra bureaucracy and regulation to me, adding a Special Assistant, a Presidential Commission, and a mandate for the HUD Secretary. So it’s an effort but not done all that well, he’ll get 2 points.

Duncan Hunter has gotten behind some good common-sense legislation and properly points out that it is indeed up to Congress to take care of the problem. His approach is actually more proper (asking Congress to take care of the problem) than Ron Paul’s, although Paul does note correctly that federal agencies (which are under the purview of the executive branch as well) do play a role in overreaching their proper bounds. The only fault I’d find with Ron Paul is his use of the hackneyed “special interests” phrase. Thus I give Hunter the full 5 points and Paul 4 points.

Like the first inning of a ballgame, it’s too early to make predictions but all three of these guys got off to a good start. So the early standings through one post are:

Hunter, 5 points.
Paul, 4 points.
Gilmore, 2 points.
Brownback, no points.
Giuliani, no points.
Huckabee, no points.
McCain, no points.
Romney, no points.
Tancredo, no points.
F. Thompson, no points.
T. Thompson, no points.

Of course, since no Democrat has that issue among the websites I looked through (generally I did a search for the word “Kelo” and the phrase “eniment domain”) no one got points. But judging from their liberal leanings and the known persuasion of most of those on the Supreme Court who voted for the defendant in Kelo v. New London, I doubt there were points to be had anyway.

And like I said, if you’re a supporter or work for a candidate and you can show me where I’m not finding something or interpreting incorrectly, by all means set me straight. I may have missed something on a website or a related blog.

In the meantime, on Tuesday I’m planning on moving up to the 11th most important issue, that being Second Amendment rights. I know we’ll get some points out of that subject!

Late note: Jim Gilmore dropped his bid on July 14th, so I have one less website to peruse now. That’s too bad, he was in the early running for my endorsement. He was a bit handicapped because of a late start and health issues (eye surgery). I wish him good luck with his future endeavors.

Celebrities in Crisfield?

I’m just going to take a little time and do some idle speculation here. As we all know, in just 7 short months (yes it’s that close) the party-affiliated voters of Maryland will be picking their Presidential candidates. One would think that a good way to meet interested voters and those who are more interested in being political volunteers than most here in Maryland would be to make an appearance down in Crisfield at the Tawes Crab and Clam Bake next Wednesday (the 18th.)

I did a little bit of checking over the last couple days only to find that most of the Presidential candidates only post their schedules a week in advance, so they just have this week’s schedule up. I did see that Mitt Romney is slated to be in Colorado that day and John Edwards begins his “one America” tour or whatever he calls it in West Virginia. But part of that was a pledge not to visit states with early primaries, thus that would freeze out Maryland.

So it’s up in the air at best whether we’ll be blessed with an appearance from any national officeseeker. It’s likely that we won’t but one never knows – after all, since many of the candidates reside in Congress and the Senate they’re not all that far from Crisfield to pop in and check things out. On the Democrat side that covers Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich, and Obama; for the GOP hopefuls the list goes Brownback, Hunter, McCain, Paul, and Tancredo. Congress is in session next Wednesday though so it’ll most likely be many of Maryland’s lesser lights who attend. Of those candidates who aren’t in Congress, many of them are spending their summers in Iowa and New Hampshire.

However, another intriguing sidelight about Congress being in session is that there might be a free opportunity for the three hopefuls running for Wayne Gilchrest’s seat to meet and greet voters without the incumbent being able to compete. It’s been well-documented both locally and on the regional front that Andy Harris made a deep cut into the cash advantage Congressman Gilchrest enjoys. I’m quite sure Harris will be in Crisfield, and it’s a fairly safe bet that Democrats Frank Kratovil and Chris Robinson will be partaking in Crisfield’s finest seafood that day as well. (By the way, I did get the Harris press release but I saw others had posted it before I would’ve had the chance to. I even got a call from the Harris folks asking me if I got it.)

Another guy who should show up down at Somers Cove is State Senator E.J. Pipkin. No, I don’t think he’s running for anything this time but it gives me a segue to another press release I received from his office concerning state spending. Calling Governor O’Malley’s budgetary sleight-of-hand “fiscal magic at its clumsiest”, State Senator Pipkin also said:

“For the Governor to suggest that $153 million in cuts, of which some will be replaced by federal dollars, some are simply not filling vacant positions, and still more is from the savings of shutting down the House of Corrections, is nothing more than window dressing.”

“I am pleased to see that the Governor is willing to make these types of efficiencies,” said Pipkin. “But there is much more work to do, and not a lot of time to do it.”

“I hope everyone in Annapolis is not going to point to these cuts and say ‘This is the best we can do, now we need to raise your taxes!’” added Pipkin. “As the Governor’s own spokesperson said ‘these are the first cuts, they certainly may not be the last’.”

Governor O’Malley’s meager cuts represent only ½ of 1% of the states total $30 billion budget and only 10% of the looming $1.5 billion deficit.

“Who’s kidding whom?” asked Pipkin. “I have suggested putting a lid on spending increases as an effective way to fix the budget shortfall, and that would save $955 million.”

Sen. Pipkin’s plan is a combination of holding the states spending growth to 2.5% for 2008, reallocation of a portion of the teacher’s pension and retirement back to the Counties where it is incurred, and legalizing video lottery terminals. The plan could net the state as much as $1.9 billion in combined savings and revenue for the 2008 fiscal year.

“This combination of belt-tightening, reallocation of fiscal responsibilities, and realizing revenue from slots, would allow the state to get its fiscal house back in order,” said Pipkin, “and would not dig even deeper into the pockets of the hard working families of Maryland.”

Aside from the tax on the poor (slot machines) Pipkin has some good ideas, probably from the same batch Senator Stoltzfus attempted to get through during the last regular General Assembly session.

