National politics – Page 162

Run, Andrew, run!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(snip)

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

(snip)

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

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

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

(snip)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wayne’s world (view)

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

Dear Mr. Swartz:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you again for taking the time to write.

Sincerely,

Wayne T. Gilchrest

Member of Congress

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

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

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

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

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

Endorsing too early? Don’t back the wrong horse now…

On Wednesday our governor, Martin O’Malley, endorsed the candidacy of Hillary Clinton for president in 2008. While it’s not necessarily surprising for the Democrat to endorse one of his own, with O’Malley being just the second governor in the country to do so (after Jon Corzine of New Jersey) it makes me wonder – what if Hillary commits a faux pas or the Barack Obama presidential bid proves to be too much of an allure for the rank-and-file Democrats and he wins the nomination? There is a segment of the country that simply is not appetized by the possibility of our presidency being controlled by two families for what could be 28 years (1989 into 2017.)

On my side, I know that there’s ten Republicans in the mix for the 2008 Presidential bid but it’s far too early for me to make a decision on who I support. Obviously there are some I like better than others but, to be honest, one I’d like to see run hasn’t officially announced that he’s in the race. It’s going to be a couple months yet until I take the time to study all of the candidates and where they stand on the issues, and I think they’ll all still be in it (or at least on the ballot) by February when I have to make my choice in the primary. I just hope it’s not a situation like 2000, where I really supported Steve Forbes but he dropped out about the time of the Ohio primary and I had to vote for Bush because I didn’t want McCain to win. Hate it when I have to vote against someone instead of voting my conscience.

I started pondering this when I recalled that Salisbury mayor Barrie Tilghman was an early supporter of Doug Duncan’s campaign for governor last year. (It’s noted as a throwaway line in this Gazette article about O’Malley picking up union endorsements.) While I’m sure she straightened up and flew right (as far as a Democrat can fly right I suppose), becoming an O’Malley supporter in the end, it makes me wonder if that wasn’t a reason Salisbury was shortchanged by the state? I know Tilghman seems to cast some of the blame for her budget wants not being sated by the available funds on the state as well as fellow Democrat County Executive Rick Pollitt.

But she’s a rare breed of Democrat that finds any sort of fault with her fellow Democrats. Now Republicans are always fair game for blame by the Democrats. Who can forget New Orleans Mayor Ray “Schoolbus” Nagin and his complaints about how the Bush administration handled the aftermath of Katrina, meanwhile sparing a great deal of criticism for his fellow Democrat, Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco. And this week Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius made sure to find fault with Bush for supposedly taking all of her National Guard assets to fight in Iraq instead of having them available to assist with the aftermath of the Greensburg tornado.

I’m going to segue here into one comment I have on the Greensburg situation. The fact is that, even with diminished resources available from the state of Kansas, we’re only talking about a town roughly the size of Delmar, MD populationwise. It’s a significant number of people displaced but nowhere near the scope of natural disasters like Katrina or man-made ones like the destruction of the World Trade Center.

And this brings me to another point. At times I think we on the Republican side are far too nice, and that’s probably why I’m not a politician any more than to the extent that I am. Sometimes I’m a little bit on the vindictive side and it would be very tempting for me to say, ok governor, you don’t like how we respond, see how you do without any help. And why are you whining to me anyway – it’s not like Kansas has never been hit by a tornado! You did see the Wizard of Oz, right? Sheesh.

Instead of being ungrateful because some of her National Guard is off – gasp! – fighting to defend our nation, Sebelius ought to be damn happy that the American taxpayers continue to support disaster relief despite all of the fraud and waste it entails and has for decades. It seems to me that, whether the government hands them checks or not, the people of Greensburg will get through this and if they’re anything like the Americans I know they will rebuild the city in an even better fashion than it was before.

And the reason I believe this is because I don’t think they’re going to point the finger of blame at the federal government for causing the tornado as a plot to decimate the minority population or dither and bicker about what sort of building should go on the Ground Zero site – the people of Greensburg, typical small town red-state America, will take some time to mourn those who died, then roll up their sleeves and get to work as generations of Americans have when faced with a natural disaster. It’s only in the last few years (say, six or so) that the blamemongers have become the norm. Let’s see if Greensburg can show us the way back to what it should be.

The open-borders crowd gets Maryland tax money?

I alluded to this in my previous post, but I ran across this on Michelle Malkin’s website the other day. The Maryland-based group CASA has put out this pamphlet telling immigrants what to do in the event of an ICE raid. What bothered me most in her article (besides the pamphlet itself) was the passage:

CASA of Maryland receives tax subsidies from the cities of Baltimore and Takoma Park, Montgomery and Prince George’s counties, the state of Maryland, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (emphasis hers).

