A 50 year plan: Fiscal responsibility

It’s sheer happenstance that I write this chapter of the 50 year plan at a time when budget battles are looming at all levels of government – locally fighting over a property tax increase, the state looking at a special session of the General Assembly this fall to combat a structural deficit, and the federal government perpetually makes a show of trying to whittle down its deficit spending.

Over the last few decades, a number of ideas have been bandied about as possible solutions to the problem of government overspending. I’m going to talk about three in particular for this chapter.

To begin, many have attempted to jumpstart the process by introducing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The argument goes that most states have a balanced budget amendment so the federal government should as well.

There are times I would agree with that; however, in this era of an open-ended war with the forces of radical Islam, a balanced budget may not be readily attainable. Generally a balanced budget amendment leaves an exemption for times of war, and, whereas states cannot declare war, the federal government retains that right to do so. Also, since 2001 the government has a stated position of dealing with the national security threat brought about by al-Qaeda and its allies globally in any and all ways possible.

So a balanced budget amendment is probably not in the cards, at least for the foreseeable future. Something much more attainable but probably just as realistic as enacting a balanced budget amendment is reforming the system of “earmarks”.

A couple months ago we had our state Senator, Lowell Stoltzfus, as a guest speaker at the WCRC meeting and the subject of state spending naturally came up. Like all other states, Maryland has a capital improvements budget and what we call “bond bills.” What occurs during the portion of the General Assembly session devoted to the budget is a lot of serious horsetrading and competition as legislators scramble to secure pork for their districts.

The point Stoltzfus brought up was that you have two choices: you can take the high road and not seek any money for the district as a means of cutting spending. Unfortunately, there’s always another legislator without those scruples who would be happy to fund something in his or her district with that money since it’s going to be available anyway. Or, you can sort of hold your nose and grab for as much cash as you can get, which is distasteful but is also a sad reality that the money is going to be made available because almost all legislators like being in Annapolis and want to be reelected. Yes, in my way of thinking it’s called buying votes.

Now multiply that by 50 states’ worth of elected officials on the federal level and you see why our financial house is so far out of order – particularly when there’s a theoretically unlimited money supply out there. After all, the deficit is just a number to them.

So you come to a third theory, which isn’t always thought of as a fiscal responsibility aspect but I believe would contribute to the effort of reining in spending.

At one time, I subscribed to a fairly libertarian theory that term limits were bad policy because you deny voters all of the possible choices. But over the last few years, as I’ve seen hundreds of career politicians spend decades in office, I’ve changed my thinking. Our Founding Fathers intended political duty as something done for just a few years, which is why the House of Representatives was set up to be elected by the people every two years. Many don’t realize that the Senate was set up with six year terms in part because Senators were not directly elected by the people, they were chosen by state legislatures.  The longer terms were in order to bring continuity to the office when there was turnover in state legislatures on a semi-annual basis. These terms were not changed when the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in 1913, only the method of Senate election.

While term limits may seen an unnatural limit on the will of the people, the principle is already in the Constitution as the 22nd Amendment. Ratified in 1951, it codified what had been a tradition started by George Washington and carrying through until Franklin Roosevelt defied the norm by running for a third consecutive term in 1940. Prior to FDR, no President had served more than two terms. Teddy Roosevelt ran for what would’ve been almost a third full term in 1912 (taking office upon the assassination of President McKinley in 1901), but he had been out of office since 1909.

Further, since the Amendment was ratified, regular change has occurred at the executive branch. A party holding the office of President for 8 years has been the norm, except for the years of Jimmy Carter through George H.W. Bush. Democrats only held the presidency for one term under Carter (1977-81) before the GOP held sway for 12 years (1981-1993, Reagan and G.H.W. Bush.) We returned to an eight year cycle with Bill Clinton and the trend would continue if a Democrat wins back the Oval Office in 2008.

But this change does not occur in lesser levels of government. A number of Congressmen and Senators, generally Democrats who favor an all-encompassing government, have held their offices 30 years or more. Once entrenched, they become obstacles to reform. And, above all, reform is what’s needed at the federal level if the taxpayers are ever to get true relief as I’ve outlined in earlier parts of my 50 year plan.

I also wanted to write about fiscal responsibility on a personal level. Sure, it would be nice to have all levels of government tighten their belts in order to keep more money in our collective pockets where it belongs. But we have a part to play in this too.

I tell people the story of one of the downstairs neighbors I had when my first ex-wife and my daughter (step in name only) lived in the upstairs half of a duplex. He bragged about his $800 TV and $800 stereo (which had bass enough to thump my apartment at 2 a.m.) but it turned out he could never keep his wife’s car in repair and they were eventually evicted for not paying the rent – after they had the gas turned off. Hopefully they learned a lesson from that but something tells me they just skipped to the next rental and did the same thing.

And I know that I talk about things I do that are frivolous, but it’s a question of moderation. I don’t see bands every weekend, my Shorebirds tickets are a company benefit, and I didn’t buy an overly expensive house or car even though I could have. The Sun yesterday had an article about car sales slowing because of longer finance periods for their present cars.

I suppose the best advice I can give to young people is to take the first 10% off your check and stick it in a 401.k or someplace else you can’t easily touch it. Then pay your bills and groceries and such. Also cut up the credit cards, and if you own a house ignore the siren call of home equity loans for the most part, unless it’s something that would improve your property value or a needed repair like fixing the roof. If there’s one thing that’s become a pet peeve of mine, it’s seeing and hearing dozens of advertisements a week that tell the unsuspecting that they can have (and deserve) it all, just refinance your home. Never mind the deeper hole that you’ve dug for yourself just to take a cruise to Aruba or buy the big-screen TV you’ll likely have to replace (with a bigger one, of course) in three years. Sure, you can deduct the interest off your taxes – for now.

Am I frugal? To an extent, yes. I can be a little tight with my money but my life has taught me the hard way that it’s a good policy to have. I paid a lot of interest to the folks at MasterCard, Visa, and Discover for a bunch of years before I finally got wise. So I make every attempt to stay within a budget and plan for the future.

So maybe the “buy now, pay later” basis of our economy takes a hit. Smart people are always able to land on their feet when adversity strikes. I’m trying to avoid two generations’ worth of train wrecks with some simple advice. It’s up to my readers of that age to take it.

