National politics – Page 161

A 50 year plan: Taxation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page Elmore Crab Feast 2007

It turned out to be a beautiful day in Crisfield. Even though it’s almost 8:30 at night as I write this, I’m still stuffed from all of the good food (especially the pulled pork and a few clams here and there) that I ate this afternoon. Wash it down with a responsible number of beers, add some chit-chat with local politicians (and others) looking for a fun afternoon in which they can spend their money, and you have what he had today.

I'm not great with guessing crowds, but I'd venture to guess there were about 250 or so in attendance.

I took this picture a little before peak time. More people were out enjoying the sunshine as the day wore on.

The Color Guard was comprised of Crisfield High School students.

We started with a presentation of the colors and Pledge of Allegiance. Since I’ve never attended a Democrat fundraiser, I wonder if they even bother to do stuff like that?

There were 20 lots up for auction this year. Many of them were golf packages; most of the rest involved local sports, including Ravens, Redskins, and Terps packages.

This shot was taken as the auction went on. As usual with these events, former Maryland Secretary of Agriculture Lewis Riley handled the task.

Besides the food and fellowship, this event raises money for the Elmore campaign coffers. So it wasn’t just the ticket price, you also had the auction that raised a nice tidy sum and the 50/50 drawings getting placed in the till. And that’s no problem with me. I may not agree with Page on every issue, but on balance he does a good job for District 38A.

Page made some remarks as part of the program, but pretty much shied away from politics. Most of the political banter was simply introducing some of the elected officials there. But there was one elected official there who was campaigning.

The pic is a touch blurry, but you can still tell the players. From left, Dustin Mills, State Senator Andy Harris, and host Delegate Page Elmore.

State Senator (and Congressional hopeful) Andy Harris was working the crowd and getting to know the southern part of his prospective district a little better. He seemed to get a pretty good reaction from what I could tell. I think he’ll be a frequent presence in the area over the next few months.

But for the most part today, political campaigning was out and eating lots of seafood plus enjoying the company of a lot of interesting people was in. Maybe this wasn’t the most newsworthy event, but I enjoyed myself and thought of it as a good warmup to next month’s Tawes affair (for which I have tickets available – yet another shameless plug.) Just a nice way to spend an afternoon in Crisfield. I even took the scenic route on the way back and played some tunes loudly.

Back to the harder stuff tomorrow.

Radio days volume 4

As I hope most of you know, I was on “AM Salisbury” this morning. It’s getting to be old hat I guess – I’m not even sure anyone at my workplace listened and that’s a shame. Haven’t gotten any other feedback either so maybe I didn’t plug this appearance enough.

But I thought I did okay, I managed to make most of the points I went in to make. As I expected, a lot of the conversation revolved around the Congressional race, particularly Gilchrest vs. Harris. Obviously Bill wanted a bit of a plug for his upcoming interview with Andy Harris, and I thought it was sort of funny when he’s asking me about questions I’d ask Andy. Bill was trying to steal my thunder a little bit but then again it’ll be a month or two before I do my Ten Questions.

I did want to add a little bit to the comment about my feelings about environmentalism. Most of my disagreement with Wayne Gilchrest regarding the field comes from his dogged opposition to drilling in ANWR. Yes, I understand that we may only have a finite supply of oil, but placing our economic fate in the hands of a number of countries who frankly are envious of our freedom and standard of living and would love to put the screws to us makes me very nervous. It’s bad enough that we have to import gasoline because we cannot refine enough to supply our needs, but if a couple of our main suppliers turn off the spigot we’re in a world of hurt thanks to the shortsightedness of people like Gilchrest.

But I also take issue with those who simply place environment over development. Folks, we have a LONG way to go before we’ve paved the Eastern Shore. And in general I also prefer that development take place in areas with established infrastructure but there are times where the economics are advantageous to open up new areas to development (such as Blackwater.) Unfortunately, we have an administration in Annapolis that swings too far in the anti-development direction, even when regulations are followed.

I thought my most effective portion was talking about what I see the role of government as being – expressing part of the philosophy of monoblogue, which is advocating government that is as close to the people as possible. And it was a pretty good sign that we almost stomped the 7:50 break – he did skip one commercial so I guess I got an extra 30 seconds.

So we’ll see what happens and when I’ll be in the next time. I like doing Fridays because it’s my short workday (I only work 7 to 11), thus I can make up the hour pretty easily. Above all, I like getting the opportunity to introduce my website to more people because I’m still looking for another readership peak. It’s been at a pretty decent plateau since the municipal elections (I’ve kept that level of readership even after the elections and budget fight) but I’d like to get another spurt. Might be tough during the summer but I’m going to try to do so anyway.

