role of government – Page 4

Friday night videos – episode 38

Since I missed last week due to personal reasons, it means I have a lot more video to choose from this time.

A little over five years ago, the Supreme Court revealed its Kelo v. New London decision. The Institute for Justice took a look at the impact since in this video.

Hey, it was nice of YouTube to add custom sizing for websites like mine. Saves me some HTML work!

The saving of the work doesn’t just extend to me. Beltway Democrats don’t want to work on a budget.

Maybe they just want to enjoy their summer. In this edition of the Freedom Minute, Renee Giachino talks about Obama’s ‘Recovery Summer.’

Someone who can’t take the summer off is Gen. David Petraeus. But it appears Obama’s advisors blew him off when they promised a July 2011 Afghan withdrawal.

But that’s all right, because Obama staffers are blowing off transparency laws, as Americans for Limited Government reveals.

This one has a wry sense of humor to it, and in good time for Independence Day.

Musically, I think it’s time to dust off Ava Aston once again. Just as a reminder who’s in charge on Independence Day.

Have a great Fourth of July, and Happy 234th Birthday to America!

Obamacare reaches its climax

Well, it sounds like we’re at the tipping point for nationalizing one-sixth of our economy and the question is whether the House will pass the Senate bill or not. Forget reconciliation – there would be no need for it once the House swallows real hard and the dam is broken.

This is a sampling of some of the best action items I’ve seen in the grassroots effort to stop Obamacare. Amy Kremer, writing as part of the upcoming TEA Party Express version 3.0, had these suggestions as a daily schedule:

Wednesday, March 10th: Medical Professionals (you do not have to be a physician) visit local district offices. Be sure to wear your medical attire. Let these offices know that you are not going to sit back and let the government takeover our health care system!

Thursday, March 11th: Veterans go to local district offices. Our veterans are so special. They have a voice like no one else. Veterans, let these offices know that you fought for her once and you are fighting for her again!

Friday, March 12th: Nationwide rallies at local district offices for 1 hour at 12 noon local. Let’s make it a special point for all of us to go during our lunch hour if at all possible.

Monday, March 15th: Make calls. Send Faxes. Send Emails. You can do all of these things during the day and after business hours.

Tuesday, March 16th: Rally in DC and Nationwide at local district offices. Americans For Prosperity also has sent out an alert to honk at 12 noon that day while you are driving in your car.

If you can’t go to DC on March 16th, please visit your local district offices to have your voices heard and show solidarity with those in DC. Our sources from the Hill tell us that the vote is likely to happen between March 16th and March 18th. If you are able to go to DC, please RSVP here.

If you are doing a rally at your local office please RSVP here, so we can let others know. This is a team effort, and we are part of your team. Whatever you need, please let us know!

Wednesday, March 17th – Friday, March 19th: If you are in D.C., please visit your Representatives and Senators. If you are not in D.C., please continue to visit local district offices! Make calls. Send Faxes. Send Emails. The calls, faxes, and emails can all be done during the day and after business hours.

Saturday & Sunday, March 20th & 21st: Town Halls for March Madness! In August we had some amazing town halls! They really made people and lawmakers stop and think about this health care legislation. Let’s do it again! Host a town hall in your community and invite your Senator and Congressman. More details on this next step will be available on American Grassroots Coalition within the next day or two. Thanks for your patience. (All emphasis in original.)

Sounds like a heckuva to-do list, particularly when we have a Congressman who’s on record for opposing Obamacare anyway. But it never hurts to remind him, does it?

More on that March 16th event comes from Tim Phillips of Americans for Prosperity:

On March 16, we’re holding the “Honk Against the Health Care Takeover” event. Here’s what we’re asking you to do. At 12 Noon your time on March 16, drive to your member of Congress’s district office and join a car caravan there, circling your representative’s office while honking against the health care takeover.

Just CLICK HERE for more information and to let us know you’re on board. You’ll be able to print off your very own “Honk Against the Health Care Takeover” sign for your car when you register. Sign up tomorrow, March 10, to receive a free bumper sticker in the mail before March 16.

In addition, you can sign up to be a car caravan leader. You can pick a parking lot near your Congressman’s office and let folks know you will be there to lead them over to the district office. It will be fun to meet fellow grassroots activists and to go over in a caravan to send your message.

Here’s the bottom line. The president is in the midst of his final all-out push for his health care takeover. Yes, his campaign is dishonest and over-the-top. But, to their credit they are refusing to quit this fight. So, we’ve got to beat them in these final days before the House vote.

They’ve put everything on the line for their ideology, as flawed as it is.

The question for us is: will we do the same for our values, our freedoms and our nation?

Knowing what I know about Americans like us, I believe the answer will be a resounding YES.

Again, given the fact we have Congressman on record as a likely “no” vote, I suspect our protest may be a little more subdued than others. But we’ll see.