So I looked this up just to see what kind of dough she’s talking about. Well, according to information I found on CASA’s website, FY06 was pretty kind to this group, as their revenues totaled over $3.3 million. Of this amount, almost $1.5 million was credited to “government contracts” with most of the remainder coming from donations of some sort from various patrons and foundations.

A partial listing of the foundations includes sponsorship from the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy, the Four Freedoms Fund, the Fund For Change, Open Society Institute, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, and three United Way chapters. Corporate donations flowed in from entities like Aetna and Citigroup (through their foundations), Freddie Mac, Microsoft, and Provident Bank, to name just a few.

But more troubling to me are governmental bodies that support this group that advocates silence when law enforcement attempts to uphold our immigration laws:

Baltimore City Council
City of Baltimore Mayor’s Office
City of Takoma Park (why am I not surprised?)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Maryland AIDS Administration
Maryland Cigarette Restitution Fund (does CASA help with smoking cessation?)
Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development
Mid-County Regional Services Center – Montgomery County
Montgomery County Council
Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services
Montgomery County Department of Housing and Community Affairs
Montgomery County Office of the County Executive (at the time, Doug Duncan, a 2006 candidate for governor)
Montgomery County Police Department
Montgomery County Public Schools
Prince George’s County Council
Prince George’s County Council Special Appropriations Funds (Councilmember Dernoga)
Prince George’s Department of Housing and Community Development
Prince George’s County Office of the County Executive
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Yet they use this funding of ours for activism like this:

As the movement for comprehensive immigration reform advances, CASA has emerged as a key player in organizing the immigrant community throughout Maryland to become civically engaged in the debate. In December 2005, after the House of Representatives passed the infamous “Sensenbrenner Bill” (H.R. 4437), CASA worked with over 40 organizations in Maryland, DC, and Virginia to re-establish the regional National Capital Immigration Coalition (NCIC).

On March 7th, 2006, 50,000 Latinos, immigrants, and supporters gathered at the Capitol to chants of “si se puede” (yes, we can). Marches erupted in cities throughout the nation – the movement for immigrant rights was growing strong. On April 10th more than 3 million immigrants and their supporters marched in 140 cities for comprehensive immigration reform. The 500,000 who marched in DC that day represented the highest number of participants in a demonstration in the last 30 years in Washington. While legislation for immigration reform died in House-Senate negotiations in 2006, CASA, the NCIC, and immigrant rights coalitions throughout the nation won important victories. CASA is proud to be a leader in the movement, representing the NCIC in national coalitions such as the “We Are America Alliance,” organizing press for the DC rallies, speaking and coordinating testimonies for the rallies, preparing community members to speak with directly with Senators, and mobilizing a significant percentage of the march participants at each rally.

The movement is far from over. As Congress picks up immigration reform again in 2007, keep an eye on CASA’s website (www.casademaryland.org) for ways to support this work.

In short, CASA’s philosophy reads to me as completely in favor of open borders:

CASA is counting on your support to achieve our vision – a vision of strong, economically and ethnically diverse communities in which all people – especially women, low-income people, and workers – can participate and benefit fully, regardless of their immigration status. (emphasis mine.)

In addition CASA has pleaded with the state for additional funding to renovate a historical building in PG County to become a “multi-cultural service center”. While the architect in me applauds the idea of reusing a historical building, with the assets CASA claims to have and with its current laissez-faire attitude about those who are breaking the law to enter the country, I say the state shouldn’t give them a dime. In fact, their bid for a $500,000 grant was shot down in this year’s General Assembly session; however, according to their application they’ve received $400,000 in the last two prior sessions.

Like many of monoblogue’s readers, Michelle Malkin lives in Maryland, and she’s hit even harder as more of her tax dollars go to support this group – while I’m not sure of her precise domicile, I’d feel pretty safe betting she resides in either Montgomery or PG County (both of which have assisted CASA financially.) And with this week’s revelations about a half-dozen “Jersey jihadists” who plotted to harm our soldiers training at Fort Dix, New Jersey (three of whom are known to be in our country illegally) this pamphlet put out by CASA sends exactly the wrong message about whose side they’re on.