Gilchrest’s immigration stance

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

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

Dear Mr. Swartz:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Wayne T. Gilchrest

Member of Congress

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

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

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

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

Refreshing rain for the grassroots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A 50 year plan: Health care and Medicare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Social Security blowback

There’s a comment that I want to respond to but the point is too important to bury in my comments section. So I guess it’s back to politics for a bit.

“Myndful” has been a critic of my Social Security plan, which is fine. I wrote it off the cuff, almost as a conversation starter about a possible solution I see to the problems inherent in the program. But he (or she, I’m not sure) made this statement as part of the last comment:

“I tend to agree that social security as a retirement insurance program needs to be rethought. But going back to my comment about my age group (late 20’s) – how many people my age do you think have seriously thought about supporting themselves 40 years down the road?”

There’s two responses I have to this portion of the comment. Number one, by sunsetting the program over the amount of time I’m proposing it’s not like they’re not going to get fair warning. And how many young people already have an inkling that Social Security isn’t going to be around for them anyway? We hear on a regular basis that the program’s going to go into the tank in 2040 or whatever year they decide sounds scary but far-off enough to plug the latest “fix.” So this is my idea for a solution, and for most young people it’s just going to make what they’ve thought all along a self-fulfilling prophecy.

My other response is actually going to lead me into part of my next chapter in the 50 year plan, because I was planning on talking about fiscal responsibility – moreso on a governmental level but to some extent on the personal level.

Maybe I had a bit more of a head on my shoulders than most late 20’s types but I was already attempting to put money away for my retirement. Unfortunately, I also had a spouse who enjoyed having a lot of “stuff” and I could never put away a good sum of money until much later. (To be fair, we also bought a house in that time and used a chunk of my retirement money as a down payment.) Each time I tried I ended up having to withdraw the money I’d squirreled away. So I really didn’t get a good start on my retirement until about 8 years ago, in my mid 30’s.

But I look at the “bling” that kids in their 20’s spend their money on and it makes me shake my head. If they took 10% of what they spent on tricking up their little Hondas or buying games for their PlayStation and salted it away, they wouldn’t miss it but it would add up over time, not to mention keep their credit card payments at bay.

“Myndful” also noted:

“Making a sweeeping (sic) statement like ‘drop social security’ is all well and good, but what are you offering instead?”

My copy of the Constitution says not a thing about the federal government securing retirement. However, if a state wanted to get into that business, it’s up to them. An obvious example is where Alaska already distributes oil royalty payments to certain citizens – they could easily recast it as a retirement program and set up accounts for each resident. And we all know Maryland Democrats would have the attitude that you really don’t need the 12% that FICA takes out anyway and they’d likely try to vacuum it out of your wallet to set up a state program after the demise of the federal one is enacted. I’d fight that tooth and nail because I’m of the opinion we should try to take care of ourselves as much as we can, but Constitutionally it would be acceptable.

I have to give “Myndful” credit for making good comments that advance the post, as did the other people who gave their two cents. Really, I think I get the best comments of any of the blog sites around here, which I suppose means I have the best readers. So keep up the good work!

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!

2007 Maryland GOP Spring Convention

Over the weekend I had the pleasure of attending the 2007 Spring convention of the Maryland Republican Party. Unlike the Fall 2006 meeting, which reflected some of the bitterness and rancor of the then-recent electoral defeats, this time we had more of a forward focus.

The people supporting Mitt Romney were quite prepared, even outside the hotel.

As one may expect, people representing the men regarded as the top three Presidential contenders on the Republican side were out in force. After I checked into the hotel and started off to my room, I noticed this:

John McCain's local campaign had reserved one room...

Very elegant and understated, and a bit surprising with all of the “millennial generation” help he had secured via the Maryland Republican Youth Coalition. But around the corner I saw the Romney room.

...but Mitt Romney had quite the display set up in front of his hospitality suite.

All of this had to wait though because first on the schedule was the state Executive Committee meeting. Because our Chair, John Bartkovich, had a previous engagement and could not attend, the honor fell to our Vice Chair, Dave Parker. Parker definitely was a multitasker during this convention, because he also served on the By-Laws Committee and the Credentials Committee. He was one busy guy, and my hat’s off to him.

I sat in on this meeting as a guest. Many of the reports would be repeated during the general meeting on Saturday morning, but there were some highlights.