Even Newt Gingrich chimed in, with this being the money passage from his post on Human Events:

I have even taken heat from fellow conservatives for cooperating with leading Democrats to achieve health reforms we agree on, like greater use of health information technology. In fact, there are even some specific elements of the bill — like payment reform to reward quality care — with which I agree.

However, as someone who has dedicated the last decade of his life to fixing what’s broken in America’s health care system, and has reached across party lines to do so, I regrettably have to say that this bill will do vastly more harm than good.

Here’s the rub, though. Why is it that conservatives and Republicans always have to reach across the aisle to Democrats?

You know, I’m damn tired of bipartisanship when it’s my side being sold down the river. I’ve watched this ship of state founder and draw dangerously close to the rocks ever since Ronald Reagan left office. While even Reagan couldn’t steer it in the proper direction, he at least held to the deepest part of the river and served as an anchor against the slow drift toward tyranny.

Not only is it time to kill this monstrosity of a bill, it’s long past time to reconsider why the government is in the health care market in the first place. One way or the other, entitlements left unchecked will destroy us – either we’ll drive the nation into default and bankruptcy or we’ll be dependent on government like New Orleans was as Katrina lashed the city.

We have a lot of hard decisions to make, but the first one is easy. Drive a wooden stake through the heart of Obamacare and be done with it.

Ideas for the right direction

On Thursday the BrinkleyPipkin budget reduction act (in Maryland that’s SB1004, Budget Reconciliation and Balancing Act) had its hearing. When I got the release on this hearing this was the part which jumped out at me:

The Brinkley-Pipkin budget reduction act had a hearing before the Senate Budget and Tax Committee today. By taking significant steps to further reduce spending in this year’s budget process, the Brinkley-Pipkin plan buys additional time to constrain spending to the existing available revenues without the need to raise taxes.

A key feature of the plan is the elimination of built-in statutory increases in state programs. This feature and an additional $75 million in spending constraint over the next three years would allow current revenues to “catch-up” with spending, thereby bringing ongoing spending and revenues into balance.

Many lobbyists and county officials testified today against additional cuts to state spending. Representatives of unions also opposed the Brinkley-Pipkin plan of additional cutbacks including the removal prevailing wage from state projects. The majority of citizens and taxpayers who testified supported all efforts to cut back government overspending. (Emphasis mine.)

So once again we have the government and big-government interests (i.e. the lobbyists) vs. the people. The information I was provided also had a chart showing the difference between our current budget path (which will certainly lead to higher taxes) and the Brinkley-Pipkin projections.

In theory, at least, the Republicans’ proposal not only balances the budget but creates a small surplus.

Obviously the counties were there to argue that the budget would be balanced on their backs and perhaps they have a point. But this should also lead the local governments into an effort to prioritize what services they wish to deliver, with the public being involved by determining how much they want to pay. For example, it would fan the flames of the ongoing debate here in Wicomico County regarding the revenue cap the county currently employs.

Government cannot co-exist with a free society as a cure-all. Every dollar taken out of your pocket to pay for services they wish to deliver is a dollar that you cannot use as you wish, despite the fact it was freely given to you. (In more and more cases, however, that dollar was given to you by the same government who wishes to take it away.)

It’s way beyond time to consider that role government has to play and amend it accordingly. Maybe not all of the cuts in the Brinkley-Pipkin proposal are wise, but they can begin this vital discussion of the role our state government plays in our lives.

The Spending Limit Amendment

Earlier this morning I participated in a conference call with Rep. Jeb Hansarling (R-TX) and Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN). They are two of the three initial sponsors of a possible Constitutional amendment called the Spending Limit Amendment (H.J. Res. 79), a proposal to limit federal spending to 20% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This number was arrived at because that’s a rough average of federal spending vs. GDP over an extended period.

Their argument falls in a number of categories ranging from dire economic straits to lost productivity to a national security threat. In the call, Hensarling noted “we believe we have to act now” and that he’s “not naive about the fact 5,000 amendments to the Constitution have been offered but only 27 ratified.” Instead, “what we hope to do is start a national debate on the size of government.”

Added Pence, “we have come to the conclusion that we need to introduce a new force,” that force being one of changing our “charter.” He also made the oft-noted point that “as government expands, freedom contracts.”

A number of different bloggers asked questions; I happened to be one of them. My question related to the fact that this seemed to me a weaker version of the balanced budget amendments proposed in the early 1990’s. Congressman Pence argued that this was “not a weaker version” but “a focused effort” on reining in the “runaway spending on steroids” going on today. In their estimate, running a small deficit but only spending 20% of GDP was preferable to having a balanced budget consuming 40% of GDP.

On an earlier question, the pair agreed that the BBA debate “had an impact” on spending immediately after it was considered.

There’s a lot more to the roughly 40-minute call, but since I’ve been promised the recording later today I can let you be the judge. Suffice to say that this should be a great issue to use in the 2010 campaign and they hope the TEA Party movement embraces the proposal, but they agreed this will be “a multiyear effort” and warned that, left unchecked, in 20 years our spending will place us in the similar position Greece faces now.