Sounds like Andy’s running. Now what?

Already we have reaction from the Gilchrest camp. From the Sun yesterday:

Of Harris, (Gilchrest chief of staff Tony) Caliguiri said, “Anyone’s entitled to run for office, but we don’t believe his brand of extremist politics will appeal to Maryland voters.”

So being in favor of “fiscal responsibility, a strong national defense, traditional values, and an optimistic view of this country and its role as a world leader” is extremist? I’ll take these one at a time.

First of all, don’t forget the the bill that got Gilchrest his moniker as a “white flag Republican” also held over $25 billion in pork that wasn’t coming back to our district. And he’s not done a whole lot to stop the increasing budgets and earmarks eminating from Washington – in that respect he’s a true back-bencher.

So Gilchrest has done little in the respect of either fiscal responsibility or a strong national defense, because I consider the Long War as one strategy in defending our nation against a serious threat. Obviously, Gilchrest differs in his opinion, and that’s his right. But that stance may cost him at the ballot box among Eastern Shore voters.

But one thing I’d like to know about Harris is whether he feels as I do that as much (if not more) diligence should be paid to solving problems by getting the government out of the way and allowing the private sector a crack at them. One example is Gilchrest’s support of stricter CAFE standards for automobiles.

Obviously Detroit was behind the curve a bit on creating fuel-efficient cars, but the market is in the process of correcting itself without government help. However, some may prefer a larger vehicle for their purposes and if CAFE standards are stricter, there may be fewer choices for those consumers. It’s an example of government sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong, and there’s countless other restrictions that are supposedly for our own good but instead drive up prices and eliminate options needlessly.

I found the coverage of Harris’s announcement interesting too. Based on the e-mail I received from the Maryland GOP, they found four outlets that featured this story, which didn’t include local coverage here in Salisbury. The Baltimore Sun, Examiner, and Daily Times simply used an AP story, with the Daily Times burying it on Page C-2 of today’s paper. Meanwhile, the Gazette featured it as part of their “Reporters Notebook” section, which is understandable because their coverage area mainly lies outside the 1st District.

In this case I have to give kudos to the Cecil Whig, where reporter Cheryl Mattix did a great indepth article on the Senator and his announcement, going so far as to actually contact Harris for his thoughts on running. It’s interesting how two of the major papers in the district differ in their coverage based on personnel.

And while it’s not our side of the state, I found out that both Maryland GOP congressmen will draw a primary opponent. Onetime Cumberland mayor and perennial candidate Frank Nethken will oppose 6th District stalwart Roscoe Bartlett. A Sun article is here. But Harris has to be considered as a more likely victor than Nethken.

One point brought up by Cato at Delmarva Dealings is the possiblilty of a third (or fourth, etc.) spoiler in the race, someone who jumps in and splits the conservative vote enabling Gilchrest to squeak by. A name brought up is E.J. Pipkin, who ran an unsuccessful statewide race against Barbara Mikulski in 2004, which despite being a losing effort did give him a little more name recognition. Also, Pipkin represents an area actually on the Eastern Shore whereas Harris hails from Baltimore County.

Oddly enough, while the First District is thought of as solidly Republican and Eastern Shore, redistricting and demographics make it a district split almost evenly between Democrats and Republicans as far as registration goes, and only about 5 out of 8 voters live in the nine counties comprising the Eastern Shore. If you split out Cecil County, which straddles both sides of the northern terminus of Chesapeake Bay, it’s about half-and-half between Eastern and Western Shore voters. Last year’s Democrat nominee, Dr. Jim Corwin, is a Western Shore denizen but he still defeated an Eastern Shore resident in that primary.

It’s going to make for an interesting race, one that may yet bear national attention as the months drag on toward Election 2008.

Andrew running? Sounds like a yes!

I have it on very good authority that Andrew Harris has made a pretty quick decision and will seek the Congressional seat held by Wayne Gilchrest, with a formal announcement sometime tomorrow.

Obviously this is a developing story, but it appears that the show of support he received at the Maryland GOP gathering over the weekend let him know the effort was viable. Who knows, maybe the comments on my little old blog story assisted as well.

And knowing that the husband of Gilchrest’s communication director is the editor of the Daily Times, methinks I don’t see a lot of good coverage coming from there. But I’ll be happy to pick up the slack.

In print no. 6

I got a call last Thursday from the oddest source – Tom LoBianco of the Washington Times. Apparently he’s a fan of monoblogue or at least has become familiar with it by reputation. I chatted with him for a few minutes about the feelings the Eastern Shore GOP has about our Congressman, Wayne Gilchrest.

So today I got my daily e-mail update from the Maryland GOP and it had an article by LoBianco on the race. You know I had to check it out. And sure enough:

“When I talk to other Republicans, they’re really not enamored with [Mr. Gilchrest’s] stances on the issues,” said Michael Swartz, a member of the Wicomico Republican Central Committee and author of the Eastern Shore politics blog Monoblogue. “He’s ripe for the picking if he’s not popular.”

Not only did LoBianco spell my name right (unlike some other “journalists” here) and get the name of the blog correct, he actually quoted me pretty closely. Since it was a phone call, I didn’t write down just what I said but it sounds like something I would’ve stated. The only other thing I could’ve asked for was a link!

But the article was interesting for much more than my quote. I know it’s sort of hard to fathom, being just over 6 months removed from the last election and almost 18 months away from the 2008 general, but because of the insanity that drives states to make their primaries earlier and earlier, we’ll pick the GOP and Democrat nominees in February. This means that politicians who may in earlier days have gotten this summer off will be right back out on the rubber chicken circuit beginning this summer. It also means that interspersed with the annoying holiday commercials will come the annoying political ones.