State party leader James Pelura was pretty upbeat and optimistic in our view, looking at some of the recent issues the party has suffered as “bumps in the road” but also talking about a number of achievements that have occurred during his brief tenure. I tend to agree that, at least by reputation of his predecessor, Pelura has made an excellent effort to listen to the local party leaders and get out the party’s side on the issues via the information superhighway. I get an e-mail update daily.

Pelura continued that the party must be the “voice of reason” and that the “madness in Annapolis is being noticed by the voters.” For my part, I intend to continue to hold the Democrats’ and Governor O’Malley’s collective feet to the fire.

We also heard from other speakers that the goal of this convention was to be a “training” convention, and a couple successes were recounted, particularly with the General Assembly adopting “Jessica’s Law.” As it turned out, we got more of a legislative lowdown in the breakfast session Saturday morning, but I’m getting ahead of myself.

Once the meeting was concluded, the various hospitality suites opened up. Because of the nature of this convention (no party elections), the number of suites was down from the fall version. The host county, Anne Arundel, opted not to have their suite but PG County did, with karaoke as an added bonus. (They also had the best food.) Another group I’d not heard of previously, an outfit called Republican Rapid Responders, also had a small suite. Their main purpose at the convention was to plug their 2007 Speaker Series, which kicks off Tuesday night with House Minority Leader John Boehner as the guest speaker. (Particulars are noted on their website.)

But the McCain and Romney suites were where most of the action centered. I stopped by each and chatted up some old friends plus a few new ones. I also did sort of a mini-poll of the various suites and how much interest was generated by each.

The McCain suite wasn't all that lively, maybe because they had a small room.

Here’s a picture of the McCain suite I took at 8:55 p.m. By this point the executive session that the chairs had to attend had wound down, but you can see there wasn’t a whole lot of interest or buzz with the attendees.

A shot from the outside of Romney's suite, looking in.

One minute later I walked around the corner and snapped this shot looking into the Mitt Romney suite. In the shot below, it was 9:15 p.m. and probably about the peak time as far as suite attendance went. Both of these were wrapped up about 10:00 or so.

By comparison to the McCain suite, there was quite the crowd in Mitt's. However I think part of this difference is the bar in the far corner of the room, that my second shot is looking toward.

It’s also interesting to note that during the week prior I had a message left on my voice mail inviting me to the McCain suite, but Romney’s campaign sent me a direct mail invitation with the imprimatur of our two RNC representatives from Maryland, Louis Pope and Joyce Lyons Terhes. I’d be led to assume they are on board with the Romney campaign.

And I guess not everyone was in favor of McCain being the nominee:

Someone doesn't care much for John McCain I guess.

So things wound down as the evening grew later, and as I noted I caught up with old friends and chatted up new ones. One man I met was Andrew Harris, whose campaign for Congress I remarked on last week. As promised, he was checking out his support base at the convention. Now, go check out the article and then look at the picture below:

A lot of Eastern Shore and close environs conventioneers were wearing these stickers, like this person from Talbot County.

Scary, huh? Well, one of the people I ran into in Annapolis was Dustin Mills. Obviously he read my website and, whether by design or coincidence, that slogan was on these stickers. I also saw current Congressman Gilchrest working the crowd Friday night. From what I was told by two different people, this was the first time they recalled Gilchrest being at the convention. Whether true or not, it obviously shows he’s concerned about his base.

Day 2 of the convention began with a pretty sunrise over the water. Ok, it was the hotel's swimming pool.

We started Saturday with breakfast, of course. The featured speakers for breakfast were the two Maryland GOP legislative leaders, Senator David Brinkley and Delegate Tony O’Donnell.

Maryland state Senator David Brinkley (speaking) and Delegate Tony O'Donnell (left) speak at the Maryland GOP Convention breakfast, May 19, 2007.

Both of these speakers noted that day’s Washington Times article where Governor O’Malley is now shifting the blame for his pending tax increases to mismanagement during Governor Ehrlich’s tenure. Brinkley added that the Democrats were governing as if they had a “mandate” to increase spending, when no such thing existed. Further, Brinkley also derided the O’Malley administration for firing more political appointee employees from the Ehrlich era than Ehrlich was accused of firing during the year-long hearings on the case.

O’Donnell hit on several of the same themes but added that, with the Times article it was clear that O’Malley was “conditioning Marylanders for massive tax increases,” and that he should get no free passes for it.

You may wonder if the so-called frontrunner for the nomination, Rudy Giuliani, was represented. Well, he didn’t have a suite in his name, but his campaign came to the Saturday portion of the convention loaded for bear, with this table full of campaign items.