It reinforced my belief that Pence and Hensarling are “keepers” when it comes to a “throw the bums out” mentality. You’ll enjoy hearing what they have to say.

Robbing Peter (and John, David, Mary, etc.) to pay Paul

One criticism I’ve had about Maryland’s budget system is its lack of flexibility. There are a lot of money pots out there besides the General Fund, and Martin O’Malley seems to want to take money out of every one of them to balance his FY2011 budget. This from Americans for Prosperity:

As you know, the Senate Budget & Taxation Committee will be holding a public hearing this Wednesday on SB141. This bill, the Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act, will transfer nearly $1 BILLION from the state’s 382 special funds to cover Gov. O’Malley’s budget deficit.

(snip)

One of the funds Gov. O’Malley is proposing to raid is the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF). Started in 1971, the TTF is the account used to pay for road, bridge and infrastructure repairs. It is primarily funded by the gas tax – each time you fill up at the pump, you are contributing to road repair…or so you thought. This year, O’Malley has decided to take $125 million of those taxes and use it to paper over his $2 billion deficit.

Stealing from the Transportation Trust Fund becomes even more problematic next year, because the TTF is already under-funded. When the fund runs dry you can bet that the liberal politicians will want to raise taxes. Senate President Mike Miller has been pushing the idea of a gas tax hike for the last few years.

Another fund that O’Malley has decided to attack is the Injured Workers Insurance Fund (IWIF). IWIF is a low-premium insurer for many businesses who provide workers compensation to employees. It is financed by the premiums each policy holder pays on a quarterly basis.

Not only is the legality of the state confiscating $26 million from a private insurance company in question, but this move will hurt small businesses. Again, when the fund is drained, the premium rates will rise to replace the stolen revenue.

Small businesses are the engine of our state economy – they employ nearly two-thirds of the workforce in Maryland. If we expect an economic recovery with job growth, the government cannot continue to put undue burdens on businesses. The last thing small businesses need right now is to be paying higher insurance premiums or gas taxes.

382 special funds in the Maryland budget? WTF? Anyway, the Maryland Senate Republican Caucus also weighed in:

Entering the 2010 legislative session, there were few remaining reserve funds left to tap. They have all been depleted. O’Malley has exhausted all available reserves except for the Rainy Day Fund. Tapping the Rainy Day could jeopardize the coveted Triple A bond rating which would cause great embarrassment to the administration.

So O’Malley turned to the Injured Workers Insurance Fund to tap a reserve of $20 million. Problem is – the IWIF reserve is not state money. It is not taxpayer dollars. Instead it is overpayments of insurance premiums from small businesses throughout the state.

Then is it legal? A 1968 opinion of the Attorney General’s Office states that reserve funds of the State Accident Fund (IWIF’s predecessor) are not state funds accessible for general purposes. Established as a nonprofit insurance company, IWIF is a quasi-public agency and state use of insurance overpayments as a fund swap would be unconstitutional.

To cover their tracks, the O’Malley Administration has now introduced bills (Senate Bill 507 and House Bill 1008) that would give the Governor authority to transfer the $20 million this year just as long as it’s never done again. Go figure!

So, not only do we have the BRFA bill but now another bill in order to fix things for this year. Sheesh.

The larger question is what we’ll need to do next year to fill in all of these pots. With the federal portion of the state budget now eclipsing 60 percent, one would think that Barack Obama may bail out his cohort if he’s reelected this November. But with these funds come strings and that lack of flexibility will probably preclude O’Malley being able to make up the shortfalls with federal money next year.

Three years ago, Governor O’Malley called a Special Session to address this issue and its result was a number of tax increases which were supposed to correct the state’s structural deficit. However, the increase in the sales tax, cigarette tax, and a (since-repealed) “tech tax” on computer services were counterbalanced by a huge increase on spending which attempted to bring health insurance to thousands more Marylanders.

To the surprise of everyone – except those with a little bit of economic common sense – these new levies didn’t bring in as much money as the so-called experts predicted. In all that’s not so bad, but other previous taxes like property and real estate transfer taxes also declined. Making matters worse (but certainly not unexpected) is the outflow of capital due to the “millionaire’s tax” – again, from the Senate GOP Caucus:

According to an Associated Press article posted at Examiner.com, Montgomery County has experienced a 27% decline in tax returns from high income earners. This decline has contributed to a loss of $4.6 billion in taxable income: “County Executive Isiah Leggett says some wealthy residents who own homes in other states are establishing residency elsewhere. Officials believe the state’s millionaire tax is a factor.”

You think?

Unlike the perception progressives attempt to create about TEA Partiers as people who want to get government services without paying for them (a description more apt for Democrat voters,) most don’t mind paying a fair share in taxes. But what we want in return are efficient services which perform necessary functions, and too often we find that government at all levels fails to deliver on one or both sides of the equation.