(By the way, who’s kidding who about slots? In all honesty, both the Maryland Lottery and the proposed slots act as a tax on the poor. Because no one wants to raise their income tax rates, the state provides the allure of “easy money” which works best on those who may not have a lot to spare, mostly poor, working-class, and elderly. I’ll bet they don’t sell a whole lot of lottery tickets in Ocean Pines.)

The looming special session is another reason for politicians to show up in Crisfield, an opportunity to interact with voters and soft-sell some of the hard decisions that will have to be made. Whether it’s through spending cuts or (much, much more likely) higher taxes and more legal gambling, the structural deficit will be addressed this fall.

monoblogue’s Constitutional convention

This post sort of came about in a dream I had.

When I’m under the weather as I was this weekend, sometimes the combination of meds that I take for the cold/fever, the meds I take for my asthma, and lack of good sound sleep combine to give me the strangest sort of dreams. In this particular dream a portion of it dealt with me trying to advocate each state rename a pair of counties – one to Liberty County and one to Freedom County. My reason was that anyone looking at a map would have a reminder of the concepts. Of course, upon waking I realized that this would be utterly symbolic but no more so than having a state bird or a state song. Trust me, crazier things have been proposed.

The dream got me to thinking (in a more lucid manner) of some of the changes I’d like to see occur with our Constitution. Obviously our Congress tends to consider our founding documents as not much more than symbolic a great deal of the time, but the hour has come to propose a few new rules of the road. With these changes made, perhaps this document will be treated as much more than symbolic and with the reverence it deserves.

According to Article V, if the legislatures of 2/3 of the states called for a Constitutional Convention it could occur. Well, I’m not invested with that sort of power but I have some ideas for new Amendments, including a couple notable deletions, that I’m going to share.

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1. The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments to the Constitution are hereby repealed.

Section 2. The language regarding selection of Senators by the Legislature of each state originally in Article I, Section 3 of this document shall be reinstated in full, beginning with the expiration of the term of the Senators currently in office.

Amendment XXVIX

Congress shall make no law that codifies discrimination for or against any person based on their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This Amendment shall also be construed to include a prohibition on Congress enacting additional criminal code or punishment solely based on these factors.

Amendment XXX

Section 1. With the exception of the powers reserved for Congress in Article I, Section 8 of this document, and items outlined below; funds received by the federal government shall be disbursed to the States in accordance with their population in the latest Census figures. No restriction shall be placed on how the several States use these funds.

Section 2. Outlays for the operation of the offices of the President and other officers who shall be warranted by same shall be submitted by the office of the President to Congress, who shall, without amendment, vote up or down on the expenditures within ten days (excluding Sundays) of receiving this submittal.

Section 3. Outlays for the operation of the Supreme Court and tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court shall be submitted by the Attorney General to Congress, who shall, without amendment except in the case of convening a new tribunal inferior to the Supreme Court, vote up or down on the expenditures within ten days (excluding Sundays) of receiving this submittal.

Section 4. If Congress does not approve the submitted amount, both the President and Attorney General will have ten days (excluding Sundays) to resubmit a budget to Congress. In the event that either a new budget is not submitted by either or both parties, or if the resubmitted budget is not approved by Congress, the budget shall be determined by using the prior year’s figure and adding a sum equal to 3% of that figure.

Section 5. Congress shall not withhold funds from states based on existing state law.

Amendment XXXI

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of Senator more than twice; nor to the House of Representatives more than six times, in his or her lifetime.

Section 2. Those who are serving in either the House or Senate at the time of ratification will be eligible to serve to the fullest extent of the time allowed under this Amendment, without penalty in regard to time already served. This time limit will begin when the member is sworn in for his or her next term of office.

Amendment XXXII

In addition to the language expressed in Amendment II of this document, Congress shall make no law infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

And now you’re probably asking what the rationale is behind all of these Amendments.

As part of my 50 year plan regarding taxation I advocated doing away with the Sixteenth Amendment so as to eliminate the income tax and force a tax system based on consumption. The advantages would be many, most particular in allowing one to have more control over their tax burden. People who are quite wealthy – sure, they’d get a big break on income tax but then all of their expensive playtoys would ratchet up their overall tax bill to meet or exceed the amount that they paid under income tax rules, with all of its shelters. And those who actually save money would get a double benefit of whatever interest they accrued and not being socked with a capital gains tax. There’s a lot of winners with the idea, certainly more than we have now. And with a Senate that answers to state legislatures, perhaps the states would regain a foothold in dealings with the federal government. Maybe it would end the scourge of unfunded mandates that plagues states trying to balance a budget without new taxes. (Yes I know Maryland doesn’t qualify there, I’m talking about properly-run states.) So that would be the 28th Amendment.

The next two amendments were originally mentioned in a very, very early monoblogue post I did called, “Does it ever change? A petition for redress of grievances.” This was written in the wake of the Abramoff scandal, and of course most of the commentors missed the point because I started out noting that the Democrats had fingers in the Abramoff lobbying pie as well – rather, they tried to paint that imbroglio as a purely Republican “culture of corruption.” They blithely ignored the idea behind the amendments that I proposed.

Amendment 29 is loosely based on a lot of Ward Connerly’s work against the racial quotas into which affirmative action has devolved. You’ll notice that when people yell “discrimination!” it’s always against something, but never does it occur to them that they’re getting the benefits from many regulations as well, like minority set-asides. The way I interpret the Martin Luther King, Jr. vision of a society based on character rather than amount of pigmentation, this amendment would satisfy that dream he had. Obviously those of the Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and La Raza ilk would disagree but could it not be argued that the result of some of these policies like affirmative action has been the attitude of questioning whether some have actually earned what they received or had it handed to them?

I’m all about equality of opportunity, and so is this amendment. Government has attempted to insure equality of outcome by tilting the playing field in myriad ways, and has failed miserably. This amendment truly levels it back out.

