National politics – Page 160

Tawes Crab and Clam Bake overview

This was my first round. I made sure to get more of the fried clams, they were great!

About 5,000 people joined me down in Crisfield today to eat crabs, clams, and lots of other good food and drink. This is a pictorial article about my impressions.

Somerset County takes this opportunity to push their county for economic development purposes.

One business entity doing its share of recruiting was the U.S. Army.

One of the most elaborate business tents, this belonged to the Hebron Bank. There were dozens of businesses and groups with tents or parts of tents.

Obviously with this not being as much of a political year as 2006 (my first time there), the business community took most of the slack in getting tent spaces filled up. One person I talked to complained that the event was almost getting to be overrated as a political gathering because of all the corporate presence – he pined for the Schaefer days. But I would think the Crisfield Chamber of Commerce prefers the business showcase and that politics take more of a back seat. Next year’s event will likely be the same way as there’s only two races on the docket and, while candidates will be established in the Congressional race that highlighted this year’s event, the Presidential race will be down to just the presumptive Democrat and GOP nominees. The truly business-oriented event will be 2009’s, since there’s no early primary in 2010.

Both major parties had a tent or portion of one in Crisfield today. The Democrats had the smaller of the two, and sort of a lackluster turnout.

There was a fairly small Democrat tent there. No O'Malley, small tent.

I’m guessing that their turnout was smaller because they didn’t have their big names coming here. Supposedly Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown was about, but I did not see him. I did say hello to two of our local delegates, Norm Conway and Jim Mathias, at the event.

Meanwhile, the GOP had a portion of a much larger tent (appropriate, don’t you think?) with all of the Tri-County represented.

If you hadn't registered to vote, the GOP was happy to help you out!

A view of tables full of Republicans and friends enjoying the day.

Signs wave for Somerset, Wicomico, and Worcester County Republicans.

The only Presidential candidate with any sort of item there was Mitt Romney, as somebody brought a bunch of his signs. But I did see a nice lady with a Newt Gingrich button.

Mitt Romney wasn't there in person, but a supporter was.

Loking at the Congressional race, three of the four major-party candidates for the First District Congressional seat were in the house, with the incumbent away but having workers there in his stead.

These two young ladies were helping out the incumbent by distributing his stickers to those willing to sport them.

Beacuse of today’s Congressional session, Wayne Gilchrest wasn’t here. At the start it seemed like he had a lot of kids about passing out his items, but toward the end they seemed to disappear. I think the fans below that the Gilchrest camp distributed disappeared quickly as well.

I didn't see a whole lot of these waving about. Whether it was because of a nice breeze or a lack of supporters is to be determined.

Meanwhile, both challengers on the Democrat side had a small presence, with just a few supporters milling about. Of the two, Chris Robinson seemed to be a little more prepared with his stuff. Here he chats with some of his supporters.

Democrat Congressional candidate Chris Robinson (far right, in white shirt and tie) talks with some of his small legion of helpers at the Tawes Crab and Clam Bake.

Queen Anne’s County State’s Attorney Frank Kratovil is the other Democrat seeking the nod to run against Gilchrest. I actually met the gentleman, he’s a nice guy – just wrong on the war.

Sometimes I wish I was quicker on my feet because I couldn’t define victory when Frank and I discussed the Long War. (That’s why I do this gig.) But here’s how I define it: we achieve victory when the threat from al-Qaeda and other radical Islamic fundamentalist entities is subdued militarily to a point where they are no longer a significant threat to our security and safety here in America. At that point, I expect the restrictions placed temporarily on our civil liberties (such as the PATRIOT Act) to be lifted. If we withdraw from Iraq now, we cannot achieve that objective unless the fight is brought over here because at this point the military fronts are Iraq and Afghanistan.

So this is the guy you’ll likely see at candidate forums, pictured below:

Democrat hopeful Frank Kratovil (left) and a supporter at the Tawes Crab and Clam Bake.

I saved Andrew Harris, the challenger on the GOP side, for last because he had by far the largest group assisting him at the event. Now, it wasn’t rock star standards but the turnout on his part was pretty good.

The only candidate with his own tent. That's what good fundrasing will get you I guess.

There were a LOT of yellow-clad Harris helpers at Tawes, I was impressed.

Andy actually was a bit late in arriving (about 2:00 or so.) Unlike what I recall about Martin O’Malley last year, Harris didn’t arrive with a large entourage. (It was already there?) He just came in the gate like everyone else.

GOP candidate Dr. Andrew Harris (center, in baseball cap) is a little late but none the worse for wear.