I liked the little bit of introduction in the piece we got to the other candidates from both parties. Since I’ve already talked about Andy Harris I thought it might be good to look at the other side. The two Democrats who’ve expressed interest are:

  • Frank Kratovil, a “conservative Eastern Shore prosecutor.” However, he wasn’t conservative enough not to back the liberal policies of Governor O’Malley during the campaign nor eschew support from O’Malley, Senator Ben Cardin, or state AG Doug Gansler – all varying shades of leftist.
  • Christopher Robinson, who ran unsuccessfully in 2006. He’s described by LoBianco as supporting the death penalty, pro-choice, and for the amnesty bill (my term) before Congress. Of those three positions, I only see one winner on the Eastern Shore. Yet Robinson is correct in one respect, quoted in the Times article as saying, “I just think Mr. Gilchrest is no longer voting the interest of the people of the First District.” He’s right but the Democrat Party of today is not tolerant of those like onetime Rep. Roy Dyson, who Robinson worked for.

And you know that once candidate websites get established I’ll be linking to them. Also, don’t be surprised if I dust off my Ten Questions, revised for the 2008 elections. We’ll see who has the cajones to answer them. In truth, I can probably use my 2006 ones since those issues by and large still remain on the table. (And they said the last GOP-controlled Congress was a “do-nothing Congress.”)

On an unrelated topic, I may end up doing “In print no. 7” later this week as I e-mailed a letter to the Daily Times last night. Think I’ll give them until Friday to put it in, otherwise I’ll post it here over the weekend. Of course, if they chop up my letter as they’ve been known to do, I’ll put in the actual items I wrote here so you get my true feelings on the matter in question.

Just stirring up the pot a little bit more!

Run, Andrew, run!

I heard a blurb on the radio today, and it’s probably good that I wasn’t in a lot of traffic as I was driving since it’s tough to cheer and applaud while keeping both hands on the wheel. And I was cheering and applauding!

But State Senator Andrew Harris (R-Baltimore County) is mulling a run for the Congressional seat held by Wayne Gilchrest. He was going to use this weekend’s Maryland GOP state convention (which I’ll be attending) as a gauge to see whether he has enough support. And if the support for Gilchrest is as tepid as the rumblings I’ve heard in my rounds Harris could have a legitimate chance. It’s just my hope that the state party listens to the grassroots and doesn’t take a side in this battle, allowing the two (plus any others) to debate the issues. One thing that I’ve publicly stated my opposition to is having the party bigwigs annoint an incumbent as a perpetual candidate. In this case, I want the higher-ups in the Maryland GOP to put no pressure on Harris to discourage a run. As a Central Committee, it’s our job to support whoever the Republican voters favor, not connive to try to discourage opposition and avoid a messy primary fight. That was my frustration with the Ohio Republican Party and we see where it got them – nice going guys.

Regular readers of monoblogue might recall that I graded our local Delegates and Senators on how they voted in the last General Assembly session on key issues I felt strongly about. So here’s how Harris voted, bearing in mind that my stance was “no” on each issue.

  • HB131/SB103 (the “Maryland Clean Cars Act”) – NO
  • HB148/SB634 (the National Popular Vote Act) – NO
  • HB359/SB91 (“Clean Indoor Air Act”) – NO
  • HB430 (Living Wage) – NO
  • SB739 (relatives of legislators cannot receive legislative scholarships) – yes

Four out of five ain’t bad – in fact he was more attuned to my views than either of my local Senators. And it goes without saying that I’ve got several problems with the incumbent Congressman, particularly with his stances on the Long War and energy independence.

But something tells me that the Congressman might have suspected something was up when Harris was an attendee at our recent Lincoln Day dinner. Just a few days later I received a letter from his campaign (sent to my old address – come on guys get it right!) Right up top was a quote in bold from Newt Gingrich:

“I think we have more problems making the American government work than we have making the Iraqi government work.”

(snip)

This may not be something you want to hear, but I think it’s a message that we all need to understand: The Republican party has lost its way, and we need to return to the core fundamentals of our party if we hope to regain the trust of American voters.

(snip)

I believe our party and our nation is at a crossroads, and that as someone who has been willing to get involved with the political process, you would be willing to join a new effort to regain our momentum and restore America’s trust in us.

But first we must turn away from the negative attack politics of Washington, and we must again become the party of big ideas.

I was recently talking to my friend, former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich, and he agreed that our best – and possibly only – hope is to clearly articulate our positive vision for America, and to return to the core principles of our party which brought us the trust and confidence of American voters.

(snip)

As you probably know, I have gained a reputation for speaking my mind – even when I think our party is going in the wrong direction. But I have dedicated a career to building this party and I am proud to be a Republican, and I believe our best days are ahead.

As you can also imagine, reform does not always sit well with leaders in Annapolis and Washington, and I imagine that some of the entrenched special interests will spend a great deal of money and resources to block a reform movement – and my own reelection.

That’s why I am writing to you today. I think that you can be an important part of our effort to change the way politics works, and we can send a message to our party’s leadership.

In reality, this letter is about three pages long and I just hit what I considered the highlights. But it’s quite intriguing that the nine-term incumbent cloaks himself in a “reformer” mantle. Wonder if that’s a poll-tested remark? Even more interesting is where he uses his friendship with Newt Gingrich to establish what conservative bonafides he does have while voting at every opportunity with the more moderate sector of the GOP, or even with the Democrats on some issues.

And this is why I highlighted Harris’s voting record. Would it not be a message to the rest of the country and the GOP stalwarts if one of their most moderate is knocked out in a party primary by a conservative? It could go a long way to reinventing the Republican Party as I’d like to see it done.

With just nine months remaining until the primary, the time to act is now should anyone wish to challenge any of Maryland’s incumbents in Congress. If there’s a primary fight on the GOP side in our district, it may bring us national attention and we can show the rest of the country how we on the Eastern Shore really feel about the direction of the Republican Party.

Wayne’s world (view)

Most of my readers know that I take issue with my Congressman when it comes to his stance on the Long War. But being an “opinion leader” I still get letters describing his side of the issue. Here’s his latest, dated May 1, 2007.

Dear Mr. Swartz:

Thank you for expressing your thoughts on the current situation in Iraq and recent developments regarding our future strategy. I wanted to take the time to explain the significance of Congress’ passage of HR 1591, a bill that provides emergency war funding for our troops at home and abroad and for our nation’s veterans.

There is significant dissatisfaction with the current Iraq policy and the inability to control an increasingly complex security situation. While US troops are performing with stunning competence, the Iraqi government – time and time again – has failed to meet the political and economic “benchmarks” necessary for national reconciliation, and as a result, sectarian violence and civil war continues to rage in Iraq.