I proposed the language of the 30th Amendment in the wake of Abramoff. Yet, for all the talk about ethics in Washington back at the beginning of 2006 and the promises of change that we heard, we still suffer from big-money scandals and remain with a Congress that has many members who are tone-deaf to the wishes of their voters. (Exhibit number one – the immigration bill.) Moreover, even with the switch in power from Republican to Democrat brought in part because of the left’s adroit manipulation of the “culture of corruption” issue, we still have the same resistance to ending earmarks and pork spending. The solution as I see it is to Constitutionally reinforce the limits on what Congress can spend its money on.

The third leg of my troika I came up with recently as part of my “fiscal responsiblity” chapter of the 50 year plan. As I noted in that chapter, I’m a fairly new convert to the idea of a term limits amendment, but the precedent is already there with the 22nd Amendment that limits Presidential terms. I still think I’m quite generous with my time limits, as 24 years is longer than many professions take to reach their fully vested retirement. But it would eliminate some of the fiefdoms that longtime veterans of Congress can build because of their seniority.

And finally, I decided to add the 32nd Amendment regarding gun control because I believe that anyone who desires a gun should be allowed to have one. This would clarify that Congress cannot make gun control laws; thus any law of that sort on the books currently would have to be declared null and void because it violated this amendment. However, I explicitly stated Congress so states would be off the hook if they decided something more restrictive were in order. Yes, there are a few foolish states out there who desire that criminals run the show – after all, effective Sunday most felons who have completed their sentence are voters in Maryland.

Many of you probably think that these ideas are as crazy as the original dream that spawned them. But if you look at how the public reacted to the immigration bill, the conventional wisdom was that President Bush had enough GOP support in the business community to get the bill passed. Guess again.

If this one post can get these ideas out into the mainstream of thought, who knows what can be accomplished. We on (and in) the right have just won a big victory by advocating the enforcement of existing laws rather than passing a new omnibus immigration bill, so, to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, now is not the time to go wobbly.

Free choice remains for employees

In a victory for the process of “let the people decide”, Republicans stayed almost united and dashed union hopes for simply organizing by “card check.” Democrats could not achieve cloture by a 51-48 vote so S.1041 has been killed. But Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio (a union lackey if there ever was one – I oughta know) vowed to the AP that the bill would be brought back “year after year after year.”

In case you’re wondering, the one RINO in this case was Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. As expected, all four local Democrat Senators voted for cloture and played their part as union lackeys.

~~As I’ve stated before~~ (Ok, I couldn’t find it in my archives. But someplace I’m sure I did!) I really have no issue with collective bargaining, but I think the card check to secret ballot process in place is relatively fair. Besides, if my memory serves me correctly, unions win their elections about 60% of the time. Just trying to game the rules a bit more so they can coerce more union dues. It’s the mother’s milk of their existence.

Jumping in the big pond

Editor’s note: Reaction from the Maryland GOP and more of my personal comments added at the bottom.

As usual, Michelle Malkin has an excellent diatribe on the immigration fight going through Congress. One thing that concerns me is that the people who are pinning their hopes on the House not passing this may be real disappointed. From the article (no source material cited – perhaps a press release?):

The House Republican Conference today by 114 to 23 passed a resolution introduced by U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) that expresses opposition to the Senate immigration bill. “Today’s vote illustrates overwhelming opposition among Republicans in the House to the Senate immigration bill and the process in which it was developed,” Hoekstra said. “The Republican Conference has always advocated for immigration reform, but the Senate bill is bad public policy that does not reflect our position.” The text of the Hoekstra resolution is as follows: “Resolved the House GOP Conference disapproves of the Senate immigration bill.” “We have always reserved concerns about the policies that it advocates, but until now we have remained on the sidelines,” Hoekstra said. “It is important that we publicly express our opposition to the Senate bill before consideration is complete.”

I actually commented on the site that 114 to 23 is pretty scary:

On June 26th, 2007 at 10:14 pm, Michael said: I’m getting a bad feeling about the House. If the Hoekstra vote was only 114 to 23, that means we’re talking about probably 40 Republicans who will join most of the Democrats in passing this. The D’s could even excuse some of their more “conservative” members and have enough to pass – remember, they only need 218 and we know Bush will sign this piece of garbage.

Enforce the existing laws first!!

As most of you know, the immigration bill died for lack of cloture. Here’s what the Maryland GOP had to say about this:

Today, the United States Senate failed to obtain the 60 votes needed to end debate on the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007. Maryland Senators Ben Cardin and Barbara Mikulski voted for cloture. Chairman James Pelura of the Maryland Republican Party made the following statement:

“Today was an exercise of democracy in action. Americans called their Senators to voice their opposition to the immigration bill and crashed the Senate phone system. In the end, Senators Cardin and Mikulski joined with 44 other Senators, not even a majority, in support of this very problematic legislation. Just as our government should not grant amnesty to those who break the law, the Senate should not give amnesty to the current immigration bill. We need to fix the broken immigration system, and future legislation must respect the rule of law, make border security a priority, and not grant amnesty.”

So it looks like immigration reform is history, at least for this term. However, that doesn’t mean that we should stop the enforcement uptick that’s seemed to be the practice the last six months or so. As I say, enforce the existing laws properly and we’ll see what needs to be tweaked in the next Congress.

Legislative checkup, June 2007 (Congress)

I have to admit that I let this get a little out of hand, so a lot of this will be summary information. But I’m going to attempt to hit the highlights.

What I looked at this time were the doings of the three people we on the Eastern Shore of Maryland elected to represent us – Wayne Gilchrest, Ben Cardin, and Barbara Mikulski. (Well, we may not have elected all three but the majority ruled in those cases.)

I’ve noticed something about all of the bills these three have introduced. Unlike, say, the immigration bill (more on that later), their pet bills are sent to committee and most haven’t gotten out yet. Gilchrest’s main bill is a reathorization of the Chesapeake Bay program. He’s also placed a resolution out there about a diversified energy portfolio.