You know, here’s another reason I couldn’t run for higher office. I wonder if Harris, Robinson, or Kratovil ever got something to eat? Just occurred to me I never actually saw them take a bite.

And it didn’t take long for those arriving to be exposed to the politics of the day.

Candidate supporters line up along the main entryway.

For the GOP’s part, I did get to chat briefly with Senator Lowell Stoltzfus and Delegate Jeannie Haddaway. Haddaway noted she’d be the speaker at an upcoming WCRC meeting in the fall, and we’ll be glad to hear from her. I also renewed acquaintances with a number of friends on the GOP side, and actually met a reporter I’d spoken to on the phone about the Gilchrest race, Tom LoBianco of the Washington Times. So now I have a face to the name. And he wasn’t the only media person there by any means.

There were two things that surprised me business-wise and one shocker politically.

There's a lot more of these left than I figured there would be.

Attendance must have been off because as I recall they ran out of mugs last time around.

I took both of the pictures above toward the end of the day. I’m wondering if attendance was a bit off because of the heat and threat of rain. We did have a shower pass by to the south but this year it didn’t rain on the event. The weather was actually tolerable. Either they made more items assuming another crowd like last year’s or they didn’t get the count they thought they might. I suppose it’s the loss of those who paid for tickets but didn’t use them.

On the political side, the first new signs I saw sprouted up were in Princess Anne, the same place a large O’Malley sign has sat for a year (since Tawes 2006.) Those were Kratovil signs. The next signs I saw were turning onto Route 413, where Chris Robinson and Wayne Gilchrest signs vied for position all the way to Crisfield. I only saw a handful of Harris signs with the first not being until I hit Marion. That was shocking to me, but then again, a lot of signs were at the tent so maybe the Harris campaign’s idea was to keep their powder dry. I did hear one Harris supporter complain about that strategy though.

So it was a long and filling day for me. I had a pleasant surprise or two as there were some people who I’d not met previously but knew me from monoblogue. That was pretty cool. Overall, I had a good time as I expected to, and I’d like to take an opportunity to thank all those who put it together because they do a great job working while we visitors have the fun. My hat’s off to you.

Who will I support? – part two

Today I move up to my issue ranked number 11, Second Amendment rights. It’s a topic I happened to write about right after the Virginia Tech shootings. And I get the feeling that this issue will begin to separate the men from the boys; or more properly the GOP from the gun-grabbing Democrats. Unlike my last effort discussing property rights, almost every candidate has a stance on the Second Amendment.

Once again, if I have a link I’ll simply use it, if the stance is part of a general issues page I’ll quote. This is also a handy method to tell which candidates spend more in-depth time discussing particular issues and which ones seem to wish their site be a contribution inlet. I’ll start with the GOP side and work my way through the Democrats. Since this issue is slightly more important, I bump the point totals up from 5 to 7.

Sam Brownback:

Gun Rights/Second Amendment

At the heart of the Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment. This Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep and bear arms, which is essential, as the Amendment itself affirms, to “the security of a free state.” Restrictive gun control laws aimed at weakening this constitutional right are not the answer. Instead, it is important for the government to enforce criminal gun laws already on the books, for communities to stand against gun violence, and for parents to teach children about gun safety.

Also, according to a press release on his site, “Brownback is proud of his 13-year track record of supporting the right to bear arms and his lifetime ‘A’ rating from the NRA.

In addition, I have a video link from the Brownback blog that discusses the Second Amendment.

Rudy Giuliani:

Rudy Giuliani is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. When he was Mayor of a city suffering an average of almost 2000 murders a year, he protected people by getting illegal handguns out of the hands of criminals. As a result, shootings fell by 72% and the murder rate was cut by two-thirds. But Rudy understands that what works in New York doesn’t necessarily work in Mississippi or Montana.

Plus I found a video where Rudy discusses the Second Amendment, focusing on the DC gun ruling.

Mike Huckabee places his views here on its own web page.

Duncan Hunter:

Second Amendment

It seems every election year, some liberal politician dons an NRA cap and grabs a shotgun for a hunting photo-op, as if that means they support our right as Americans to keep and bear arms. I, myself, thoroughly enjoy hunting, having just recently spent a great weekend hunting elk in Arizona. But, the second amendment is not about hunting. It is about the right of you and me to be secure in our homes. We must vigorously defend against all attempts to chip away at the Second Amendment. You know as well as I do that there is one thing criminals prefer over any other: unarmed victims.

John McCain notes his Second Amendment views here.