As you know, our new plan in Iraq, the “troop surge,” features more aid and at least 21,000 additional US troops for duty in Baghdad and Anbar province. It is designed to help the Iraqis dampen sectarian violence and create breathing space for national reconciliation. General Petraeus has expressed that we will know by late summer to early fall whether security progress has and can continue to be made. It must be made clear that no provision of any bill passed out of Congress will impede the resources necessary to implement this strategy.

While the surge can succeed militarily, it can also fail politically. As such, there is significant disagreement over the most effective way to leverage Iraq’s national reconciliation, and the most effective role for US military forces in this process.

Immediate withdrawal is not an option – the consequences unknown, and quite possibly catastrophic. However, the series of benchmarks proposed in January by President Bush and agreed to by the Iraqi Government – and included in HR 1591 – must be enforced or the US must reformat the primary role of combat forces. And as the surge unfolds, our planners must craft options that place the responsibility on the Iraqis to determine their future security.

The Iraqis must clearly acknowledge that America’s continued commitment of troops and resources is not open-ended, and Secretary Gates recently stated that debate on this issue in Congress had helped them to get Iraqi leaders to grasp this point. I do not like restricting our war policy with conditions or timelines – they are blunt devices in an area of policy that requires flexibility. However, this bill provides our Generals in Iraq greater leverage for moving the Iraqi government down a more disciplined path by sending the message that US support for the war is not open-ended.

In any case, US forces must resist continuing to police an indefinite civil war which reinforces the view of our troops as occupiers, not liberators. As we have seen thus far, Iraq’s security forces must increase in numbers for transition to their authority; and transitioning our focus from policing sectarian warfare to training Iraqi security forces – an essential element to any long-term and sustainable strategy – must become our first priority after the surge. This will also free up resources to focus on targeting al Qaeda and other external elements that work to forment violence among Iraqis, and for securing Iraq’s border from harmful and destabilizing forces.

This strategy cannot be accomplished alone, and the U.S. must work to encourage a comprehensive regional security framework. To achieve this objective, we must have Middle Eastern countries see the Iraqi government as credible, not a U.S. puppet. As such, we must clearly communicate our objectives for creating a secure and stable Iraq and reinforce support for the territorial integrity of Iraq as a unified state, as well as its respect for the sovereignity of Iraq and its government.

As we all have witnessed, success in Iraq is not simply at the will and power of US forces. Much is riding on the outcome of the surge, and it is my hope that the Iraqis will follow through with their promises and take the necessary steps toward reconciliation.

It is clear the President will veto any bill with a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq. At which point, our primary focus should be to expedite a clean supplemental bill and provide the resources that our troops need to continue their missions. But Congress must continue to ensure that the Administration has an accomplishable military strategy and a clear set of goals for any overseas mission, and we must ensure that the mission contributes to our future strength and security. In the end, the debate was had and the message was sent: America is not a permanent occupier in Iraq and the onus must and will shift to the Iraqis. My vote on HR 1591 provides just that message.

Thank you again for taking the time to write.

Sincerely,

Wayne T. Gilchrest

Member of Congress

I have a couple comments. Since I got this letter, another similar bill was sent up from the House; essentially funding on the installment plan. Gilchrest voted for this measure. He didn’t vote for the almost immediate withdrawal, which I will give him credit for.

But there is one factor I think he and many other pundits have left out of the equation, and that’s the Iraqi people. It’s my view that a continued American presence can provide them a security blanket against the Iranian-sponsored terrorism that plagues the country right now. Iran and our other enemies (including al Qaeda) are banking on our wavering support because that provides them propaganda cover: “See, the Americans aren’t willing to stay and fight us, we knew that they were a ‘paper tiger’ just as Osama bin Laden said they were.”

Governments can come and go. France just made a switch from a socialist government to a more right-leaning one, Great Britain will shortly begin the process of replacing longtime Prime Minister Tony Blair, and our nation will have a new leader in 20 months, with the process already taking shape as I write this. Iraq will have a chance for new leadership at some point, but their struggle to adapt to the rule of law is not assisted when their biggest patron is wavering. Meanwhile, hopeful people in other close nations look to see if their dreams will be dashed by an America that no longer works to project freedom across the globe.

There was also a column included with this letter, Gilchrest got it from the Washington Post and my link goes to the Chicago Sun-Times. It’s an April 30 op-ed by Robert Novak, who’s not known as being real supportive of the Long War. And just the other day, in yet another mailing, the Congressman also sent me another opinion from William F. Buckley called “The Waning of the GOP.” I disagree about one thing regarding Buckley’s assertions: we are fighting an organized enemy, it’s just that we’re not fighting a traditional enemy. Look at the “Jersey jihadists.” They had the same aim as those we’re fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but were not directly connected save their religious beliefs. Note that we did not defeat this particular group militarily but by the insight of a normal citizen who recognized a possible threat and acted upon his suspicions. In a different theatre of operation, we need to use different means of containment. With the Fort Dix case we had what could be termed a home-field advantage.

In short, I think we need to send the signal that our military will stay the course regardless of the length of time it takes to subdue the enemies bedeviling Iraq. Playing games with military funding only gives the enemy hope that they can outlast us, and, while it may not be popular, right is right and at this time in history fighting the enemy as we are (rather than reacting after another future terror attack that could be much more catastrophic) to me seems the proper route to take.

A 50 year plan: Education

From the earliest days of our nation, the federal government has taken an interest in education. The Northwest Ordinance (1787) expressed it thusly:

Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

In today’s schools though one is led to wonder if the goal is to educate children or to maintain reasonably cushy administrative positions. Test scores in general have either declined or held steady over the last few decades, while the testing isn’t considered as rigorous as it once was. The forces of political correctness have determined that testing is unfair to poor and minority students and demand changes regularly. And some parents consider the school a babysitting and restaurant service (since most serve free or reduced-price breakfast and lunch), not caring much about how their children progress or behave at school.

