My take on Election Day 2009

There are four elections drawing nationwide attention today.

I put my 2 cents in on NY-23 yesterday as part of a longer post by selected Red County editors, which is found here. It’s interesting, though, that this race would simply replace a Republican with a somewhat more conservative Republican should Doug Hoffman win, but it’s essentially a Democratic seat rental if Bill Owens wins. Next year the GOP will have a chance to vote on and unite behind one candidate who should dispatch Owens handily given the usual margin of victory for Republicans out of that district.

Meanwhile, there’s another Congressional election in California (10th District) drawing interest because the seat is thought to be a safely Democrat one. Yet California’s lieutentant governor, John Garamendi, was only up by single digits in some polls over Republican David Harmer in a district that went about 2-1 for Obama last year. Obviously a Harmer win would be a huge upset but a close loss would show the Democrats’ weakness among a voter bloc they won big with in 2008.

Governor Jon Corzine in New Jersey is needing a huge assist from President Obama and a large advantage in campaign spending to hang on over Republican Chris Christie. Don’t be surprised if New Jersey 2009 comes out something like Maryland 1994, with the Republican leading until the last votes are counted in one of New Jersey’s more urban areas. It’s also a case where an independent may take away just enough votes from the GOP contender to hand the election to a Democrat.

One has to ask, though: with such a large Democratic voter registration advantage in New Jersey, why should this race even be close? Certainly a GOP win there gives hope to pulling an upset here in Maryland next year.

Finally, we have Virginia, where the Republicans are expected to sweep into executive branch power.  But the question will be what kind of coattails Bob McDonnell has. Closer to home, we have a first-time Republican candidate running in the 100th District (which comprises the entire Virginia Eastern Shore and a small part of the Norfolk area)for the House of Delegates against an entrenched three-term Democrat who was unopposed the last two elections. Whether Melody Scalley can get an assist from the GOP tide remains to be seen because it’s tough to knock off an incumbent – particularly one who portrays himself as a “moderate” Democrat.

I know tonight and tomorrow will have spin from all sides, and don’t worry – I’ll have mine too. Makes for an interesting night of television since it’s an off-day for the World Series.

Powerful message from Pence

Normally I like to put up selected videos on my Friday Night Videos feature, but this one is both inspiring and time-sensitive.

The key in this fight is going to be Blue Dog Democrats. We need to make sure they realize that a vote for Obamacare comes at their electoral peril. They can be part of the new conservative resurgence or they can be roadkill in 2010.

The time is nigh for action once again, as apparently the House Obamacare vote is on tap for later this week. I’m aware that the AFP folks have a meeting set up with Congressman Kratovil on Friday but if they want to influence his health care vote that may be too late.

There is also a bid by Rep. Michelle Bachmann for a smaller version of the 9-12 rally on Thursday, with a noontime gathering at the Capitol then visits to various Congressmen. For those who aren’t able to get to Washington, D.C. on such short notice there’s a call for people to meet at the Congressional district offices and state capitals at noon Thursday.

Regardless of the venue, the idea is the same: stop Obamacare in its tracks. Let’s get to work.

Decrying “crony capitalism”

Usually I don’t pay a lot of attention to those who teach the “dismal science”, but this morning’s testimony provided by Russell Roberts, a Professor of Economics at George Mason University, at a House hearing on executive compensation makes for interesting reading.

For example, check this passage out:

The executives at General Motors and Chrysler don’t deserve to make a lot of money. They made bad products that people didn’t want to buy.

The executives on Wall Street don’t deserve to make a lot of money. They were reckless with other people’s money. They made bad bets that didn’t pay off. And they wasted trillions of dollars of precious capital, funneling it into housing instead of health innovation or high mileage cars or a thousand investments more valuable than bigger houses.

Everyday folks who are out of work through no fault of their own want to know why people who made bad decisions not only have a job but a big salary to go with it.