A 50 year plan: Education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007 Tri-County Lincoln Day Dinner

Before I get too far I have to say this:

www.monoblogue.us

A proud Ronald Reagan Sponsor

2007 Tri-County Lincoln Day Dinner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A 50 year plan: Second Amendment

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

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

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

Here’s what I originally wrote this week.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A 50 year plan: Trade and job creation

To begin this chapter of the 50 year plan, let me say that I’m in favor of free and fair trade. The idea behind NAFTA and other trading alliances is a sound one. Those who are protectionists don’t seem to understand that the economy is a global one and discouraging competition by enacting high tariffs and other barriers to free trade hurts our economy in the long run.

On the other hand, I also feel that we’re giving away too much of our industrial base by shipping production of a myriad of items out of America. If you purchase an electronic product, chances are it’s made in China, and many other items are made across the border in Mexico. But with the cost of labor becoming more and more a share of the total product price, businesses need to create profitability for themselves and their stockholders. And I’m a supporter of a capitalist system.

We also have some bright spots in our manufacturing economy. With our skilled labor force and a prosperous population because of these skills, America attracts many of the top global industrial giants, particularly in the automotive field. Many cars with Japanese nameplates are made right here in America, and these factories spawn thousands of ancilliary jobs in both manufacturing of parts and associated service jobs created by the influx of foreign capital.

At this juncture I want to take a look at just a few of the major products that America imports and exports and make my forecast on the direction we need to go to maintain our prosperity despite competition from huge Asian markets like China and India.

The trading commodity that probably affects us on the Eastern Shore most is agriculture. While the romanticized American Gothic version of the farmer is long gone and has been replaced by the modern-day Internet literate and degreed farmer working on his (or her) multi-thousand acre spread, it’s still a fact that American farmers are able to supply our country’s basic nutritional needs many times over. Thus we’re able to send millions of tons of grain around the globe. Conversely, while America has many areas suitable for citrus crops and truck farming, more and more of those products arrive from overseas. Long gone are the days of “in season” vegetables and fruits, most items are available year-round both because of rapid air shipment from the Southern Hemisphere and technological advances that enable some fruit (like apples) to be maintained and retain flavor for much longer timeframes.

There are some dark clouds on the horizon, though, for which American farmers need to be prepared. As environmental regulations become more onerous the competitive advantage we enjoy is eroded. Fertilizers may have to change composition and could become less effective. Further restrictions on waste disposal could hamper poultry, pork, and cattle farmers as well as egg producers. Another possible threat is the takeover of prime agricultural land by suburban sprawl.

A third pitfall could be the reduction in food yield as millions upon millions of bushels of corn exit the food chain and become automotive fuel. Ethanol production continues to increase markedly and, if present trends continue, corn may be as rare a commodity on the table as fresh strawberries in December used to be.

As farming continues to evolve into being a less and less labor-intensive task due to the twin influences of technology and a shrinking real number of farms, job creation in the agricultural field needs to be concentrated on research in two realms of study. One path would be to discover ways to make crops more disease-resistant, improve yields, and make them more adaptable to poorer soil conditions. The second path is searching for ways to make biomass (or waste products) more useful in the energy field. It’s a known fact that methane gas from animal waste is a huge emission source – the trick is finding a method to utilize this resource and keep it out of the watershed. On a local level, while Salisbury University does not have an agricultural program, UMES has a program that can become a leader in such research if given a good level of support.

Moving back to a national level, a vital import of ours is oil. While America has a lot of oil still left underneath its lands and territorial waters, overblown environmental concerns have prevented us from taking advantage of our own resources – hence, we now import almost 2/3 of our daily oil consumption. And the list of countries we buy our oil from is a list of states not necessarily in agreement with the strategic goals we’ve set globally. With the exception of Canada, we’re at odds in some way, shape or form with most of the remaining main suppliers.

Further, while oil is generally refined into the fuel that drives our transportation industry, we can’t forget that this resource has many other uses, particularly in the manufacture of plastic products. So to me, it’s vitally important that we work out some sort of compromise between the environmental issues and the national interest that we all have in maintaining a free supply of domestic oil. Our current situation, where some stalwarts in Congress place the needs of caribou above the needs of our economy, has passed the ridiculous stage and is quickly closing in on dangerous. Even if ANWR, Pacific, and Gulf drilling were allowed tomorrow, we’ve lost (and will continue to lose in the short-term future) tremendous amounts of capital that could’ve been left in the domestic realm instead of paying OPEC their sheik’s ransom for black gold.

Once again, technology plays a role in allowing us to begin moving past an oil-based economy. Just like steam-powered vehicles were replaced by gasoline-powered ones early in the 20th century, somewhere out there is the key to the next generation of transport. In a future installment, I’m going to look at education and its role in the next 50 years, but it’s going to be incumbent on the next two generations to solve these issues through rigorous research.