Some of these complaints were addressed under President Bush as the No Child Left Behind Act was sheparded through Congress early in his first term and signed in January 2002. While Bush asked for this act to combat what he termed “the soft bigotry of low expectations”, it also added more federal regulations to the multitude that already exist, and became a target for Democrats to constantly claim that NCLB was underfunded.

While I appreciate a set of measurable standards for school performance, in reality this law hasn’t done a whole lot to improve the learning status of America’s children. In my opinion, the law to its full extent wasn’t necessary and it encourages education in exactly the opposite way from what it should be.

I was educated in public schools for the 13 years of my primary and secondary schooling (as well as a state university.) There was a time in elementary school I was in a special class because I have what’s now known as ADHD, and I finished my high school years by taking vocational classes for my junior and senior years (drafting and related courses.) So I experienced a lot of different classroom situations, probably moreso than the average child.

What the schools taught me was all of the factual knowledge I needed to get through and get a good grade point average. History and math classes were pretty much a piece of cake for me and I did reasonably well in English. Science was pretty easy as well. One disadvantage I had was spending my middle school and high school years at a small rural district that didn’t have a whole lot of advanced classes. (Though to be fair, I went to vocational school so I didn’t opt to stay and take some of the AP classes that may have been available to me in 11th and 12th grade.) My older daughter did have a chance to participate in a gifted/talented program because she went to school in a large city district and took advantage of several of these classes to get her high school language credits in junior high.

But there were two things I learned in college that I never did in high school. One was how to study and manage time because I didn’t have to do that for most of my academic career prior to college. The other was something I’m still learning to some extent as most of us do, and that’s critical thinking.

Teaching to the test as most schools are geared simply teaches a child to regurgitate the facts that they’re taught without giving them a context to work from. This particularly affects kids when they’re taught history and current events. For example, if children are taught American history, they brush through the saga of the Pilgrims coming to America. If anything, they’re taught about all of the help the Indians gave the settlers and how they thanked the Indians by holding a Thanksgiving feast. They learn nothing about the reason they came (religious persecution in England) or the failure of their early efforts at communal living. Their bountiful harvests came after they abandoned that socialism and allowed each settler to keep and trade their own land and labor. Unfortunately, this and many other important parts of early American history are barely covered in schools today.

There’s also the question of ever-spiraling educational budgets that seem to take more and more of a bite of our wallets. Well over 2/3 of the money a school district spends is in the form of salaries and benefits. True, a good teacher is worth every penny he/she is paid, but too many teachers simply go there to collect a paycheck – and in extreme cases, due to union contracts, are paid despite not teaching at all as they’ve been proven to be a danger to children but can’t easily be let go by the school district.

I’m going to address the money issue first with my solutions. I strongly believe that since it’s us taxpayers who provide the money to educate the majority of our children, any money spent on education at the state or local level should follow the child. Whether it’s through vouchers or some other sort of mechanism, giving this power of the purse to parents will encourage schools to become better or lag behind the market. Also on the financial front is a message to the federal government: there’s no amendment in our Constitution that mandates the federal government either pays for education or hangs the sword of Damocles over local school districts by forcing them to do what the feds want (including NCLB.) So butt out of the education business. There’s already way too much bureaucracy at the local and state levels for the system’s own good, and having a federal layer tossed on top just creates a lot of make-work positions for pencil-pushers who are about as far removed from educating a child as we are from the moon.

Now to the curriculum. Obviously there should be more local input, however as a parent who’s had children in school not too many years ago I’ve seen some of the strange items that were taught to them. But there’s a lot they don’t have a chance to cover, particularly in the areas of American history, geography, and (at the high school level) economics. And given the writing and speaking skills I see out of a lot of today’s youth, English needs to be brushed up on as well.

If we can get money to follow the child as I wish it would, that would solve another issue that bedevils the educational world. Teachers who are really good at their craft would have more demand placed for their services, and actually it could be possible for them to create their own cottage industry and blend the best aspects of homeschooling and school-based education by becoming independent contractors. In fact, with this concept it’s likely a private or charter school could attract the best area teachers and lease them space in their school building. (And it’s why the NEA fights this idea tooth and nail.)

I also want to extol the virtues of vocational education while I have an opportunity. As I stated, I attended vocational school for my last two years and it taught me a lot about drafting in general and a bit about architecture. This was the Stone Age when we actually learned board drafting with pencil and straightedge.

But not all kids are college material and unfortunately our nation also suffers from a shortage of skilled tradesmen. To me, there’s nothing wrong with learning to be a CAD operator, plumber, carpenter, or machinist. Given how I did in shop class I’m certainly on the right end of the building industry as far as my skills are concerned, but we simply have too few people who are interested in these sorts of occupations. On the other hand we have way too many who drift through college not knowing what they want to be, or worse, get through school with aspirations to be a bureaucrat.

Education should be about what’s best for the children and I believe that the more options they have in their education, the better they’ll succeed in life. Instead of filling these “skulls full of mush” with just enough facts to pass a standardized test and not the context with which these facts fit, we need to teach kids how to think for themselves. Currently in our nation, those environments for learning that show the most success (private schools and homeschooling) generally have the least to do with governmental regulations and the most to do with the children through more rigid discipline, a course of study that emphasizes classical subjects, and a greater sense of morality through faith-based studies. I think it will be easier to get to a better educational model if those who dictate the rules in education are based as closely as possible to those they educate – not in some DC office.

2007 Tri-County Lincoln Day Dinner

Before I get too far I have to say this:

www.monoblogue.us

A proud Ronald Reagan Sponsor

2007 Tri-County Lincoln Day Dinner

Yes, I placed myself and my website on the sponsoring page. So if any of those reading are among the 100 or so who attended last night’s festivities, welcome to monoblogue. I think its reputation may precede it now. Among those who sat at my table was Delegate Addie Eckardt and her husband, which led me to state that I got to sit with a Delegate I agreed with 100% of the time! And I think she’s one of a growing number of monoblogue fans.

During the dinner, we had a number of speakers. We heard from all of our local GOP Delegates and Senators, plus State Senator Andrew Harris (District 7) who came down to join us for our event. We also had brief remarks from our National Committeeman Louis Pope and from John Flynn, representing the state party. We even had a nice short video presentation from Governor Ehrlich, who sent his sincere regrets on not being able to attend. But I wanted to focus on two speakers: our National RNC Committeewoman Joyce Lyons Terhes and our Congressman, Wayne Gilchrest.