But before you think he’s busting out the populism, Roberts moves the blame to where I think it belongs too:

(W)hat we do here in Washington is rescue big companies and rich people from the consequences of their mistakes. When mistakes don’t cost you anything, you do more of them.

When your teenager drives drunk and wrecks the car, and you keep giving him a do-over— repairing the car and handing him back the keys—he’s going to keep driving drunk. Washington keeps giving the bad banks and Wall Street firms a do-over. Here are the keys. Keep driving. The story always ends with a crash.

Capitalism is a profit and loss system. The profits encourage risk-taking. The losses encourage prudence. Is it a surprise that when the government takes the losses, instead of the investors, that investing gets less prudent? If you always bail out lenders, is it surprising that firms can borrow enormous amounts of money living on the edge of insolvency?

Right on the money, my friend. I don’t know economics like a doctoral candidate in the field, but common sense tells me too that privatizing profit and subsiding loss is going to lead to a lot of bad decisions in the marketplace. The government operates many of its enterprises at a loss, sometimes taking over for private enterprise in the process.

In the health care debate, common sense tells us that placing the government in competition with private enterprise (as in the “public option” – or, as Nancy Pelosi is trying to bill it, the “consumer option”) will eventually drive out the private side. Any entity who is free to operate at a loss in perpetuity can outlast someone who’s acting responsibly to shareholders who expect some sort of return on investment.

All this insight from me, a guy who majored in environmental design. If that argument makes sense to me, why doesn’t it make sense to those people Roberts testfied to – people who are supposed to be the smartest people in the room?

Makes you wonder if they’re working for the people or just out for themselves.

DeMint makes his case

He’s not a Senator from Maryland (sucks to be us), but Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) came back on my radar screen last week when he promised to introduce a Constitutional amendment to establish Congressional term limits. Here, from his Senate website blog, he further explains his reasoning.

The people of South Carolina have given me the privilege of representing them in Congress for more than 10 years now, and over that period I’ve learned a great deal about how things work in Washington. One of the more unfortunate things I’ve come to realize is that Congress has the power to corrupt even those with the most honorable intentions. Too often, I‘ve seen good, honest citizen legislators come to Washington only to realize that in Congress, you either conform to the system or find yourself on the outside looking in. As a result, the American people are left with more “career politicians” who go along to get along in Congress, and end up beholden to special interests, lobbyists, and big government policies.

Though there is no simple solution to this trend, there is a clear place to start: term limits. With term limits, we can put an end to the “if you can’t beat them, join them” approach to legislating, and begin enacting responsible legislation that is in the best interest of our nation. As a result, I will soon be introducing a constitutional amendment limiting current and future members of Congress to serving three terms (six years) in the House and two terms (12 years) in the Senate.

Let’s face it, Washington has become far more powerful than any one person or party. If we want to change the policies, we must first change the process. By imposing term limits, we can ensure frequent turnover which allows for new ideas and fresh perspectives in Congress. Additionally, term limits will keep politicians in-tune with their constituents and less focused on pleasing those who promise to help get them re-elected.

While term limits are certainly a step in the right direction, they are not enough. I sincerely hope my amendment will be ratified, and then be followed by other structural reforms that make our public institutions more transparent and accountable. The American people deserve congressmen who fight to give them a voice rather than fight for their personal power and success. If the people want new policies and real reform, it’s not enough to change the congressmen — we must change Congress itself.

It’s a start. But over the decades, part of the reason Congress shifted from a short-term proposition to become lifetime employment was the increasing role Fedzilla played in our lives. Our Revolution-era forefathers could have scarcely imagined a government budget in the trillions or a bureaucracy in charge of education, agriculture, labor, or health and human services. Returning to a government which functions in a Constitutional manner would likely remove the incentive for politicians to increase their hot air quotient.

Many don’t recall this, but back in 1994 several Republicans who signed the Contract With America also pledged not to serve more than a few terms in office. While some backtracked on their pledge and others were removed in subsequent votes, those who promised to leave and did are worthy of emulation. But you’ll notice that Democrats rarely (if ever) make a similar pledge. Why is that?