America does have one export that maybe not everyone thinks of as a tradable commodity, but it creates a huge amount of capital. As a country, the United States is almost certainly the world leader in intellectual property – a term I’ll adopt as shorthand for all of the books, movies, television, and musical recordings that are created by Americans and exported around the world. In many cases, revenues made overseas by films can exceed the domestic take. And sometimes musical artists considered obscure here are major players in various foreign nations.

One of our major trade gripes with China at the moment is their laxity when it comes to stopping the sale of pirated movies. Black market copies of Hollywood films are big sellers there but the studios never receive a cut of the take. And with the evolution of “on-demand” movies, downloads of songs for personal use, and increased internet bandwidth (not to mention services like YouTube) major film studios and record labels are going to find it more difficult to maintain a revenue stream using models developed 30 to 50 years ago. However, on the flip side music is more accessible than ever. I know some of my favorite local groups would’ve had a lot more difficulty having their music heard prior to the advent of Myspace and the internet in general. While we have the phoniness of “American Idol” (which actually originated “across the pond” in Great Britain) there is still quite the untapped market out there for America to export intellectual property.

But now I want to complete the circle and discuss our manufacturing capability again, this time by reviewing a little history.

In the century-and-a-quarter from 1845 to 1970, Americans changed the world. Starting with Samuel F.B. Morse revolutionizing communications with the telegraph, on our shores we created invention after invention that made our society as we know it (while America also fought and won two world wars in that era), culminating with Neil Armstrong and his small step for man. And while America is still a powerhouse when it comes to innovation, many of the more recent advances have occurred offshore. It seems to me like we’ve settled on mediocrity, doing research in order to secure the next government grant instead of being truly innovative.

It’s long past time for Americans to make stuff again. But the idea in this go-round is not necessarily to make the cheapest product, it’s to make the most cutting-edge product that has the quality and construction to last for decades. In turn, American consumers need to reward these efforts and consider quality as much (if not more) than price. Maybe a better term for this consideration is life-cycle cost.

The next two generations have the potential to allow America to be a leader once again, just like it was not all that long ago. Before we cede our crown to those in China or India, we need to remember that there’s a reason that Japanese auto makers put their trust in us to build many of their best-selling cars. Japan became a world leader in industry by taking both the American know-how that built up their industry after we defeated them in World War II and the can-do spirit that still existed in America at that time, and allowing these to evolve by putting an emphasis on manufacturing goods of high quality and innovation. We can do the same (again) by putting our minds to it and telling those who wish for us to remain mediocre (like those interested in big government and not creative capitalism) to get out of the way.

A 50 year plan: Military and veterans’ affairs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some of what Gilchrest voted for

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(4) Training members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gilchrest votes for Popeye over policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time to quit playing

“When Democrats are criticized, they counter-attack. When Republicans are criticized, they apparently believe in ‘the soft answer which turneth away wrath.’ In politics, however, a soft answer is like blood in the water that provokes piranhas to more vicious attacks.” —Thomas Sowell

I read this in my Patriot Post today (yesterday’s edition, the 07-12 Chronicle.) And these words ring quite true. It seems to me also that Democrats like the politics of personal attack a little more than the GOP does.

If there’s one thing I have to say about Maryland politics, though, right now the GOP isn’t the recipient of much criticism. Comapre this to the oft-quoted Senate President Mike Miller in 2005: (GOP leaders are) “going to be flying high, but we’re going to get together and we’re going to shoot them down. We’re going to bury them face down in the ground, and it’ll be 10 years before they crawl out again.”

Of course, at the time it appeared that there was a pretty good chance that Governor Ehrlich would be re-elected after Democrats Doug Duncan and Martin O’Malley shredded each other in an expensive primary fight for the governors’ chair, while Kweisi Mfume and Ben Cardin were among a host of Democrats threatening to do the same as they ran against odds-on favorite Michael Steele for the U.S. Senate seat. Well, to their credit, the Democrats managed to pile up enough votes in their strongholds to stave off both Ehrlich and Steele.

After the GOP losses in 2006, Maryland is seemingly back to its normal political course as the Democrats hold all of the statewide offices and the GOP is once again beaten back to its few strongholds in Western Maryland and the Eastern Shore. So the anti-Republican political rhetoric has been toned down – after all, they now can keep their powder dry for most of the rest of this election cycle. Besides, by 2010 they’ll need to figure out a way to blame the four O’Malley years of bloated spending and rapidly increasing taxes on the last GOP administration.