Tom Tancredo:

I fully and completely support the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The failure of the ACLU to defend this right, and of federal courts to make the second amendment binding on the states, as they have made the first amendment and most others, testifies to their intellectual hypocrisy.

On his blog site, Fred Thompson outlines how he sees gun rights.

Tommy Thompson:

Governor Thompson is a gun owner who signed legislation that banned Wisconsin communities from passing anti-gun ordinances that are stricter than state law.

For the other two on the GOP side, I didn’t find anything pertaining to Ron Paul’s or Mitt Romney’s views on the subject, although it was stated by Sam Brownback that Romney’s a flip-flopper on the issue because Romney has only been an NRA member a short time and was not a particularly gun-friendly governor in Massachusetts. I have to give Brownback a few props (how about 1/2 point) for violating the Eleventh Commandment when he feels it necessary. It’s not a personal attack at all.

Now it’s on to the Democrats. At the start of planning this series I struggled with the concept of “negative” points, but a bad view is worse than no view at all and should be penalized. Besides, if a Democrat is in negative territory and a Republican is in positive territory, there’s not much doubt whose side I’m on is there?

But oddly enough, I found only one Democrat willing to make a stand on the Second Amendment, Mike Gravel. The other seven didn’t see that as an issue of enough importance to bother with – possibly because they cater to their gun-grabbing base? Here’s Gravel’s stance on the issue:

Mike Gravel:

While Senator Gravel fully supports the 2nd Amendment, he believes that fundamental change must take place with regards to gun ownership. The senator advocates a licensing program where a potential gun owner must be licensed as well as properly trained with a firearm before they may own one.

Of course, the question is how do they rate? We’ll actually have a little more movement this time around as 9 of the 18 hopefuls (8 of them GOP) took a stance.

Sam Brownback starts out well, but loses points because he speaks of enforcing existing gun laws and not repealing them. But he wants no further laws so he gets some credit, I’ll give him 4.5 out of 7 points, since he got the half-point bonus.

Jim Gilmore has the NRA leadership post, which is good. Despite that I have the same quibble with him as I do with Brownback, in that he advocates no rollback in federal law. Also, logic would dictate that getting the guns out of the hands of criminals would mean fewer guns on the street. After all, is a criminal not going to commit murder just because for him having a gun is illegal? Jim picks up 3 points.

Rudy Giuliani points at his record of keeping guns out the hands of criminals but makes no mention of getting the federal government out of the gun law business. On the other hand, he does mention in the video something that rings true – regardless of his personal views, the Constitution is clear on the matter of gun ownership. And he also shows an awareness that individual states need to have their own laws, so I’ll give Rudy 4 points.

Mike Huckabee comes thisclose to getting all seven points, I just wish he’d talked about repealing bad laws with the actual term. But he’ll get 6.5 points.

Duncan Hunter could do better if he expanded on his short statement. His heart’s in the right place but I want specifics, not platitudes. Hunter gets 3 points for effort.

With the exception of advocating trigger locks, John McCain’s Senatorial record is pretty good. But I see nowhere in the white paper where he’d roll back federal laws either. I’ll give him 5.5 points.

Like Hunter, Tom Tancredo suffers from a lack of specifics. Obviously I support the Second Amendment; hell, even most Democrats say they do with certain caveats. He’ll get three points for his effort but that’s all.

Fred Thompson did a nice commentary with background information and correctly points out that there are advocacy groups who would like to see the Second Amendment eroded. So he has a grasp of the problem; now what’s his solution? He’s lacking in that so he only gets two points.

Nor does Tommy Thompson say much about the issue, which is unfortunate. Signing one bill, albeit fairly sweeping, does not a pro-gun candidate make. One point.

On the Democrat side, I have to surprise myself and actually give Mike Gravel one point for advocating training and licensing. While firearm licensing is truly a state issue and not a federal one, he’s not explicitly in favor of taking away guns so I’ll give him a bit of credit.

With the number of comments on gun control from the GOP and Jim Gilmore’s withdrawal from the race it means my GOP standings are revised to a degree and will mostly reflect this issue.

Duncan Hunter, 8 points
Mike Huckabee, 6.5 points
John McCain, 5.5 points
Sam Brownback, 4.5 points
Rudy Giuliani, 4 points
Ron Paul, 4 points
Tom Tancredo, 3 points
Fred Thompson, 2 points
Tommy Thompson, 1 point
Mitt Romney, no points

And on the Democrat side, it can now be argued that, for at least three days, I support one Democrat (Mike Gravel) more than one Republican (Mitt Romney). Trust me, I doubt that will last, having seen both websites! And just wait until the D’s go into negative territory with all of the issues yet to come. Today’s rating is what you call a statistical fluke.