There is a nobility and a sacrifice in public service, but most who engage in that craft do so far from the public eye (or at least far from the unblinking media spotlight) and don’t mind at all – just ask your neighbor who’s a volunteer fireman or who served in the military. You may not even be aware they so serve.

Obviously those who choose politics have to engage the public a little more frequently because they seek election every few years. Yet those who deign to create our laws have also created myriad opportunities to enrich themselves at the public trough, and much of the impetus behind TEA Parties and term limits comes from seeing your Congressman finagling the system to give himself a raise without voting for it, or seeing him reward friends or colleagues from the public till. It’s not something which is limited to a single party or group, but the solution lies partly in limiting their time in office and partly by eliminating incentive to stick grubby fingers in the pie by decreasing its size.

To me, cutting the size of government deserves not just lip service but action. One step in the right direction would be to enact term limits, but the other, more important step is to promote accountability in government. It’s there that, try as he might to fight it, DeMint’s colleagues fall well short of the mark.

WCRC meeting – October 2009

We didn’t have our anticipated speaker, who had to bail out at the last minute due to unforseen circumstances, but two fill-in speakers backed up with a fill-in secretary (me) made this month’s WCRC meeting work nonetheless.

As usual we had the Lord’s Prayer, Pledge of Allegiance, and various reports. Club president Marc Kilmer announced two upcoming events: the November WCRC meeting will be held on the 23rd of November with the speaker being District 37 Senator Rich Colburn and the club’s Christmas party upcoming on December 13th. He also thanked those who particpated with the Autumn Wine Fest.

Sean Fahey, administrator for the Lower Shore Young Republicans, gave their report. Next spring will be a repeat of their successful canned food drive inaugurated earlier this year, and they were negotiating to host next summer’s state Young Republican convention here in Salisbury and trying to draw a “name” speaker for the event.

Along the same vein, Salisbury University College Republican president Matt Taffeau introduced himself to the club for the first time in a formal setting; however, they had been present at previous events such as the WCRC Crab Feast and fundraiser for District 38B Delegate candidate Mike McDermott. Growing their membership to over two dozen since the start of the school year, they’ve managed to attract speakers like the aforementioned McDermott, Wicomico County Sheriff Mike Lewis, and state party chair Dr. Jim Pelura. They were also in the early stages of trying to get national party head Michael Steele to come to SU and were “looking forward” to helping out on Campaign 2010.

One of our two pinch-hitting speakers for the evening was County Councilwoman Gail Bartkovich, who cobbled together some news and notes about the budgetary woes facing Wicomico County.

Part 1 of the cuts had already been approved by the County Council when the furlough plan requested by Council and put together by County Executive Rick Pollitt was approved. Part 2 would be the harder part, cutting many of the departments by 15% along with other manuevers to cut about $1.2 million from the budget.

It’s worthy to note, Gail reminded us, that the actual deficit was much higher – on the order of $4 million. But taking money from reserve funds and increasing a number of fees helped to at least create an action plan before the public had its say in an upcoming meeting November 10th.

Some of the cuts could be painful, though – everything from $611,000 to the county’s funding share for Wor-Wic Community College to eliminating 13 paid crossing guards out of the Sheriff’s Department budget. Only the Board of Education and volunteer fire departments were unaffected.

But Gail also pointed out that many of the “cuts” were simply shifting salaries around to departments with enterprise funding, particularly solid waste. A question was asked whether these positions would be eventually restored to their original departments (particularly the roads department, which was hard hit by state funding cuts) or if the relatively lucrative solid waste department would continue to carry these positions having little to do with that area. Councilwoman Bartkovich decried the lack of a “long term game plan” to deal with the county’s finances.