To open her remarks, Terhes told us that “the time for discouragement is over” and we need to begin to fight again. Her take on the losses in 2006 was pretty simple: many of the Republicans who ran had lost their principles and were beginning to sound too much like the Democrats.

As a way of recifying the situation, Terhes suggested a number of ideas, which to me fall under the category of common sense. It’s no secret that Republicans have a set of principles, a platform that they need to follow to keep their base and attract the average voter.

  • She called upon some of those who lost close races (particularly District 38B candidate Michael James) to run again and for us to search out other quality candidates.
  • Having lost the prior elections, it was time to “think outside the box” and try some new ideas. Included among them was taking advantage of new technologies. (Hey, I know a reinventionist Republican blogger…)
  • Be involved in the community. Somewhere along the line I think I’ve said this too, but this does get a person’s name out in a not necessarily political context.
  • Put principles first. We all received cards that stated Republican principles. Perhaps they should’ve went out to those in Congress who failed to follow them; regardless it served as a timely reminder.
  • Finally, we have to earn the right to govern again. In my eyes, we have to use our current minority position both in Maryland and nationally to deliver an alternative message where we can, and occasionally work with the Democrats when they stumble onto something that’s helpful (for example, the Jessica’s Law legislation that was passed in the last GA session.)

The other speaker I wanted to mention was Congressman Gilchrest. The bulk of what he talked about was our involvement in Iraq. Regular readers know I have my disagreements with him on the subject; however, to be fair, I’m going to pass along two books that he suggested to us as reading on the subject.

First among these is a book he claimed to have used when he taught history about the Vietnam War. It’s called Why Viet Nam?: Prelude to America’s Albatross by Archimedes Patti. The book is apparently in limited supply (written in the early 1980’s), but I’m guessing most libraries own it.

The other book is more recent, called Fiasco: The American Military Adventure In Iraq by Thomas E. Ricks. This is more available so that may be the first one I read. (You can also check for them on Amazon, I keep a link to there from monoblogue. Help me make my server fee!)

But I’m going to reserve a right at a later date to request he read a couple books. Personally, I think the parallels he tries to draw between Iraq and Viet Nam play right into the hands of our enemy. As I look at the situation, unlike Viet Nam, our enemy isn’t driven by a political cause, but a religious one. Unfortunately, our enemies have learned the lessons of Ho Chi Minh better than we did and they’ve taken the upper hand in the propaganda war.

As for his dinner remarks, it wasn’t surprising that they drew probably the most tepid applause of any of our speakers. But despite the events that have shaken our party since our last get-together in June of 2006, we seemed to be in good spirits and plenty optimistic about our chances in 2008.

So the Maryland GOP, or at least the one in our corner of the state, is nowhere near buried as Mike Miller prophecized. It’s people like the ones in our tri-county area that are building the ladder to climb our way out of the hole the Democrats thought they had dug for us. Can anyone say Martin O’Malley, one term governor? Sure you can.

A 50 year plan: Second Amendment

It’s 4:00 Friday afternoon as I write this for a Saturday posting. I actually started writing this earlier this week (Monday night) and had planned on writing this particular “50 year plan” chapter well before this week’s events ensued. (This is the 9th of 15 planned chapters, give or take.)

But after calling in to John Robinson’s radio show today, incensed that he felt the Constitution was a “living document”, I figured I better place a little bit of background in front of the actual article. Despite his protestation, the Second Amendment is not “dead”; however, layer upon layer of federal gun laws need to be stripped in order to bring it back to health. This is the point of my post today, and I think it serves to revise and extend my remarks from Friday.

It’s only judges that make the Constitution “living and breathing”, regardless of what history professors might say. Now, I had some ideas on how I’d improve the Constitution way back at the start of monoblogue, that post is here. Repealing the Second Amendment wasn’t among them.

Here’s what I originally wrote this week.

I’m writing this chapter of the 50 year plan after the terrible events in Virginia, as a gunman snuffed out over 30 lives before his was taken on the Virginia Tech campus.

Predictably, the knee-jerk reaction from the left is, “we need more gun laws!” The sad fact is that no gun law would have prevented what happened. The gunman decided that his was the way to solve those personal problems he had. People in that mindset to do damage to society will use whatever means they deem necessary. Not only that, the gunman bought his gun legally. It turned out to be the last legal thing he did insofar as gun ownership was concerned, as the serial numbers on both his guns were filed down. Moreover, Virginia Tech’s campus was declared a “gun-free zone” so the moment he entered campus with his weapon he violated another of many laws.

The way I see it, the Second Amendment was placed in the Constitution because people having weapons would be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Having broken away from a monarchy to establish what they hoped would be a truly republican government, they worried about the reestablishment of oppression by a future society – thus, they decided that people should have the right to bear arms. It was “necessary to the security of a free state.”

Some say that the Second Amendment only covers people in a “well regulated militia”, which they interpret as being in the National Guard or a like organization. However, National Guards didn’t come into being until the twentieth century. And that’s not the important part of the sentence. The Second Amendment is sort of unique in that the militia language is descriptive rather than prohibitive. It could have been just as effective without the sentence, just reading “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Let’s go back to Virginia for another example. As states go, Virginia is one of the least restrictive as far as acquiring a weapon which is their perfect right under the Tenth Amendment. Other states make citizens jump through hoops to get a gun, and that’s also acceptable in the eyes of the Constitution.

The main objection I have to the current situation, and the change that should guide policy in the next fifty years, is working to eliminate the federal gun laws. Just as the Constitution says, Congress shall make no law restricting the right we have to bear arms. However, pages and pages of the federal code deal with guns of all sorts.

I’m certain some read this and think I’m trying to resurrect the wild, wild west. But my point is simple – laws that deal with guns (and a lot of other subjects too, guns just being the subject of this short tome) should be established by the individual states. If a state wants to disarm their populace and leave the weapons to the hands of the criminal element, well, that’s their right. It would also be the surviving public’s right to throw those fools out of office who encouraged the situation by being a legislature full of gun grabbers.