Meanwhile, Senator Cardin has also focused quite a bit on energy in those bills and amendments he’s introduced. The one most interesting to me is S.1165, which mandates LEED Silver certification for new and renovated federal buildings. I have a vested interest in that particular field as some of you know. On the other hand, Senator Mikulski seems to focus more on health issues. While it wasn’t her exact bill, a similar measure to one she sponsored, “A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide waivers relating to grants for preventive health measures with respect to breast and cervical cancers” was signed into law this year. So we get another government mandate. *sigh*

But more important to me is how these representatives of mine (not always by my personal choice) voted. I’ll start with Wayne Gilchrest.

I have 11 different votes here, and there’s a lot of them where the votes were split generally along party lines. Gilchrest tended to be a reliable vote – for the Democrat side. Check these out for yourself, I included the roll call number.

HR 2771, Legislative Branch Appropriations for FY 2008, passed 216-176. Gilchrest voted yes with 202 Democrats – Roll No. 548.
HR 2764, Department of State, etc. Appropriations for FY 2008, passed 241-178. Gilchrest voted yes with 210 Democrats – Roll No. 542. He also voted with the D’s on a number of amendments to this bill, several rolls previous to No. 542 show this.
H. Con. Res. 21, Calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel; passed 411-2, Gilchrest voted “present.” Roll No. 513.
HR 2638, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations 2008, passed 268-150. Gilchrest voted yes with 223 Democrats – Roll No. 491.
S 5, the “Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act”, passed 247-176. Gilchrest joined 210 Democrats in the majority – Roll No. 443. He also joined in providing for embryonic stem cell research in an amendment (H. Res. 464) passed 224-191 with 211 Democrats in favor – Roll No. 441.
HR 1252, “Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act”. Since when should the feds determine gouging, what with their tax rates? Anyway, Gilchrest joined 228 Democrats in passing this 284-141 – Roll No. 404.
HR 2082, “Intelligence Authorization Act”, passed 225-197, Gilchrest one of just 5 Republicans voting “aye.” – Roll No. 341.
HR 2237, To provide for the redeployment of United States Armed Forces and defense contractors from Iraq, failed 171-255, 2 Republicans voting yes. But Gilchrest was not one of them. On this he did join the GOP.
HR 1592, a “hate crimes” bill. I hate crime too, but this isn’t what they mean. Passed 237-180, Gilchrest joined 212 Democrats in supporting this. Roll No. 299.
HR 1905, District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act. Gilchrest voted for this with 219 Democrats as it passed 241-177. Roll No. 231.

So our esteemed Republican Congressman may have found a second home in the Democrat caucus, or so it seems. If I wanted those types of votes I’d have voted for, say, Cardin and Mikulski.

And speaking of that not-so-dynamic duo, I conjured up a list of votes that I object to where the two voted as a block. In several cases the margin was such that, had they switched sides, the opposite action would have occurred (e.g. passage becomes failure and vice versa.)

While Cardin hawks energy independence, he and Mikulski voted against an amendment to H.R. 6 (the so-called CLEAN Energy Act) allowing natural gas drilling off the Virginia coastline. This was Vote No. 212, and it failed 43-44. One or the other could have made this happen. Overall the bill passed yesterday, 65-27 (both in favor, Vote No. 226).

And both of them voted that they had no confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. (to invoke cloture on S.J. Res. 14, failed 53-38, Vote No. 207.) I’m not real happy with him either but let President Bush make the decision.

On S.1348 (the original immigration bill) our esteemed Senators voted for the following:

They both voted to invoke cloture (Vote No. 206, failed 45-50).
Neither supported an amendment to enforce existing laws before amnesty (Coburn Amendment, Vote No. 202, failed 42-54).
They were the difference in killing an amendment that would have mandated a biometric check-in system promised since 1996 (Vitter Amendment, Vote No. 199, failed 48-49.)
An amendment that did pass where illegal aliens could not claim the Earned Income Tax Credit still drew our Senators’ disfavor (Sessions Amendment, Vote No. 192, passed 56-41.)
This one floors me. An amendment to permanently bar immigrants who are “gang members, terrorists, and other criminals” was defeated 46-51 with the help of these two (Cornyn Amendment, Vote No. 187).
Not surprisingly, an amendment to S.1348 that mandated presentation of voter ID (amending the Help America Vote Act of 2002) got “no” votes from both (McConnell Amendment, Vote No. 184, failed 41-52.)

And then you have taxation. True to the Democrat “tax and spend” reputation, these two worked to keep taxes high in the following ways this spring:

On S.761, “A bill to invest in innovation and education to improve the competitiveness of the United States in the global economy”, they both voted to table an amendment stating, “To express the sense of the Senate that Congress has a moral obligation to offset the cost of new Government programs and initiatives.” (Coburn Amendment, motion to table carried 54-43, Vote No. 140.)
They voted to raise taxes. Instead of voting for an amendment keeping the current rate structure, our pair voted for raising rates anywhere from 3% to 4.6% – essentially nullifying the Bush tax cuts (Graham Amendment to S. Con. Res. 21, failed 46-52, Vote No. 107.)
They both voted twice against changing the alternative minimum tax. (Lott Amendment to S. Con. Res. 21, failed 49-50, Vote No. 113; and Grassley Amendment, same bill, failed 44-53, Vote No. 108.)
Even worse, they voted three times in the same stretch against any change to or repeal of the death tax! (Cited are votes on amendments to S. Con. Res. 21: Kyl Amendment 507, rejected 47-51, Vote No. 83; Kyl Amendment 583, rejected 48-51, Vote No. 102; DeMint Amendment, rejected 44-55, Vote No. 109.)

And of course, no Democrat resume is complete without advocating embryonic stem cell research – never mind it’s not been proven to be effective in finding any cures for diseases while adult stem cell research has. (S.5, passed 63-34, Vote No. 127.)