Then we turned to the state level as District 38A Delegate Page Elmore was kind enough to lend his expertise. As we all know, the state of Maryland has the second-worst tax burden in the country behind only California and continually has needed to maintain its balanced budget with mid-fiscal year cuts totaling in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

While the tax and spending increases passed at the 2007 Special Session take a share of the blame, Elmore pointed to two other factors hurting the state – the court order dictating education spending be held at increasing levels (which led to the Thornton Commission and its budgetary impact) and a 10% income tax cut enacted as an election year measure by former governor Parris Glendening in 1998.

But Page revealed that the Spending Affordability Committee estimated next year’s structural deficit will range between $2.5 and $3 billion. Democrats on a committee to reform business taxes in Maryland (which would be all but him) and their allies believe the best solution would be to change to a system of combined reporting for corporate entities, a move business interests despise because of the increased accounting burden. Elmore predicted that Democrats “probably won’t pass” combined reporting in 2010, but they may try to.

Two questions drew interesting responses from Elmore. One asked about the chances of saving construction money for new schools by repealing the “prevailing wage” and dropping expensive “green” building requirements. With just 37 votes in the House, Republicans couldn’t do much. (Personally, I think it’s a great place to start if we have to build all these schools rather than the comparatively puny savings Governor O’Malley thinks standardizing plans would create.)

The other questioner brought up the environmentally-induced moratorium on building new chicken houses in Maryland. One thing I didn’t know is that while Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia labor under restrictions on runoff, these restrictions don’t exist in nearby states like North and South Carolina. Delaware has been proactive in allowing chicken houses to be built as restrictions are still pending but Maryland has dragged its feet. Those upcoming restrictions expected in 2010 are expected to dramatically reduce the allowable discharge from chicken houses to perhaps unrealistic levels. That’s okay, the Eastern Shore doesn’t need industry anyway.

Closing out the speaking trioka, Dr. John Bartkovich gave a fairly upbeat Central Committee report. Asking why the GOP was successful in 1980 and 1994 and why it failed in 2008, essentially he opined the important factor was a good message in bad economic times. These principles could win again in 2010 and 2012. We just needed a message of hope and change along with a plan to bring them about through fiscal conservatism and Republican principles.

What we thought would be a fairly short meeting turned out to be a long one, but it was informative. As I stated above, State Senator Richard Colburn will speak at our November meeting on Monday, November 23rd.

Food for thought…

Just got home late this Saturday evening and was catching up with my pile of e-mail from today.

I have a lot of stuff about the NY-23 race, where the Republicans picked Dede Scozzafava (a liberal who would be the dictionary definition of Republican In Name Only), but a number of conservative groups have placed their support behind the upstart Conservative Party’s Doug Hoffman.

The item I’m pondering is this: many is the time where I’ve stayed loyal to the GOP despite their nominating a “moderate” – John McCain and Wayne Gilchrest come to mind, cases where I’ve had to hold my nose and vote for someone to my left. Why is it that the GOP brass always expect me to come to the left and rarely (if ever) support a candidate to their right?

In most cases one could argue I’m more at home in the Libertarian Party but I’d rather work from within this one. And I believe I have a lot of allies who are among those newly baptized politically over the last eight months (Julie, the Right Coast Girl, comes to mind.)

To succeed in this quest, the political landscape needs to have what is now considered the middle shifted back to its proper place leftward. Right-of-center is truly the center (yes Chuck, I’m making that argument) and we who participate in the debate need to stop accepting most of the premises that liberals put up, such as the one that there’s a government solution to our health care problem – the government need not become more involved because the problem, by and large, doesn’t really exist for most.

I was at a friend’s house today and noticed a quote from Martin O’Malley saying something to the effect that those of us who favor limited government are seeing what the result would be in Maryland because he’s had to make all sorts of cuts. After I laughed out loud, it occurred to me that he’s making the cuts in areas where it hurts the most without truly making the effort to figure out just where government needs to get out of people’s lives. My first suggestion is for the state to stop spending millions to buy previously private land and take it off the tax rolls; in fact, the state could probably make millions back by selling back some of these properties. Who knows, someone might actually develop it and increase the property value, which will (gasp!) put more money in the local and state coffers.