Oh, you wonder why we on the right call the Democrats “tax-and-spend”? Here’s just a few examples on just the state level. I’m not even going to go into the federal level, where it’s claimed in the 2008 budget that we’ll stop deficit spending IF Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 (essentially a huge tax hike) – never mind revenues have increased since these tax cuts took effect.

In Maryland, Democrats have called for the following eight “revenue enhancements”. These bills can be found on the General Assembly website, search by bill number. All I did was look under the subject “taxation” and pick the most obvious ones!

A $1 per pack increase in the cigarette tax (HB288/SB207, also HB754);
Sales tax increases of either 1/2% (to 5.5% – HB434) or 1% (to 6% – HB393);
A 10 cent per gallon increase in the gasoline tax (HB821);
Doubling the current tax on alcoholic beverages (HB757/SB422);
If you wish to exercise your Second Amendment rights, an additional 10% tax on guns considered “assault weapons” (HB441), or 5 cents per round on ammunition (HB1393);
An additional 2 mill property tax, which equals 2 cents per $100 of valuation if my math is correct (HB486/SB644);
A 5 cent deposit on cans and bottles (HB839);
And a repeal on the limits on the rate and collection of pollution permit fees (HB1218).

Plus, while it’s not a tax per se, some Democrats want to create a single-payer health system in Maryland (HB400).

So which Democrats support these bills the most? Well, here are a list of co-sponsors who are listed on at least five of these bills. Why am I not surprised that most of these folks represent Montgomery County?

The king of taxation: freshman Delegate Saquib Ali (District 39, Montgomery) who’s co-sponsor of seven of these bills.

The prince: another freshman, Delegate Craig L. Rice (District 15, Montgomery). He has five co-sponsorships to his “credit” and is lead sponsor of HB441.

And the “dirty dozen” who have five co-sponsorships (plus lead sponsorships as noted):

Fourth term Delegate Elizabeth Bobo (District 12B, Howard);
Third term Delegate William A. Bronrott (District 16, Montgomery), who’s the lead sponsor of HB757;
Third term Delegate Rudolph C. Cane (District 37A, Dorchester/Wicomico);
Fourth term Delegate Virginia P. Claggett (District 30, Anne Arundel);
Fourth term Delegate Barbara A. Frush (District 21, Prince George’s/Anne Arundel);
Freshman Delegate Tom Hucker (District 20, Montgomery);
Second term Delegate Anne R. Kaiser (District 14, Montgomery);
First elected term Delegate Jane E. Lawton (District 18, Montgomery);
Freshman Delegate Roger P. Manno (District 19, Montgomery);
Fourth term Delegate Maggie I. McIntosh (District 43, Baltimore City), also lead sponsor of both HB486 and HB1220;
Second term Delegate Karen S. Montgomery (District 14, Montgomery), also lead sponsor of HB400;
And finally, seventh (!) term Delegate Samuel I. Rosenberg (District 41, Baltimore City).

I also need to point out that my delegate (not by my choice, I was outvoted) Norm Conway is a co-sponsor of HB754, which is billed the “Children and Working Families Health Care Act of 2007”. I was going to say that naturally, Conway is a Democrat, but then I saw Wicomico County Delegate Page Elmore on that list too, once of the few Republicans who are calling for this tax increase. Page, it ain’t going to help, the Democrats will run somebody against you whether you vote and sponsor with them or not.

Meanwhile, the GOP has quietly put together two bills of particular interest, neither of which has any chance of passing. HB809/SB942 is a “taxpayer’s bill of rights” that’s desired to appear on the 2008 ballot, while my Senator, Lowell Stoltzfus, introduced what he billed the “Budget Reconciliation Act of 2007.” As he stated last week on Bill Reddish’s radio show, the General Assembly has “no will to do cuts” to the budget. So he introduced some pruning of the budget to help our situation, rather than assuming Free Staters have deep enough pockets to pay for everything on the liberal wish list.

Well, Maryland, you now have a list of suspects in the case of the 2007 taxpayer wallet pickpocketing. And you can let them know how you feel.

In my case, I’m one member of the Maryland GOP that’s not going to be afraid to call people what they are. If Democrats want to tax and spend our state into bankruptcy I suppose it’s their right, but I’ll be damned if they’ll do it without me saying something about it! It’s going to be interesting to see if my left-wing cohort at The Greenbelt sees fit to include this in the upcoming Carnival of Maryland #3 because this will be the article I submit. I guess I’ll find out Sunday, won’t I?