If Martin O’Malley truly decided to live within his means, he would gain the intestinal fortitude to make cuts such as the insurance program he started. Obviously it’s a decision which affects a large number of people, but so would increasing taxes and fees. Raising the gas tax, for example, would disproportionately affect poor and middle-class Free Staters and rural residents like those on the Eastern Shore would pay more of a toll than city residents along the I-95 corridor.

One issue sure to come up in this year’s campaign will be fiscal accountability, and while Bob Ehrlich wasn’t the poster child for frugality the state was in much better financial shape when he left office than the potential mess he inherits should he be re-elected for a second, non-consecutive term.

Perhaps a solution would be to bring in some solid fiscal conservatives for the General Assembly in with Ehrlich, hopefully to keep his free-spending tendencies in check. Mark my words, if Martin O’Malley is reelected 2011 will be a rerun of 2007 – a session devoted to raising taxes and killing off whatever recovery the state is scratching out by then.

The case for an elected school board

Tomorrow the Wicomico County Council discusses the FY2011 county budget (as part of legislative session 2010-05.) Obviously a significant chunk of that budget will go to the county’s education funding and County Executive Richard Pollitt conceded “there’s no way” that Wicomico County will meet the state Maintenance of Effort requirements next year. It’s beyond questioning that money is going to be a contentious issue for those who were elected to take care of the budget.

However, the Wicomico County Board of Education (WCBOE) has come under some withering fire lately regarding the travel budget allotted to school personnel. Spearheaded by County Councilman Joe Holloway, this effort found the taxpayers were occasionally footing the bill for everything from meals at Hooters and Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse to the morning coffee at Wawa. While most of the expenditures were on the up-and-up, the attitude reflected by those who abused the process (and paid for the previously-charged expenditures out of their own pocket once it was learned Holloway was on the case) was that of an entitlement mentality.

As mentioned before on my website, the present FY2010 budget has been revised, but in essence only 54% of the budget was at stake – the 46% belonging to the WCBOE was practically untouchable due to state mandates.

It is my belief – a belief shared by a growing number of people – that Wicomico County is not well served by having an appointed school board in charge of holding the schools accountable to the taxpayers. All but a handful of Maryland counties have gone to an elected school board, and I think its long past time to adopt the same here.

As the system stands now, the seven appointed members of the WCBOE come into office via a process rife with the prospect of patronage. Until a change is made, there will always be at least three Republicans and three Democrats on the board, with the pivotal seventh vote awarded to the party whose candidate won the last race for governor. Thus, the first Democratic vacancy which occurred after Bob Ehrlich was sworn in back in 2003 was filled by a Republican and the first GOP vacancy after Martin O’Malley came into office in 2007 was filled by a Democrat. To be more proper, vacancies were filled from a list provided by the local Central Committee of the respective party (so as a member of the Central Committee I had influence on any board member replacing Republicans, except the first GOP vacancy became a Democrat seat.)

If you look at things on that level, it’s clear that Wicomico County may have preferred a 4-3 GOP split based on who they selected as governor since Bob Ehrlich carried Wicomico handily. But the decision was taken out of their hands based on the statewide vote.

While I take my job seriously as a member of the Central Committee, it seems to me that the input of selecting those who are responsible for running our schools should be at a much higher level than a seven- or nine-member body. And looking at things from a strictly partisan basis I understand there’s a risk the voters could select an even more partisan mix of 5-2 or 6-1 Democrats based on voter registration numbers. (While it’s likely the BOE would be a “non-partisan” race, certainly the Democrats will be recommending a slate of candidates as would the GOP.) Yet this also provides an opportunity for those who are politically unaffiliated to have a greater say in affairs as well.

People who are passionate about education tend to be the ones who want to see more local control of their schools. They join the PTA or volunteer in the classroom in order to do their part for the school community.

But the process as it stands now doesn’t necessarily reward these attributes. The folks in Annapolis don’t have much of a body of work to judge would-be BOE members on – usually it’s just a curriculum vitae and application. An electoral system could be set up to allow district representation, giving a person who’s known to the parents of a particular school a better opportunity to serve at a higher level.

In the end, though, it comes down to accountability. The system we have now doesn’t provide for enough, and moving to an elected school board would give the people of Wicomico County the final say on just how a board member is doing.

We can get the process started with leadership on County Council. They can pass a measure to put a referendum on the ballot this fall showing the amount of support there is for an elected school board. Once that passes (as I’m confident it would) then the General Assembly could act accordingly and pass the law allowing BOE elections to occur beginning with the next general election in 2012.

That’s the easy road. If County Council refuses to act, the ballot measure would have to be achieved via petition and getting signatures is a time-consuming process. We could also be at the mercy of outside events, as a 2001 petition drive was shelved in the wake of 9-11.

Joe Holloway is already on record as supporting an elected school board, so I call on his fellow Republicans to lead the way and allow thoughtful Democrats to follow behind if a veto override is needed. Once we get this on the ballot, at that point we can work on just how the transition would be achieved, the question of staggering board members’ terms, and the like. That’s actually fairly easy since we have a number of counties to view as models.