So let’s see what people have to say about this. I think I stepped on enough toes for this to solicit good comments.

Friday night videos episode 11

Yep, it’s back. And this time it goes to eleven.

I’m going to start with one of my favorite Congressmen, Mike Pence of Indiana. Here in a “one minute speech” he points out the folly of ignoring conservative commentary:

For all of the liberals attempting to demean “Faux News” they sure seem to be kicking the other cable networks’ collective behinds. Must be some good reason.

But those liberals don’t want to listen anyway. Check out how Washington really works when liberals are in charge.

I know, the video is completely biased because it comes from Republicans. But ask this Democrat about the public option.

“Not politically feasible.” But when has that stopped liberals? Our illustrious HHS head thinks we should have a single-payer system – it will just take time.

Is that really a popular stance, though? My blogger friend Bob McCarty found out that at least some on the pro-health care side are motivated by a much baser cause – a paycheck. Yep, that’s Astroturf.

I tell you, those Highway K and N Patriots are a resilient bunch. But I wonder when those on the other side of the highway will start recognizing Bob and stop talking to him. The same goes for intrepid filmmaker James O’Keefe and partner Hannah Giles. From the Washington News-Observer, this is part of a press conference by O’Keefe where he gives the Philadelphia story.

One of those who have pretty much ignored the ACORN story is also smugly disrespecting the TEA Party movement. Meet the reason I don’t watch Sunday Night Football.

Those people who do attend the stops at TEA Party Express 2.0 might also be interested in this film which just came out. Al Gore, call your office.

Think this will get an Oscar? Yeah, right. All it needs to do, though, is stop the manmade climate change insanity gripping the seats of government. This viral video shows one who agrees and suggests to sign the Copenhagen climate change treaty would be at our peril.

As one person in the ‘Not Evil, Just Wrong’ clip noted, a little global warming wouldn’t be such a bad thing. But signing the Copenhagen treaty would be.

I know we could have used global warming last weekend. This is the latest addition to the monoblogue YouTube channel, recorded at the Autumn Wine Festival.

With that, I’ll call FNV 11 a wrap. See you next week.

The time has come for this idea

I’ve said this for a long time, but Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina wants to make it a reality. From today’s edition of his “Freedomcast” (h/t NetRightNation):

Hello again. I’m Senator Jim DeMint, and this is Freedomcast for October 22, 2009.

You know, the longer I stay in Washington, the more I have come to realize that the problem in the federal government isn’t just the people… it’s the process.

The system itself is so much more powerful than either party or interest group, let alone one president or congressional leader.

In Washington, the rules of the game are rigged — in favor of bigger government, higher taxes, more debt, and the time-honored system of political back-scratching of “go along to get along.”

Fifteen years ago, Republicans — who had been out of power in Congress for forty years – made term limits a centerpiece of their “Contract with America” agenda.

The term limits constitutional amendment ultimately failed, in part because so many new reform-minded congressmen imposed term limits on themselves. After six or eight years, these members voluntarily went home, leaving behind those Republicans and Democrats who fully intended to make a career inside the beltway.

The fact is, party doesn’t matter when it comes to reform. If you want to change the policies, you have to change the process.

That’s why in the next few weeks I will introduce a new constitutional amendment to limit members of the House of Representatives to three terms (which is six years), and members of the Senate to two terms (which is twelve years).

As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork – in short, amassing their own power.

Since all that power is going to disappear in a few years, anyway, term-limited legislators will be far less likely to make compromises with the system.

Opponents of term limits say that the nation needs wise and seasoned leaders to lead the nation through crises and find consensus on difficult issues.

Well, that’s exactly what we’ve got now… How do you think it’s working out for us?

It wasn’t the “people” who gave us a 12-trillion dollar debt, trillion-dollar deficits, 100-trillion-dollar long term shortfall in Social Security and Medicare, the Wall Street and auto bailouts, and the health care takeover.