Mike Gravel, 1 point
Joe Biden, no points
Hillary Clinton, no points
Chris Dodd, no points
John Edwards, no points
Dennis Kucinich, no points
Barack Obama, no points
Bill Richardson, no points

On Friday, I’ll continue this series by looking at my next most important issue, election reform.

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.

A 50 year plan moves forward

If you read monoblogue during the first half of the year, you’ll certainly know that I spent several posts talking about what I call my 50 year plan – so-called because it’s going to take at least the next two generations to implement some of the sweeping changes I seek. Hopefully I’ll be around to see them!

At this juncture I’m going to take my thoughts on the direction our country should go down two paths. One of these paths will be posted on monoblogue for all to see and the other will hopefully find a wider audience sometime in the near-term future.

Starting later this week, I’m going to use most of these pet issues I care about to compare and contrast the Republican presidential candidates and see which ones I think are best suited to run the country. And as an added bonus, I’ll rate the Democrats and minor party ones as well, insofar as I can with some of the limited information available to me from some of the lesser lights.

From the sixteen chapters I originally devoted to the 50 year plan, I’ve whittled them down to 12 issues that I’m going to grade the candidates on. After looking at the issues and rereading the posts, I’ve decided that some are related enough to be combined. I also graded the twelve in order of importance, so what I’ll do is begin the process with the twelfth most important and proceed, probably on a semi-weekly basis, to number one. I’m shooting for this to run on Tuesdays and Fridays starting this coming Friday. I’m also exploring other ways to interact with various campaigns.

I’ll need to work offline as I can for the second path. One goal I had in doing the 50 year plan was to promote discussion. And while that’s occurred in most cases, it’s a case of the limited scope of my readership retarding the progress I seek. In the back of my mind, though, the posts were intended as a sort of outline for a longer form of writing.

All told, my posts dealing with the 50 year plan ran about 22,000 words. In book form, that’s somewhere between 70 and 90 pages. And while a lot of assertions I made were factual, I also wrote this in a Maryland-centric way and I think I need to do further research and study into some of the subjects I delved into. It’s probably not going to change my views on them any, but buttressing my arguments with a more diverse set of facts, figures, and research can only make the argument stronger.

To achieve this I have a goal of, in the next year or so, enlarging the 50 year plan into a book format. If it can get published, great – if not, it’s still helpful for doing monoblogue. I figure, why can’t I write a best-seller? After all, many greats in political writing and thought started out with just an idea and made it into a lucrative career. May as well dream big, huh?

In the interim, I’m still planning on being helpful in enlightening the voting public into the choices that we’ll be faced with here in February and November, 2008. Being into politics as I am, this will be a fun process. Seeing that the Shorebirds season is now over 60% complete, soon it’s going to be “back to school” and Labor Day (the traditional start of political season) is not all that far away. It’s going to be a LONG season since we have the early primary, but it’s also quite possibly a watershed election in American history. My goal is an informed electorate, so stay with monoblogue as we learn together.

Not sure where it all came from…but I’ll take it.

It was a pretty good day here at monoblogue, nice readership spike. Yeah, I’ll give Joe some of the credit but he only provided 20% of the referrals, and normally he’s 10-15% on a regular basis.

But I’m not going to change to a radio review website, so I need some other stuff to bring you all back. And that’s what I’ll be working on next week since my heavy workload is coming to an end and it’ll be back to a more normal 7 to 5 day for me.

I did want to make another point about John Robinson though. On Monday he got into the whole Jack “the Dripper” Kevorkian (aka the “Doctor of Death”) controversy. My contention with the philosophy Kevorkian holds is that it cheapens life to a great extent. While having a living will is not a bad thing, and assisted suicide for the terminally ill sounds like the humanitarian way to go, bear in mind that many of Kevorkian’s victims may not have been terminally ill.

Regardless, my point is that euthanasia can be seen as the mirror image of abortion on the other end of a lifespan. Instead of killing for the convenience of the mother, you’re killing for the convenience of the offspring. But the victim is just as dead.

And while this is sort of an anecdotal story, a recent incident in Kansas makes me wonder just how desensitized society has become to death thanks to abortion and euthanasia. As Wichita Police Chief Norman Williams notes, “This (incident) is just appalling. I could continue shopping and not render aid and then take time out to take a picture? That’s crazy. What happened to our respect for life?”

So what did happen to our respect for life?

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.