The hard part is getting there, so I encourage the County Council to start the process soon.

Count on a nosy government

Since 1790, every 10 years the federal government has come around to count every American in an effort to determine proportional representation. This is dictated by Article I, Section 2 of our Constitution and it’s one of the rare instances the Constitution has been rigidly followed throughout our 230-plus year history.

In March, most households will receive a fairly short form intended to provide the information the government needs to determine these Congressional districts. (Others get a longer form which asks a number of questions about living situation, income, and other personal items.) In either case, though, respondents are asked about much more than the number of people living in their dwelling.

Consider the 10-question short form most Americans will receive. While Question 1 seeks the essential information about how many occupy the subject’s residence, other questions on the short form ask about home ownership, gender, and race.

More importantly, the government database being created also has name, age, date of birth, and telephone number. While the Census Bureau vows that the information collected will be kept secure, one has to wonder just how private this information will remain in an age of hackers and identity theft. Remember, none of this information is truly necessary to achieve the mandated purpose of determining population numbers for proportional representation.

In truth, the Census facts and figures have grown to meet purposes far beyond the intentions of the Founding Fathers, just as the size and scope of the government they created has. According to the Census Bureau, the status of living arrangements is asked because the answers are, “used to administer housing programs and to inform planning decisions.” Similarly, the age and date of birth are used for, “forecasting the number of people eligible for Social Security or Medicare services,” and the gender question is asked because, “many federal programs must differentiate between males and females for funding, implementing, and evaluating their programs.”

But even the obvious reason for the decennial count has fallen prey to overt discrimination on the part of bureaucrats in Washington, for it’s not Question 1 which determines the proper number of representatives to Congress per state, but Question 9.

And what is Question 9? It asks the race of each person in the household, yet,”state governments use the data to determine congressional, state, and local voting districts.” So much for the colorblind society those in power claim they wish to create. Instead, these numbers are used to create monolithic voting districts which forever doom minorities to second-class status.

The Census Bureau website claims that the count is necessary because, “(e)ach question helps to determine how more than $400 billion will be allocated to communities across the country.” Their radio spots talk about the need to respond because otherwise we’d not know if a school grew enough for new classrooms or if a town needed a traffic signal. They conveniently forget, though, that there’s other less intrusive measures to come up with the appropriate figures. As always, it becomes a question of following the money.

It’s been said many times in several variants that, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” We see the results of pitting groups against one another – a weakening of freedom and an erosion of liberty.

In response, we should call on our leaders to return the Census to the noble purpose for which it was intended and not continue using it as the wedge it’s become. While it’s not advisable to ignore the Census, we should think twice about just what information we share with Washington.

Michael Swartz, an architect and writer who lives in rural Maryland, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

Yes, I’m serious – when the form comes I’m only answering Question 1 (and Lord help the person responsible if they send me the American Community Survey.) This cleared LFS back on February 18 and was featured in at least one small paper up in Minnesota.

Friday night videos episode 24

After a week off to recharge the batteries, FNV is back with a good mix of politics and music once again.

Health care continues to be a sore subject in Congress. But while Democrats used the sob story to make their point yesterday, our side adds some facts to the emotion. This comes from the fine folks of Americans for Prosperity:

As I often ask, which Americans are against prosperity?

The health-care summit yesterday was a dud; then again that was the expectation from Republicans like Rep. Michele Bachmann. From the Washington News-Observer:

And the National Republican Congressional Committee added a dash of humor to the “Blair House Project”:

Yet there is other news on the conservative front as well. Last week over 70 conservative leaders got together to sign the Mount Vernon Statement. Here’s what I thought of it
but the players had their say as well. Again from WNO:

Nor have they forgotten foreign policy. Our best UN Ambassador in recent times spoke to WNO about his thoughts on the Obama relationship with the world.

If you follow me on Facebook you know what I’m usually doing Sunday nights at 9:00 – listening to Local Produce on the radio. This remake of “The Legend of Wooley Swamp” (originally done by the Charlie Daniels Band) is done by one of the co-hosts, Bob Daigle, and a couple of his friends. He definitely has an interesting YouTube channel!

The second of two music videos tonight is fresh stuff I recorded last Saturday at the Brumbley Haiti benefit. The sound quality is markedly better, and not just because Not My Own played well. Maybe I’m finally getting this video recording stuff!

That’s a wrap for another version of Friday night videos – hope you enjoyed it!

Rutledge gives his report

I’ve given quite a bit of attention to U.S. Senate candidate Dr. Eric Wargotz of late, but there’s others in the race – I’m particularly interested in finding out more about former Delegate Carmen Amedori.