It was those wise and seasoned leaders, who enjoy lives of privilege almost wholly immune from the consequences of their policy failures.

Term limits are not enough, of course. I hope my amendment will eventually be ratified, and then followed by other structural reforms to make our public institutions more transparent and accountable.

But term limits are a good start. Because if we really want reform, we all know it’s not enough just to change the congressmen – we have to change Congress itself.

Thanks for checking in. This is Freedomcast, and I’m Jim DeMint.

Obviously the question will be asked about DeMint’s electoral situation, and he will be up for re-election in 2010. If he follows his own example he would not run again in 2016 but it’s worth pointing out he indeed served three terms in the House before stepping up to the Senate. (DeMint did not hold elective office in South Carolina prior to his running for the House according to his Wikipedia bio.)

In my study of history, the Founding Fathers expected people who wished to represent us in the House would come out of the private sector, serve a short time in Washington, and return home to resume their life. The Senate was thought to be somewhat more of a long-term proposition (as Senators were selected by state legislatures until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913), but in either case it’s highly doubtful those who created our form of government were expecting lifelong politicians on the order of Senator Robert Byrd or Rep. John Dingell, both of whom have served since the 1950’s.

Moreover, the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1951, limits Presidential tenure to 10 years or two full terms (if a sitting Vice-President takes over in the latter half of an unexpired term, he or she may run for two full terms after taking office.) So there is now a precedent for limiting terms.

The obvious argument against DeMint is that limiting terms limits the choices available at the ballot box and strips Congress of experienced politicians who know the ropes. I’m not going to deny that some good politicians may get term-limited out assuming the DeMint amendment passes, but there are just so many bad apples who continually fool their electorate into sending them back time after time that this abuse of the privilege makes punishment worthwhile. Truly, no one who is worth sending to Washington would want to spend decades there anyway.

Unsurprisingly, the biggest hurdle to DeMint’s proposal is getting the 2/3 majority of each house of Congress to agree with DeMint. While a reasonable number of Republicans would support the bill – the Senator points out this was a provision of the GOP’s “Contract With America” in 1994 – the slim chance majority Democrats would have anything to do with this makes the chance this will be sent to the states from this Congress practically nil.

But, should DeMint be re-elected in 2010 and should thoughtful voters do their job and put term limits of their own on those who would be obstacles to the passage of the DeMint proposal, there’s an outside chance we could see such an amendment be sent to states for ratification in the next two years. Then the fight will be taken to each of the 50 state capitals, with 38 states needing to ratify the DeMint amendment for eventual inclusion in the Constitution.

Unlike a lot of amendments already enacted (such as the Tenth), this one wouldn’t be so easily ignored.

Friday night videos episode 10

The series has reached double-digits, so I suppose one could call it established. Of course I delve into the political, but my opening video from filmmaker Evan Coyne Maloney lends a new meaning (if you hail from the Midwest as I do) to asking about “pop” culture.

You see, the joke I made doesn’t work if you call it “soda”. This country’s not as united as we’d like it to be, and that’s not just in dialect. We obviously have a disagreement over health care reform too.

But as fellow blogger Bob McCarty shows in this video, the battle isn’t necessarily person vs. person but may be the power vs. the people.

I must say that these TEA Partiers are putting the rest of us to shame because they gather every weekend at the same Missouri intersection. Unfortunately, they won’t be along the route of TEA Party Express part 2, which is noted in a quick-paced commercial plugging the effort.

Not only is there a battle between sides on health care, but there’s a battle within the Republican Party. I didn’t believe Michael Steele said this either – frankly I was disappointed in the nod to political correctness.

Meanwhile, there are real issues out there we need to be united against, one being taxes. This is from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation (who could be against either?) and talks about the bid for a value added tax.

Another issue is education. This upcoming film is called ‘The Cartel’ and looks at the influence of teachers’ unions in our schools.

Money is not the solution, and when you look at a local budget like our county’s you can see that they represent a large portion of expenditures but don’t always share in the sacrifice.