But I’ll give credit where credit is due. Another amendment to S. Con. Res. 21 that would’ve allowed wealthier Medicare Part D recipients to pay a greater premium share lost, 44-52. They both voted against the Ensign Amendment (Vote No. 93.) Now I’ll give both Cardin and Mikulski credit since they did vote (Cardin being in the House at the time) against the original mess in 2003. So on a philosophical level I agreed with their vote (both now and in 2003), although something tells me that had John Kerry won the Presidency and submitted a similar package both Cardin and Mikulski would’ve voted in favor of it. Medicare Part D was perhaps the final nail in the coffin for equating Republicans with fiscal conservatism.

Hopefully this will inform the voters of the Eastern Shore just what their elected officials inside the Beltway are doing. Something tells me they’re not going to like it too much.

Harris on immigration

When I reproduced the letter that Wayne Gilchrest sent me re: the immigration issue, I challenged his opponents to send me their views. Sure enough, my e-mail box the other day had a note from Andy Harris’s campaign. So in the interest of fairness this is what he has to say on the issue.

The Honorable Michael Swartz,

I know the large readership of your blog and with the Senate Amnesty Bill’s potential to be revived; I wanted to take a minute to discuss illegal immigration with you and your readers.

Before I get into the specifics of the issue I want to remind you that illegal immigrants knowingly and willfully violate the law of the United States by entering this country illegally or by staying beyond the term of their visas.

Those who examine my voting record in the State Senate know I have been a leader on fighting illegal immigration in Maryland. Most recently I successfully killed the Democrats proposal to allow illegal immigrants to receive in-state tuition (i.e. taxpayer funded scholarships) at state colleges and universities. As a State Senator my goal has been to make sure Maryland does not become a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants.

For over the last decade, members of Congress have failed to protect the sovereignty of our nation by refusing to secure our borders. Members of Congress refused to get serious about illegal immigration and not a single Congressman from Maryland would take the lead.

I believe first and foremost the borders must be secure. Illegal immigration hurts the taxpayers of our nation (studies show the average illegal immigrant family receive government subsidies of $19,000 per year) and is a threat to our national security (many of the 9/11 hijackers were in our nation illegally). Unlike some politicians, I do not only talk about illegal immigration in an election year. I am a leader in the fight against illegal immigrants flocking to Maryland.

I have a very simple immigration plan. Enforce the laws we have on the books and NEVER allow amnesty!! If current laws were enforced we would not have 12 million (an estimate created by Democrats who know the real number is closer to 20 million) illegal immigrants in our nation.

To help secure the borders Congress needs to:

1) Double the number of Border Patrol Agents. We must stop the flood of illegal immigrants across our southern border.

2) Double the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agents – Not only must we stop illegal immigrants from coming into our country, we must increase enforcement once they are here. We must punish businesses that knowingly violate our laws by hiring illegal immigrants.

3) Say NO to all forms of Amnesty. I believe amnesty undermines the rule of law in our nation. The rule of law is the fabric that holds every democratic society together.

I want to summarize some of the provisions of the senate bill that I believe are completely unacceptable to the American people. The bill:

1) Automatically allows illegal immigrants to receive in-state tuition at state colleges and universities.

2) Creates a new visa called the ‘Z-Visa” which will immediately make all illegal immigrants legal residents of the United States.

3) Grants amnesty to those who have broken our law including gang members.

4) Forces tax-payers to pay for lawyers for illegal immigrants.

5) Allows amnesty BEFORE enforcement measures are put in place.

I am a firm believer in LEGAL immigration. A vast majority of Americans including myself have ancestors who immigrated to this county and they did so LEGALLY. When these immigrants came to this country, they were forced to have sponsors and were forced to sign papers agreeing they would not accept handouts from the government.

The Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org provides extremely insightful analysis of the senate immigration bill. If you have some free time, you should read a few of their articles.

Thank you for taking the time to read my opinion on this vital issue,

Dr. Andy Harris

P.S. As an elected member of the central committee, you have earned the title “The Honorable” and I can assure you I will use it in any communication we may have unless you request otherwise.

There are a couple editor’s notes before I continue. In order to format this properly to monoblogue, I had to redo the numbers on his original list because the indent wouldn’t work correctly. Also, he misspelled my name in the original – trust me, he’s been set straight on that. (It’s a common error.)

You know, I think he read my website before he did this because I agree with practically everything he says. He’s adding to my “large readership.” (Well, I’m not up to Powerline or LGF numbers but I’m working on it! Hey, I’m now a Top 10 most influential political blog in Maryland. I’ll have lots of fun with that.)

The one disagreement I have may come off as minor, but Harris notes we are a “democratic society”. In truth, we are a constitutional republic – if we can keep it. But he’s correct in saying that enforcement of existing laws is the key, not coming up with new legislation which will likely be ignored when it comes to enforcement. Of course, with our judicial system there’s the real possibility any new law would be thrown out in court as well.

I appreciate Senator Harris taking the time to respond. And it’s nice to be reminded I’m “Honorable” even though I’m sure a number of my readers disagree with that sentiment.

A 50 year plan: Taxation

Welcome to the final action chapter of my 50 year plan. The next chapter will be about where I’m taking the concept.

Over the weekend I read a book that I recommend everyone check out: The FairTax Book by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder. Say what you will about the concept of a national sales tax, the argument in favor of this system is well-spelled out in the book. I can’t say that I’m a total convert, but I do know the system as it stands is corrupted, complicated, and I think broken beyond repair. If it were a computer our tax code would be headed for the scrap heap.

I think the progressive tax system that Boortz and Linder currently revile is exactly the wrong approach because I don’t go in for the bullshit about soaking the rich. People who manage to amass wealth generally do it through hard work and I feel that should be rewarded, not punished. So for quite awhile I’ve been an advocate of a fairer, flatter tax system. A decade ago I was a big Steve Forbes supporter because of his flat tax idea. Former Congressman Dick Armey was another flat tax proponent.