But the other day I received my first “Rutledge Report” in my mailbox and one passage jumped out at me:

In (the) 1920s President Harding faced unemployment numbers doubling from 2.1 million to 4.9 million, excessive governmental interference in the market creating a 24% plunging gross national product, and $25B national debt. By taking a hard stance, he reduced government spending in half, cut taxes, and watched unemployment numbers drop to a low of 1.8% in 1926. (Not-So-Great Depression by Jim Powell.)

Today we face similar problems the country faced at the beginning of Harding’s administration. Unfortunately Congress continues to pass legislation creating more government jobs, increasing the national debt and the burden on tax payers. Businesses have frozen plans for growth because the uncertainty of future costs of hiring an individual.

We need to follow Harding’s example. To create jobs and reduce unemployment we must take two simultaneous steps NOW: cut taxes and cut government spending! We can kick-start the economy by abolishing the capital gains tax and the inheritance tax. This will keep the money in the hands of the consumers and businesses giving them the freedom to choose their own path forward. A simultaneous cut in government spending, and not just a freeze, will free-up revenue to pay off the ever growing national debt.

The road ahead is tough and Americans do not back down from challenges! Now is the time for action – cut taxes and cut spending. Place into office candidates willing to lead Americans down the tough road. We can and will get through this together.

While I admire the Senatorial candidate giving a little love to one of my home state’s native sons, perhaps he needs a little bit better research. President Harding died in 1923, so Calvin Coolidge became President. Coolidge served out the remainder of Harding’s term and won election in his own right in 1924, pounding Democrat John Davis and Progressive Party candidate Robert LaFollette by securing over 54% of the vote. (This was back when the colors were proper too as this electoral map shows.)

Anyway, those policies began by Harding were continued by “Silent Cal” and some of this prescription could be enacted today. The biggest difference, though, is that the federal government of Harding’s era didn’t have nearly the entitlements our modern day government has – these Republicans has no Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid to deal with (let alone legions of regulators in a number of agencies.) The Washington of the 1920’s was still a sleepy Southern town.

But we can and should cut spending and taxes. The Americans of the roaring ’20’s enjoyed great economic prosperity, at least until the stock market crash in 1929 (essentially, a price bubble similar to that in real estate or dot-com stocks.) What turned a simple market correction into a depression, though, was enacting the steep Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930.

The current set of economic doldrums can be traced in part to a different sort of government intervention and lack of oversight as Democrats prevented a probe of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac several years ago. Once the housing bubble burst, our financial house of cards tumbled down and government overspending has been of little help in resolving the problem.

So why not harken back to Harding for solutions? Just stay away from influence-peddling (as in the Teapot Dome scandal) and things could be all right.

AFP has ‘action packed’ meeting

Tonight, Julie Brewington was speaking to “my favorite people in the world.” I presume that comes after her family, but that was how she opened up the February meeting of Wicomico County’s Americans for Propsperity chapter.

Now that the group had a regular meeting date and location, over 60 attendees had the opportunity to hear a number of speakers in a briskly moving program. One thing the group wasn’t going to do, though, was send a bus to tomorrow’s Blair House meeting even though the national AFP was protesting at the site.

Yet, noted Julie, “if it weren’t for us, health care would’ve passed in June.” Our focus, though, was going to shift a bit to more local issues since “the only votes that matter are at the city, county, and state level” in 2010. “We have power in local issues,” added Julie later.

The two most immediate concerns were finding volunteers to attend city and county council meetings and helping to organize the Salisbury TEA Party April 15 – we need people with “organizational skills.”

The meeting was then turned over to a number of speakers, first up being Ed Urban representing the Wicomico Youth and Civic Center. He started right out by saying he approached the county years ago with the suggestion that these operations be run like a business and they put him in charge of doing so.

Deftly keeping the conversation away from the recent purchase of five acres to expand the Civic Center’s parking lot (better known to my readers as Pollitt’s Folly) Urban instead spoke about the economic impact the WYCC creates along with other aspects of the county’s tourism, parks, and recreation programs.

The tourism department combined with the Civic Center creates $20 million in “rollover” economic impact. The county’s tourism bureau is supported by a room tax of 6 percent, with 2/3 going to pay for tourism programs and 1/6 to help the WYCC. Parks and recreation essentially support themselves through user fees, with the only county fiscal input being that of paying for the administrators.

But Wicomico County still has to subsidize the Civic Center to the tune of around $227,000 a year (averaged over the last three years.) The Civic Center “can be profitable,” Urban stated, but in order to be so the prohibition on alcohol sales there would have to be lifted. He noted that the site was originally slated to be a ballpark for local children, but that was built elsewhere – yet the no-alcohol clause remained.

Urban concluded his remarks by finally addressing the parking issue, saying that the County Council saw the need for additional parking; the only question was cost. There are only 900 spaces on the Civic Center lot, and any event where more than 2,250 attend would require more space. The developers who owned the land the county bought were threatening to charge $10,000 per month rent. (I’d have called their bluff, figuring that $1.5 million is 150 months’ rent.)