To wrap things up this week, I’m focusing on a local political race. We border on the 100th District in Virginia, a legislative district for the House of Delegates which includes all of the Virginia Eastern Shore and a small part of the Norfolk area. Melody Scalley is a friend of monoblogue and common-sense conservative candidate who’s trying to unseat a three-term incumbent. She got a pleasant surprise in the first debate between contenders in this three-way race.

Nice to make it a two-way race and add the support of the opposition. But having good representation in Richmond from the ESV will help us on the Maryland side of the border too because their prosperity wouldn’t necessarily come at our expense. I’ve donated to Melody’s cause and perhaps you should too.

That wraps another chock-full version of FNV.

Working from within

Often I hear and see political observers make the comment, “there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties.” Alas, many is the time they are correct – as an example the federal government has grown under administrations from both parties at an ever-increasing pace, to the detriment of freedom-loving Americans.

Some Americans have awoken from their political slumber to demand changes to the system. To use the old metaphor, these frogs found the heat in the cooking pot being turned up too quickly. Whether it’s because their economic situations rapidly deteriorated, they were alarmed at the unprecedented intrusion of government into the private sector, or they became more informed citizens by broadening their spectrum of news and information, that simmering cauldron became too hot for them to bear and they decided not to suffer in silence anymore. Hence you have the TEA Party movement.

There has always been a “throw the bums out” mentality among Americans but the cycle waxes and wanes on a regular basis depending on the national mood and economy. 2010 promises to be a peak in the cycle if you believe the conventional wisdom. But throwing the bums out means defeating the entrenched special interests who would like nothing better to see the opposition splintered and working at cross purposes.

Democrats win because they promise their core constituency something for nothing – it’s as simple as that. My purpose is to reiterate that nothing worthy in life comes for free, and there is a cost in what the Democrats promise. TEA Partiers have become well aware of that cost, which is not simply measured in dollars and cents, and that’s why they are speaking out.

If you took my core beliefs (political and otherwise) and distilled them into a political philosophy, you’d likely find that I fall on the shadowy line between libertarian and conservative. My biggest problem with libertarianism is that followers tend to be pro-abortion and against the projection of American military power where necessary, while my biggest problem with conservatism tends to come when some adherents demand legislating morality. (Perhaps that seems to be a contradiction, but I can explain further through later comments.)

Yet I proudly bear the label of the Republican Party. For all of its faults (and they are numerous) they at least have a relatively decent chance of winning in 90-95% of American precincts. The problem I have with third parties – despite the fact I like having multiple choices on my ballot on Election Day – is that they rarely win. Sure, my Libertarian friends will tell me that there are a number of state and local office holders sporting the Libertarian Party label but it pales in comparison to the number representing the two major parties.

That’s not to say I give the GOP carte blanche. Unfortunately the Beltway insiders who run the national party have the Bob Michel “go along to get along” strategy and when it’s left up to them they more often than not put their backing behind the most moderate – or even liberal – candidate they can find. Case in point: a special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District where, according to Erick Erickson at Red State, the GOP candidate could easily be to the left of our former beloved (or reviled) Wayne Gilchrest (h/t Blue Ridge Forum.) Tell me again: how many Republican principles is Dede Scozzafava following with that record? Note that it wasn’t the GOP voters in that district who had the say but the party bosses.

However, imagine the millions of TEA Partiers becoming active in their local Republican party apparatus. Admittedly, the outcome could be likened to that of herding cats but eventually the party stops picking Dede Scozzofavas and starts selecting more principled limited-government candidates to back.

But their job doesn’t stop there. As it should be, the Maryland GOP has a policy of not endorsing candidates before the primary (at least publicly). Thus, if there is a contested primary between a conservative Republican and a RINO it would be up to the local party faithful to educate their fellow Republicans about the merits of the conservative candidates on their own. The better informed voters nearly always make the right choice, and, once united, they can train their guns on the REAL enemy: the entrenched special interests in Washington and the 50 state capitals who feed on the cancer that is big government.