But as time went on I did see some problems with the Forbes and Armey approaches. I think my biggest one was that there are still two numbers that can be toyed with, as both the rate and the standard deduction could be tweaked. And of course, some brilliant mind would come up with just one extra deduction that simply had to be in there and that would start yet another rush back to the system we have now. (In fact, Armey’s plan maintained a few cherished deductions.) Moreover, I don’t see any effort to end backup withholding. Originally people wrote yearly or quarterly checks to the IRS, similar to the way people who pay estimated tax do now. Backup withholding started in the World War II era, sold as a way to ensure more revenue to the government for fighting the war but not dropped once hostilities ended. So people don’t tend to think about what they pay in taxes because they never actually see the money they would’ve received.

Let’s say for the sake of my argument that the FairTax is the way to go. Job number one is to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment. Obviously the tricks to that are a) getting a 2/3 majority of each house of Congress to go along with it and b) convincing 38 states to do the same. If we ever get through step A I’d be willing to bet a good dinner at a fancy restaurant that Maryland would be one of the holdouts insofar as step B goes. The reason repealing the Sixteenth Amendment has to be done first (or concurrently) with adopting a new sales tax system is that I could just see some Democrat saying, ok, you have the FairTax, but we need to keep the income tax around in case we need a backup source of revenue – first chance they get, bam! Double taxation.

More tellingly, we know that some in Congress would fight a national sales tax tooth and nail because then they can’t divvy out tax breaks to favored constituencies, like homeowners. But is it the duty of government to provide market-busting incentives to promote some action or penalize ideas that lead to vast wealth? For example, the state of Maryland had a program to give tax incentives to those who wanted to build “green” buildings. Is this a noble purpose? Possibly. But shouldn’t market forces allow this to happen naturally? After all, if a “green” building provides energy savings that’s worth the extra price, one would think developers would adopt all of those standards. Obviously the added cost is still a disincentive, or not deemed to have a worthwhile payback period yet.

But getting rid of the usage of the tax code as a carrot or stick is probably the biggest hurdle. To that end, it’s going to take getting a majority in Congress that aren’t power-hungry but truly citizen servants. And that’s where the next two generations have to play a part.

Another hidden benefit of a tax based on consumption is that I’m not forced to pay it. Every two weeks I get a paycheck only to find that 28.7% of it has been vacuumed out by the federal and state governments (yes, that backup withholding thing.) And that doesn’t add in a couple “breaks” I get because my flex benefit and 401.(k) are pre-tax deductions. Because of the tax laws I can’t use that money I earned unless certain restrictions are met – in the case of the flex benefit I have to spend it on medical-related expenses to be reimbursed at a later date. I can’t touch my 401.(k) without penalty for another 17 years.

But under a consumption tax I can choose to pay it when I spend money on goods. With the somewhat frugal lifestyle that I lead, I’d have less of a tax bite than a person who spends money like water. It’s the element of choice I have in the matter that appeals to me. Right now I have the “choice” of paying taxes or being financially ruined by the IRS. Plus it’s tough to practice architecture from the federal pen (and it goes without saying they’d pull my license to practice in Maryland). I also have a sneaking hunch they’d frown on me writing a blog from there too, particularly one like monoblogue.

If you look at all 15 chapters of my 50 year plan (16 if you count the introduction) you’ll see that there’s one underlying theme that ties them all together.

I want the next generations of Americans to enjoy more of the benefits of freedom and less of the oppression of an ever-expanding federal government. In this case, it’s the freedom to keep more of what they will earn if they choose to. I’m also aware that they’ll have to fight for their freedoms against many and varied enemies, not just from outside our nation, but some from within who will be seductive in their promises of equality for all.

As a nation we should strive for equality of opportunity. But we have to guard against the big-government do-gooders who preach equality of outcome. Just like in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, those in power have a tendency to deem themselves more equal than others. If I live to see another 50 years, all I ask at that point is to see that those generations have the freedom and ability to live and succeed as far as their talents, abilities, and knowledge take them. Show me the American Dream envisioned by the Founding Fathers is still alive.

Gilchrest’s immigration stance

Sometimes it’s amazing how posts go together. Be sure to read the next one down too.

It worked out really well, so I swear someone in his office reads monoblogue. A couple posts on the immigration bill and voila! there’s a letter in my mailbox. And it goes like this:

Dear Mr. Swartz:

Because of your interest in immigration reform, I wanted to update you on developments as Congress begins the process of considering this legislation.

As you know, it was recently announced that an agreement has been reached in the US Senate on immigration reform. However I have serious concerns about the current immigration bill under consideration in the Senate and in fact, would oppose the current approach if it were to come to the House side in its current form.

Granting blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants does nothing to discourage future illegal immigration and the organized crime associated with it, and sends the wrong message to those seeking to become US citizens through the established legal process.

I believe we are better suited by taking incremental steps with a strong emphasis in the beginning on border security. Until we can satisfy the American people that our government is serious about securing our borders, we cannot responsibly address the illegal aliens that are already here.

I supported tough enforcement measures in the House last year and unfortunately, those bills died in the Senate. Many of those proposals can be addressed and should be debated individually on their own merits. We need to make sure that our employers have the best technology to ensure that they are hiring legal workers, and we need a tightly enforced but workable guest worker program to protect those local agricultural industries that depend of (sic) these programs.

As a nation of immigrants, this is a difficult and emotional issue with far-reaching and historical implications. But as we approach the issue of immigration, we must make the safety of our nation and the confidence of the American public in our security our top priority.

Sincerely,

Wayne T. Gilchrest

Member of Congress

I guess the first thing which jumps out at me is that he talks about granting blanket amnesty and sending the wrong message to the American people but goes right ahead and sends the wrong message to those overseas who wish us harm by supporting a withdrawal timetable in the Long War. But I’ll leave that discussion for another day and a more appropriate post.