I asked Urban about the lifespan of the arena, given that many similar facilities only last 40 to 50 years. Urban thought that with proper maintenance the design was such that it could last several more decades – he “doesn’t see a 40 to 50 year lifespan.”

Speaking for the opposition, County Councilman Joe Holloway then briefly recounted his reasoning for voting against the purchase. It was “not a wise choice” for a number of reasons; in particular he again criticized the county’s method of land acquisition. Joe also noted the real cost to taxpayers would be $2.6 million when improvements are figured in.

Holloway also warned us that “we’re in trouble” financially because of what’s brewing in Annapolis.

John Palmer, president of the local group VOICE, spoke next. After vowing that “we will be going down to the Civic Center” and analyzing their finances, he got to the root of his presentation. In polling the audience and soliciting what we thought key problems were, the consensus was that Wicomico County didn’t spend money wisely – “unnecessary personnel” and an out-of-control Board of Education seemed to get much of the blame.

We could vote the people in charge out, but that would involve getting good people elected and those are tough to find. Instead, the approach VOICE is taking is that of petitioning for redress – “if you take control of the checkbook I guarantee things will straighten out in the county,” Palmer asserted.

The group has two ideas it would like to bring to voters: one is a prohibition on land acquisition and capital projects without the approval of county voters, and the other is reducing the number on County Council from seven to five by eliminating the two at-large posts.

Personally I don’t care for either idea.

In considering the capital improvements proposal, it seems to me that we have a representative government for a reason. While the idea of a referendum for capital improvements seems excellent in the wake of Pollitt’s Folly, the truth is that this would cripple county government’s ability to act in a timely manner. In addition, there would be the expense of frequent elections to consider as the county buys land and improves property on a regular basis.

As far as the changeover from seven County Council members to five, I don’t see where we save all that much in that the duplicity of services we already have would still exist. Obviously there’s a small savings in salaries, but I prefer the idea of having three Council members at my beck and call (my district plus two at-large) rather than one. The chances of having someone who agrees with my point politically are exponentially better this way, although I admit that since Joe Holloway happens to be my district councilman I have a pretty good advocate of my point of view already.

Palmer’s second-in-command, Johnnie Miller, spoke next – but on a completely different subject. He updated us on legislation he and Palmer have authored called the “Green Watt Program.” Based on a program in Tuscon, Arizona, this voluntary program would create a fund to promote energy efficiency. Miller noted Delaware pays a much larger share of costs for renewable energy projects; up to $31,500 for residential and $250,000 for commercial.

But one commentor made the point about government subsidy, and I think it’s a valid point. While it’s Miller’s business to promote solar panels and the like, it’s obvious that people would likely go another route for energy usage if this subsidy in Delaware (where Miller does most of his business) didn’t exist. Obviously Johnnie means well with his proposal, but if this were done by General Electric or some other large corporation we’d call it rentseeking.

Nick Loffer, representing the state AFP, began his remarks by quoting Governor O’Malley from late 2007 – “we passed a fair, long term solution to our budget problems.” Uuuuhhh, no.

His time at the podium was spent alerting us to the fact that the hearing on the Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act (BRFA for short – SB141 to the General Assembly) occurs Wednesday, March 3rd at noon and there would be a bus for those interested in attending the hearing or even testifying. (The bus would leave Salisbury around 9:30 a.m.)

“This is our chance to stop the budget,” opined Nick, otherwise, “a vote for this budget is a vote to raise taxes in 2011.”

Salisbury News blogger Joe Albero was next, and although I found his remarks may have been a bit self-serving he made some valid points. (Perhaps he underestimates the impact other blogs have on the conversation.)

One thing I found interesting – albeit anecdotal, of course – was his claim that Rick Pollitt said, “Joe, that will never happen” when asked if taxpayers would be paying for additional Civic Center parking at the Old Mall site. At the time, a land swap was discussed.

Having gone to Annapolis to watch testimony on sex offender legislation, Albero observed, “things are no different in Annapolis” than they are here. “I could do this (be a Delegate or local legislator),” Joe continued, but “I’m only one voice (out of many).” As commenters on his site, “we have an incredible impact on local government.”

“Things are turning around for the better,” said Joe, but we need to stay united. He relayed the fact that General Assembly Republicans had put up a budget alternative saving almost $830 million, including over $2 million just by putting a salary cap on state officials so none made more than the governor’s $150,000 salary.

The last of the slated speakers was Salisbury City Councilman Debbie Campbell, who told us “really important things were going on” in Salisbury. Mainly she decried a lack of accountability on the part of the city, and spoke of two egregious examples.

The city of Salisbury has accepted a dump truck and is using it – unfortunately they haven’t officially allocated the money to pay for it yet. And if that’s not bad enough, the Council president contracted for and signed two change orders for a $1.8 million housing project called “The Bricks” by claiming City Council approval when she had none, charged Campbell.