Those in power don’t normally give it up willingly or easily, though, so we also have to be prepared for a long siege-like fight with numerous ups and downs. There is a reason for the saying “united we stand” and by taking over the banner of the Republican Party – with a large apparatus already in place and available for use – the pro-freedom side can more effectively spread its message and marshal its resources in this long-term pitched battle.

Friday night videos episode 9

Back to the political since I didn’t record any concerts this week. I know you’re crushed.

I’ll start with something I neglected to put in two weeks ago. Perhaps you remember that American Solutions was looking for public comment on offshore drilling. Well, they got plenty – over 90,000 to be exact – and this was their delivery to the Minerals Management Service.

And just think…if we did get back to drilling in more areas, we might have more American jobs. Hey, ask a Democrat where the stimulus jobs are and they will answer…

…oh wait, maybe not.

But there are STILL TEA Partiers out there demanding change. My blogging friend Bob McCarty covered last Friday’s effort near his Missouri home in St. Charles.

I’m bummed that I didn’t see any of my relatives there (several live in the St. Charles area) but it’s likely they were there in spirit, anyway. Nor did I see them there the next day as McCarty covered a streetside rally both for and against Obamacare. A busy guy, that Bob McCarty.

Speaking of Obamacare, my friends across the Mason-Dixon Line may want to reflect on the fact this is your Senator. It’s a different source than YouTube so I wasn’t able to revise the size of the viewing box.

Yeah, trust your Congressman or Senator for all. Well, let me amend that because I’d trust this one farther than I could throw her and that’s not true of many in Washington. Must be why the left just loves her so.

So ends edition number 9. We’ll just have to see what pops up next time on FNV.

Business as usual

I received this release a couple days ago from U.S. Senate candidate Eric Wargotz. While he uses it to hammer his opponent, the longtime entrenched Democrat Senator Barbara Mikulski, there’s more to the Sun story by Paul West that Eric cites.

The Baltimore Sun reported that Maryland’s senior U. S. senator won $10.5 million in federal pork barrel spending for three of her most generous campaign contributors.

“During a time of budgetary crisis in Washington, it is irresponsible for Senator Mikulski to use her powerful position on the Senate Appropriations Committee to enrich her campaign supporters. Further, I find it appalling that she would hide behind the troops to justify her actions.

“The Pentagon didn’t ask for any of the funding requests (totaling $42.1 million, including the $10.5 million already referenced) the senator received. If Senator Mikulski thinks she knows better than the military does, she owes it to her constituents to explain why.

“Senator Mikulski should eschew the politics of the past and devote her energies towards participating in the healthcare debate raging on Capitol Hill. Despite more than three decades of involvement in this issue, she has been oddly absent now that the debate is here.

“Maryland’s taxpayers deserve Senator Mikulski’s advocacy more than her campaign contributors do.”

In looking at the Sun story, it’s apparent that not just Mikulski shared in the Maryland goodie distribution, and it was as bipartisan as it could be considering our Congressional delegation has just one Republican.

I’ll admit it’s good that Dr. Wargotz pointed this out, particularly since these projects went to companies who invested heavily in Mikulski’s election, but then the question will arise as to whether he won’t be equally as guilty if elected. While earmarks truly aren’t a large part of the overall budget, they make for feel-good press when the incumbent comes back hat in hand for votes at election time.

Unfortunately, neither party has made much of an effort to combat the practice and it’s noteworthy that President Obama, who claimed to be opposed to earmarks throughout his Presidential campaign (as did John McCain, who is quoted in the Sun story) hasn’t vetoed any spending package laden with earmarks. So to me this is business as usual.

While a number of critics wish to pinch off the campaign finance end of the equation, my better idea is to reduce the incentive for companies to shop for candidates willing to shovel lucrative government contracts their way by cutting the size and scope of the federal government. Perhaps this won’t work quite as well in the defense sector as others, but the first step is turning around the runaway train called federal spending run amok.