Speaking to the point of view expressed in the letter, I tend to agree with much of what he says, especially his bringing up the issues of organized crime and beginning with an emphasis on border security. But he’s not really stood up and demanded that more of the fence that we allocated billions for in the last year be built, regardless of supposed environmental impact or Mexico’s feelings on the subject.

The key element that he and almost everyone else inside the Beltway don’t seem to get though is that almost everything addressed in the letter as a problem is ALREADY against the law. Once again, I say that Congress can pass all of the laws it wants but if the will to enforce them is not there, all they accomplish is lifetime employment for those fortunate enough to work at the Congressional printing office.

So what sayeth you, Andy Harris, Frank Kratovil, or Christopher Robinson?

Refreshing rain for the grassroots

Over the last few weeks, the buzzword in politics has become “grassroots”. Even with a Daily Times editorial Sunday which tries to pooh-pooh supporters of a recent referendum petition drive – sniveling in part that, “Referendums are a pathetic tool for ensuring good government” – the strength of the masses, both in exerting their say on the city’s tax increase and in fighting the recent battle from outside the Beltway against the Bush/Kennedy/McCain immigation bill, has become too large to ignore. And I feel like a little part of it because of an article I ran across.

Writing in National Review Online (h/t to fellow MBA blog Going To The Mat), commentator Mark Krikorian notes that:

…every Senate office was inundated by phone calls and faxes — hundreds-to-one against the bill.

The role of blogs and columnists and think tanks in fueling and directing this outrage was essential (emphasis mine), with National Review Online and the Heritage Foundation deserving special honors. But senators can still write them off as part of the Washington game rather than real people and real voters. One of the key groups focusing actual grassroots outrage was Numbers USA, which soared past a third of a million members because of public anger over the bill — and these are real citizen activists busily phoning and faxing, not a tally of passive small donors.

It seems that the overreaching of amnesty advocates has politicized a lot of people, and not just conservatives, over the non-enforcement of the immigration law. And that’s a good thing too — if the White House concludes that amnesty is unattainable, there will be a strong temptation to end the enforcement show that’s been staged over the past six months or so, with workplace raids designed to bolster the administration’s credibility on the issue. A vigilant citizenry will be required to ensure that doesn’t happen — that enforcement is not only not discontinued, but that it’s expanded, so we can end the Bush administration’s “silent amnesty” and get to work implementing a real strategy of attrition through enforcement.

This is a case where the average folks got off their collective asses and made a difference. Guest-hosting on Rush Limbaugh’s radio program Friday, Roger Hedgecock opined that he hoped it would be only the beginning of a process where the grassroots begins regularly taking a stand when poorly written legislation is proposed. And I couldn’t agree more.

Further, the grassroots are voting with their pocketbook, snapping it shut when the national Republican Party comes calling. Actually, they are catching up to my philosophy on this because I’ve never donated to the national or state Republican party, only to candidates. (I will say though that so far Jim Pelura’s leadership of the Maryland GOP and emphasis on listening to us at the local level has impressed me for the most part, so that streak may end.) For our part, the Maryland GOP and Pelura drafted a statement in opposition to the immigration bill. States with similar stances have seen their contributions increase, while GOP supporters of the bill like the aforementioned Senator McCain and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham have provoked outrage, particularly Graham.

And while the local Salisbury referendum effort did not succeed (dooming Salisbury city property owners to a likely 14% tax increase), the national effort achieved its short-term goal of thwarting this particular immigration bill. So where will the people who wanted to see this bill pass go from here? While this rendition of the immigration bill is out, there’s no telling how it could be inserted into another more palatable bill or otherwise enacted in the proverbial dead of night. Among other things, this method is how we’ll get a minimum-wage increase as it was added to the supplemental appropriations bill funding the Long War for the next several months. Don’t be surprised if a amnesty-friendly Senator tries the same method to slide the immigration bill or certain parts of it through the Senate.

As for the immigration bill itself, I opposed it for two philosophical reasons. First of all, I don’t believe in rewarding illegal behavior – in most instances, these illegal aliens are sneaking over the border solely for economic reasons. Most come simply to work but on some occasions such as an impending birth, they take advantage of our lax citizenship laws. I’m not going to argue that there’s a lot of people in other parts of the world who wouldn’t do the jobs that Americans supposedly won’t do, but we have a method already in existence for these people to come into the country legally. Many seasonal workers at our local Ocean City resorts take advantage of these laws. Also, there’s a share of people who would fall into the category of trying to sneak into the country because of an oppressive government in their homeland; Cuban “boat people” being one example. These people seek to escape political persecution rather than migrate here because of a lack of economic opportunity in their homeland. Many of these people come here and readily assimilate into our culture, like those Cuban emigres in Miami or the Hmong people who scattered throughout the country after they were persecuted by the Laotian government for supporting us during the Vietnam War.

The second part of my opposition lies in asking a very simple, common-sense question: if we’re not enforcing the Simpson-Mazzoli laws (among other immigration stautes) already on the books, what makes anyone think that we won’t be back at this problem trying to come up with a new “solution” in 10-20 years? To be quite blunt, I have a serious problem with the attitude those in our Maryland General Assembly or in Congress share that an issue is solved simply by enacting yet another law or regulation. Most of the time it just creates more of a hassle than the situation beforehand ever was. The only law that seems to work properly in these cases is the law of unintended consequences. In the case of Simpson-Mazzoli we granted an amnesty to 3 million or whatever number of illegals were in the country at the time, and instead of solving the problem it just encouraged more of the same as people banked on the government going by its precedent and giving the new generation of illegals a “get out of jail free” card. In essence, that’s what the Bush/Kennedy/McCain bill is supposed to do. All of the fines, penalties, “touchback” provisions, etc. go into effect only if a) citizenship is sought, and b) the law is enforced. Just try to make an illegal immigrant (oh, sorry, “undocumented worker”) go by these provisions in a “sanctuary city”.