On the other hand, states that show respect to their citizens by allowing them concealed carry and fewer restrictions on the number and type of guns they can possess are generally rewarded by lower crime rates. Imagine if even just 1 out of 100 students or faculty at Virginia Tech carried a weapon – there may still have been a number of deaths, but it may have been limited to the number Cho Seung-Hui could kill before someone else with a gun could have struck him down. (The guy was pretty clever, though, chaining the classroom doors closed before mowing down his victims.)

One final note – while I’m a supporter of people being able to keep whichever weapon they choose, they also should be properly trained in how to use them. Just like people have to take training to drive an automobile (which can also be a lethal weapon in the wrong hands), people should be trained on using and given an opportunity to gain respect for this powerful weapon.

Perhaps this respect for a possible tool for ending a life could carry over into respect for life in general.

A 50 year plan: Military and veterans’ affairs

The Cabinet-level Department of Veterans’ Affairs is a relatively recent creation, authorized by President Reagan in 1988. What I’m going to touch on in this installment of the 50 year plan is more aligned with the direction and function of that Department than the actual global military strategy necessary during those times. Some of that I discussed in my chapter of the 50 year plan about the Long War. Insofar as the rest of military strategy goes, I subscribe to the Reagan-era doctrine of “peace through strength” with an emphasis on forward deployment. This is why I advocate not completely retreating from Iraq when our job there is through (assuming the permission of the Iraqi government of course.)

What has placed this particular facet of veterans’ affairs at the forefront is the continuing saga at the Walter Reed veterans medical complex. Building 18, a moldy, rat-infested firetrap slated to be closed in a few years, has become yet another avenue for Congressional Democrats to continue their mantra of “it’s Bush’s fault” when problems occur and need to be addressed. Yes, there are problems in the veterans’ healthcare system – but they go far beyond the bricks and mortar of decrepit facilities and even beyond the lack of oversight and maintenance that placed Building 18 in such atrocious condition. Like most Americans, I feel that veterans deserve better.

In many areas of life, veterans get preferential treatment. This dates back to Revolutionary War days when pensions for war veterans and land grants were established. Sponsored medical care for disabled veterans also dates back close to two centuries. Outside the realm of financial and medical care, the original GI Bill enabled World War II veterans to buy homes and helped pave the way toward the postwar prosperity of the 1950’s. The neighborhood I live in is among the thousands that were created during this era, with reasonably-sized homes built for newly financially empowered veterans and their young families.

As things stand now, there are a great number of benefits to joining the military, including recruitment bonuses and college assistance. Beyond service years, veterans get assistance in job training, finding housing, preference for civil service work, and many other benefits not generally available to those who chose not to serve in the military. (Obviously there’s a risk factor involved which makes the perks necessary.) In most cases I don’t have a problem with these and they actually benefit and supplement things available to the public at-large. Anyone can train for a different job, buy a house, or apply for a civil service job whether they served in the military or not. But only veterans, their surviving spouses, and dependents are eligible for VA medical assistance.

To me, there’s a solution that can help eliminate a lot of the government red tape that has bogged down the veterans’ health care system and created situations that allowed problems like Building 18 to fester. This solution is a two-part solution.

The first portion is to allow choice for current veterans as to the location where they’ll receive their health care. Many veterans (particularly the few WW2 and Korean War vets remaining) would probably feel most comfortable with continuing to deal with the VA health care system as it is now. But I think newer veterans should be given a choice whether they wish to continue in the VA or be given vouchers by the federal government that can be used in one of two areas:

  • Payment for care at a hospital not affiliated with the VA when required, and/or;
  • Establishing a Health Savings Account, with the high-deductable insurance policy required as part of that through a qualified private insurer.

Meanwhile, future military personnel would be given the vouchers and allowed to choose the method and delivery of health care services.

Eventually this would lead to the closing of VA facilities, but what would likely happen is that existing non-VA facilities would begin to cater to the needs of the veteran population in an effort to secure their voucher dollars. It would eliminate a situation where services are (more or less) duplicated for two separate but comingled populations: the 60 million or so people eligible for VA services of some sort and the rest of us.

Taking care of veterans through pensions, benefits, and the like is one of the few areas not specifically addressed in the Constitution where I feel the federal government has a legitimate stake in regulating day-to-day needs. It is because these men and women have sacrified in service to our country that this is so. But as Rush Limbaugh has noted, the purpose of the military is to “kill people and break things”, so having the military running a health-care system doesn’t meld well with that particular skill set.

By allowing the private sector to bring better competition to the market, it gives veterans opportunities to select the health care they feel is best for their needs, rather than the one-size-fits-all solution government bureaucracy seems to come up with.

Just as an aside, if and when Hillary Clinton tries to introduce the single-payer health system she favors, think of being housed in Building 18 – because that’s the sort of treatment we’ll all get if we put the federal government solely in charge of our health care.

Some of what Gilchrest voted for

I’m taking some time this morning and actually reading through the 168 pages of HB1591, the bill funding our troops in Iraq (plus a bunch of other things.) First off, this is the section most on the Right (and other correct-thinking Americans) object to, the “pullout date”: 

SEC. 1904. a) The President shall make and transmit to Congress the following determinations, along with reports in classified and unclassified form detailing the basis for each determination, on or before July 1, 2007:

(1) whether the Government of Iraq has given United States Armed Forces and Iraqi Security Forces the authority to pursue all extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias, and is making substantial progress in delivering necessary Iraqi Security Forces for Baghdad and protecting such Forces from political interference; intensifying efforts to build balanced security forces throughout Iraq that provide even-handed security for all Iraqis; ensuring that Iraq’s political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi Security Forces; eliminating militia control of local security; establishing a strong militia disarmament program; ensuring fair and just enforcement of laws; establishing political, media, economic, and service committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan; and eradicating safe havens;

(2) whether the Government of Iraq is making substantial progress in meeting its commitment to pursue reconciliation initiatives, including enactment of a hydro-carbon law; adoption of legislation necessary for the conduct of provincial and local elections; reform of current laws governing the de-Baathification process; amendment of the Constitution of Iraq; and allocation of Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects; and;

(3) whether the Government of Iraq and United States Armed Forces are making substantial progress in reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq.