Candidate Rudy Giuliani did have some volunteers and literature at a table set up for Saturday morning, as did the McCain and Romney camps.

After breakfast was finished, we returned to the convention hall. It was set up just a little differently this time.

Looking toward the podium in our hall. We had a seat on the center aisle, unfortunately the Wicomico County sign sort of got in my way as I sat in the aisle seat.

As I noted earlier, several of the speakers for the main convention session already spoke during the Executive Committee meeting. While most of his content was the same, I noticed Chairman Pelura also spent a bit more time pointing to our legislative successes, with Jessica’s Law being strengthened, in-state tuition for illegal immigrants being stopped, and the paper trail for voting deemed as victories. Our RNC representatives, Joyce Terhes and Louis Pope, spent their time at the podium hammering on national issues, particularly the immigration bill. Terhes described the “Z-visa” as “amnesty” while Pope said it was “not fair to those waiting in line.” They also declared that the time was now to pick a Presidential candidate and work with them.

Also, we had an addition to the agenda as State Sen. Janet Greenip asked to say a few words about the early voting bill that will be on the November, 2008 ballot. She had handed out a flyer discussing the bill and its problems, which are many. Personally, I think it should be called the “Early and Often” voting bill, or just the “Invitation to Fraud” act – so you already know how I’ll be voting on it come 18 months from now.

We also did a little bit of party business, as three resolutions were passed at the affair. Two of them were pretty basic and straightforward and passed without much issue. The third, which had to do with voting on the Executive Committee, survived an attempt led by Montgomery County to table it. In the revised system, the Eastern Shore goes from partial votes for each county to a full vote for each, so obviously we were in favor of it. Vice-chairs also get a vote for the first time under our new system.

Because we overshot our scheduled time slot, we only had one training session afterward. I chose to attend the communications session hosted by RNC press secretary Summer Johnson. It was helpful to hear how things were done insofar as dealing with the media goes. But while maybe paranoid isn’t quite the right word, I almost think that the relationship between us and certain members of the press is too adversarial. Obviously when dealing with the New York Times or Washington Post we need to be on our guard but I’m not sure we need to be as wary of local papers. Just my view on things; of course, I like to think that as a journalist I’m pretty straight up. I have my opinions but it’s also clear where I stand. We did have a little bit of discussion on blogs and websites, and I found out that there’s 12 million of us writing them – a number that’s doubled in the last 2 years. Well, hopefully I’m in the top million. I did learn a tip and actually I’ve noticed Joe Albero using it as well, so maybe I’ll begin to do it myself.

The final event of our convention was the luncheon and awards ceremony, with keynote speaker former Lieutenant Governor and now GOPAC Chair and FOX News commentator Michael Steele. (Sounds better with the extra two job descriptions, doesn’t it?)

I got a couple shots in, they’re a bit dark because of the room. Two others I didn’t use because of how they turned out.

Michael Steele greets supporters at the Maryland Republican Party spring convention, May 19, 2007.

Michael Steele checks his notes during his luncheon speech before the Maryland Republican Party spring convention, May 19, 2007.

Michael made several points during the speech, which had a theme of overcoming adversity. He compared struggles he faced during his life and his recent election loss to those facing our party as we move forward into the 2008 and 2010 election cycles. But he also stated that the “Steele theory” about the 2006 election debacle was that we strayed from our principles that got us elected in 1994 – an “inability to honor our commitment.” He also took Democrats in Annapolis to task, remarking that “raising taxes is not the way to govern,” and that Republicans need to “convince people we don’t bite” but bite back when our opponents speak falsely of us. We need to stand for what is right, but call them on their “lies.”

He concluded by stating that we need to build a “farm team” for 2008 and 2010, and come ready to play. It was our generation’s job to cultivate our future American leaders.

I was sort of surprised to see someone lurking in the back of the room taking notes (besides me.) It would be my guess that this someone was Tom LoBianco of the Washington Times because there’s an article about Steele’s speech in today’s paper.

Finally, there were awards given out for excellence in the Republican Party. While all of the award recipients are worthy, I wanted to extend my congratulations to our cohorts in Worcester County, which was selected as the outstanding Republican county in the state of Maryland. They were the only county in the state that retained a higher percentage of Ehrlich voters from 2002 to 2006 than we did here in Wicomico, and ranked second in the state in improving GOP voter registration behind (surprisingly) Baltimore City. So a tip of the hat goes to our friends on the ocean.