And it was the grassroots, aided by the internet and by talk radio, that came to understand these issues in a big hurry once the word got out. Obviously, the Senate seeking to ramrod this bill through practically in the dead of night was a clue to their intentions, but fortunately the lawmakers were called on it and the reaction started to pour in from concerned citizens. However, this backlash we had against the amnesty bill can and should be just a first step in holding the people we elect accountable.

If there’s two things that I’d personally like our elected representatives to remember, it’s these:

Number one, it is OUR money that you’re playing with. Spend it wisely. And, given the way of the world right now, a border fence that can stop much of the illegal inflow is a good investment of our taxes.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution spells out your duties, and the Tenth Amendment therein tells you that the powers not explicitly granted to you at the federal level belong to the states and the people. Please bear this in mind the next time someone comes up to you looking for yet another entitlement or expansion of federal power.

It’s a view I hold and I’m pretty certain that a lot of Americans share that view with me. Once people get away from an obsession with how Paris Hilton is holding up in jail or the latest date some musical diva had, they can manage to catch on pretty quickly when someone’s trying to put one over on them. So I welcome all of you to the real world, where vigilance is the price of freedom.

A 50 year plan: Health care and Medicare

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Health care is NOT a right.

This chapter may sound suspiciously like my last chapter on Social Security because the solution is pretty much the same. It’s time to get the federal government out of the health care arena too. But instead of a gradual sunsetting of the program as I suggest for Social Security, the Medicare program would likely be better served by turning it over to each individual state and letting them set their methods of payment and such. Thus the federal government wouldn’t be sending states billions to assist with their existing health care and health insurance program costs. Because many states require a balanced budget (like Maryland does), it will bring a debate on what should be done about the issue of government involvement in health care and how to pay for it to each state capital, instead of just depending on the bottomless well of the federal government to cover their shortfalls as they currently do.

Some states have made attempts to change the system by focusing on the health insurance aspect. Probably the most well-known is the Massachusetts plan that Presidential candidate Mitt Romney sheperded through. In simple terms, Bay State residents either need to have insurance through their employer, through the state (for unemployed or poorer residents), or pay a penalty with their income taxes. Many compare it to a state requirement to carry auto insurance, but there’s one piece of the puzzle that tends to be forgotten. People can get along in life without owning a car (hey, the Amish do it) and, particularly for those young and relatively healthy, some don’t feel the need for health insurance. The Massachusetts plan compels people who might not want a product to buy it anyway as the price for living in the state. While it’s their right as one of the several states, I tend not to agree with mandates of this sort.

A good resource for further discussion of the Massachusetts plan is here.

Obviously, people want to live longer and enjoy a better quality of life. Compared to our ancestors, we live much longer and in general have healthier lives because many of the diseases and ailments that plagued earlier generations have been wiped out or controlled. Going under the knife used to be a risky proposition, now millions do it simply for vanity reasons or to improve their eyesight. Drugs have moved from simply being lifesavers (like penicillin) to those devoted simply to improving one’s perceived quality of life, such as Rogaine or Viagra.

So why did President Bush and Congress push a prescription drug program (Medicare Part D) that entwines the federal government even deeper into the internal business of Big Pharma? Heaven only knows, but it’s another Gordian knot we have to figure out how to untie. The sad thing is that many people didn’t need this program expansion but will have to deal with it anyway. Instead of leaving well enough alone, or, even better, allowing the states to propose their own solutions, taxpayers are stuck with yet another entitlement.

It’s amazing how many other issues of import affect our health care system as well. Illegal immigration has forced a number of hospitals and emergency rooms in the Southwest to close as they were not being compensated for caregiving. Without tort reform, doctors practice what’s known as “defensive medicine”, ordering unneeded tests and procedures to build a case in their defense if they’re brought to court. Like the six degrees of Kevin Bacon most issues in the national limelight can touch healthcare sooner or later. Solving the issue will take a coordinated effort across many fields; paying for it is my focus here.

With the income tax system we have now (more on that in my next chapter), I think the best interim solution is to allow health savings accounts (HSA) to become easier to get and more accessible. In general, the HSA is treated like an IRA for tax purposes and is combined with a high-deductible medical insurance plan. The problem is that not all health insurance providers cater to the HSA market. Also, many states still mandate certain coverage types that may or may not apply to the individual case. Perhaps by delinking the insurance component we could get better participation. While the insurance aspect could be encouraged through financial incentive, if folks wanted to go without and participate they still may.

And just like the fiscal responsibility discussion in my last chapter, there’s an element of personal accountability that becomes part of the solution. For example, one aspect of attempting to drive down health care costs is businesses not allowing smoking on their premises. While I don’t think the nanny state should have a say in this, it’s just fine for a private entity to do so. Whereas I’m not in favor of banning transfats, common sense dictates that if you slam down two Whoppers and a king-size order of fries on a regular basis, you’ll get to be obese and that’s not a particularly healthy thing. (Welcome to my former world, I finally got a bit smarter about that. Fortunately I didn’t do a whole lot of damage to myself.)

The best way to avoid the high cost of health care, particularly the high-dollar results of cardiac treatment or combatting diabetes, is to live in a reasonably healthy manner. It’s a shame to me that kids today are already too portly for their own good because of a sedentary lifestyle. As a kid, I was out the door like a shot during the summer, out riding my bike or playing sandlot baseball. While the dregs of society have dictated a few changes to the world kids live in today, it’s not impossible for a kid to get outside and have the stink blown off him or her.

It’s those sedentary kids of today who are going to have to deal with our healthcare woes. I’d not like to see their paychecks eroded as badly as mine is now to deal with the federal government’s “one-size-fits-all” solution.