(b) On or before October 1, 2007, the President—

(1) shall certify to the Congress that the Government of Iraq has enacted a broadly accepted hydro-carbon law that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqis; adopted legislation necessary for the conduct of provincial and local elections, taken steps to implement such legislation, and set a schedule to conduct provincial and local elections; reformed current laws governing the de-Baathification process to allow for more equitable treatment of individuals affected by such laws; amended the Constitution of Iraq consistent with the principles contained in article 137 of such constitution; and allocated and begun expenditure of $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis; or;

(2) shall report to the Congress that he is unable to make such certification.

(c) If in the transmissions to Congress required by subsection (a) the President determines that any of the conditions specified in such subsection have not been met, or if the President is unable to make the certification specified in subsection (b) by the required date, the Secretary of Defense shall commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq and complete such redeployment within 180 days.

(d) If the President makes the certification specified in subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense shall commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq not later than March 1, 2008, and complete such redeployment within 180 days.

(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act are immediately available for obligation and expenditure to plan and execute a safe and orderly redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq, as specified in subsections (c) and (d).

(f) After the conclusion of the 180-day period for redeployment specified in subsections (c) and (d), the Secretary of Defense may not deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq for any purpose other than the following:

(1) Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the U.S. Armed Forces.

(2) Serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions.

(3) Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach.

(4) Training members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 50 percent of the funds appropriated by title I of this Act for assistance to Iraq under each of the headings ‘‘IRAQ SECURITY FORCES FUND’’, ‘‘ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND’’, and ‘‘INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT’’ shall be withheld from obligation until the President has made a certification to Congress regarding the matters specified in subsection (b)(1).

(h) The requirement to withhold funds from obligation pursuant to subsection (g) shall not apply with respect to funds made available under the heading ‘‘ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND’’ for continued support for the Community Action Program and Community Stabilization Program in Iraq administered by the United States Agency for International Development or for programs and activities to promote democracy in Iraq.

Further, this bill is written in such a way that funds cannot be appropriated to Army and Navy units (including reserves) who have been deployed over 1 year’s time or not out of theater for 1 year’s time (the period for Marines is seven months.) This bill also prohibits funding for a permanent base in Iraq, which is a bad policy in my opinion. Just like we had forward bases during the Cold War throughout Europe (and still do), I favor a permanent installation in Iraq.

And as the commercials always say, “but wait, there’s more…”

  • There’s almost $2.4 billion in additional Hurricane Katrina relief, particularly agricultural.
  • FEMA gets an additional $4.3 billion for their operations.
  • An additional $80 million is in there for tenant and rental assistance.
  • It’s not just spinach producers that get federal cash from this bill. Milk producers get an additional $283 million in help, $74 million to peanut farmers, and $5 million goes to aquaculture interests.
  • $50 million goes to asbestos abatement and other improvements at the U.S. Capitol.
  • And there’s a sum tucked in there for Gloria Norwood, the widow of the late Rep. Charlie Norwood of Georgia. In this bill she would get $165,200. Obviously his was a sudden and tragic death, but I’d have to assume that the Norwoods would’ve had proper life insurance to take care of their needs should the unthinkable occur.

I’m also troubled by two other aspects of this appropriation. One mandates a disclosure of the justification for approval of noncompetitive contracts. (I call this the Halliburton clause.) The other is way, way more sneaky. Added as the final part of this bill is a minimum wage increase similar to that which passed the House but stalled in the Senate. This version includes some of the business tax credits as well.

It’s bad enough that I took the time to look through this bill just because I was curious what some of the money is allocated for. What REALLY scares me is just how many bills I don’t pay attention to, and the number of eyes that are necessary just to go through these and see what all is being voted on. I skimmed through the bill in maybe 30 minutes or so, it’s 168 pages of fairly complex language. I know that not all proposals are this detailed but I’m just amazed at how much reading a Congressman would have to go through just to comprehend all that’s being asked for. Obviously it’s why they each have staff, but I’m more convinced than ever that we the people have allowed this system to get way out of control and it’s past time to begin reining it in.

Gilchrest votes for Popeye over policy

The House just passed a $124 billion funding measure for the troops in Iraq – well, $100 billion for them and $24 billion for a myriad of other projects. The most infamous one is buried way back on Page 115 (the .pdf file of HB1591 is 168 pages):

There is hereby appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture $25,000,000, to remain available until expended, to make payments to growers and first handlers, as defined by the Secretary, of fresh spinach that were unable to market spinach crops as a result of the Food and Drug Administration Public Health Advisory issued on September 14, 2006. The payment made to a grower or first handler under this section shall not exceed 75 percent of the value of the unmarketed spinach crops.

Of course, the key objection MOST of the GOP (with the two exceptions of Rep. Gilchrest and Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina, also Rep. JoAnn Davis of Virginia did not vote) had was the withdrawal date of March 31, 2008. The Republicans have zero objection to voting for money for the troops. Like the 198 House Republicans who properly voted against this measure despite its military funding, I’m one of those who objects to any specific pullout date – you withdraw when the job is finished. If this were to pass and somehow survive a Bush veto, the Iraqi people would enjoy a calm before the coming storm with the summer of 2008 becoming a bloodbath in Iraq, and possibly other places far beyond the Middle East. Who knows what an emboldened Iran is capable of?

But we know had this bill been a “clean” bill without the pork, the result would’ve been opposite – the minority GOP voting for it and Democrats voting no. Obviously the Democrats want peace at any cost.

I know Wayne Gilchrest believes that he’s going to vote for this because voting against it could be implied as denying money for our troops and he won’t vote that way. I’m willing to understand the nuance in this, though – no Democrat propaganda that would say Wayne Gilchrest voted to cut funding to the troops would be unresponded to by me. I know what the story is behind this vote.

But once again, I’m furious with the representative I helped to elect. Like I noted in my post yesterday about GOP Delegate Page Elmore siding with the Democrats on Maryland’s HB400, it doesn’t matter how often you vote with the Democrats because they’re still going to run someone against you and lump you in with those evil conservative Republicans. The question now becomes whether a Republican will endeavor to face Gilchrest as a 2008 primary opponent – with an early March primary next year time is short for any candidate willing to step up and challenge the incumbent.