In all, said Debbie, the Council was “running roughshod” over taxpaying citizens, and she begged those attending, “please show up and support us.” Joe Collins later intoned that, “we’re lucky to have Debbie Campbell” on Salisbury’s City Council and as an AFP supporter.

Returning to the podium, Julie Brewington talked briefly about the issue of infiltration – the TEA Party movement was so successful that the opposition isn’t ignoring it anymore but trying to destroy it from within. She mentioned the ersatz Tea Party in Nevada, which gave me the opportunity to enlighten the group on the particulars of the situation.

Another observer, S.J. Disharoon, spoke about the lack of dialogue at Salisbury City Council meetings and thought we as a group should press for a rules change to allow more opportunity for the public to interact in a timely manner, not just after all is said and done.

G.A. Harrison related his recent experience with the GOP Central Committee regarding something he found offensive and told those gathered a Republican “has to earn your vote…Conservatives need to take back the GOP.” I agree!

Finally, Bob Harris brought up the two ways a referendum can get on the ballot – either by petition or by vote of the County Council. He encouraged the County Council (since Joe Holloway was still present) to put two items on the ballot – one for disclosure of members of a LLC which does business with the county and the other to start the process of getting an elected school board, to which Joe Holloway replied he “fully supports” an elected board of education too.

These meetings generally turn out to be rather long and a lot is said. But they’re really worth the time to cover because I feel that most of my readership has been crying for leadership on these and other issues and the AFP is attempting to provide it on a nonpartisan basis.

Vote on the Contract FROM America

Earlier today I commented on the newly-minted Mount Vernon Statement, which to me is a noble gesture but seems to fall short on actionable items. After all, most conservatives are America-first, limited-government types who simply want Washington to get out of their way and allow America to continue to be the greatest country on earth – the “shining city on a hill” as it were.

In 1994 Newt Gingrich took similar principles and, with the help of dedicated conservatives, created the Contract With America for Republicans seeking seats in the House of Representatives. The success was obvious as the GOP took over the House for the first time in 40 years and all but one of the ten principles spelled out had some kind of Congressional action (term limits being the exception.) By nationalizing the election, Gingrich and his allies created the impetus for voters to look beyond their district and support a principle of governance.

This time, Newt is a bit of a Johnny-come-lately to the game, and it’s a coalition of conservative groups (including a large number of TEA Party organizers) which are spearheading the effort. And instead of a select cadre determining each planks, this contract is based on input from the grassroots. Ten of these 22 planks will be inserted into the Contract From America.

DEMAND A BALANCED BUDGET: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike.

STOP THE TAX HIKES: Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to income, capital gains, and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011.

COMMIT TO REAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY: Every bill, in its final form, will be made public seven days before any vote can be taken and all government expenditures authorized by any bill will be easily accessible on the Internet before the money is spent.

PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.

PASS REAL HEALTHCARE REFORM: Greatly improve affordability of health insurance by permitting all Americans access to all health insurance plans sold anywhere in the United States through the purchase of insurance across state lines and allow small businesses and associations to pool together across state lines to buy insurance.

ENACT FUNDAMENTAL TAX REFORM: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the Internal Revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words—the length of the original Constitution.

END RUNAWAY GOVERNMENT SPENDING: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.

LET US SAVE: Allow all Americans to opt out of Social Security and Medicare and instead put those same payroll taxes in a personal account they own, control, and can leave to whomever they choose.

PROTECT INTERNET FREEDOM: No regulation or tax on the Internet.

GIVE PARENTS MORE CHOICES IN THE EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN: Improve American education by reforming the broken federal role through eliminating ineffective and wasteful programs, giving parents more choices from pre-school to high school, and improving the affordability of higher education.

PASS AN ‘ALL OF THE ABOVE’ ENERGY POLICY: Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition.

PROTECT FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: Prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from using funds to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in any form, including requiring “localism” or “diversity” quotas.

RESTORE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY & CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states.

PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS: Block state and local governments that receive federal grants from exercising eminent domain over private property for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues.

REJECT CAP & TRADE: Prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures.

STOP THE PORK: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the process is fully transparent, including requiring a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark.

NO CZAR REGULATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION: All “lawmaking” regulations must be affirmatively approved by Congress and signed into law by the president, as the Constitution requires for all laws.

AUDIT THE FED: Begin an audit of the Federal Reserve System.

NO MORE BAILOUTS: The federal government should not bail out private companies and should immediately begin divesting itself of its stake in the private companies it owns from recent bailouts.

STOP CAREER POLITICIANS & CURB LOBBYIST POWER: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require Congressional term limits. No person shall be elected to the Senate more than twice or to the House of Representatives more than four times.

SUNSET REGULATIONS: All regulations will be “sunset” after ten years unless renewed by Congressional vote.

LET US WATCH: Broadcast all non-security meetings and votes on C-SPAN and the Internet.

Talk about your tough choices! Most of the lot is good, but right off the top I would say that items 7, 20, and 21 would be my favorites.

Number 7 is a slightly adapted form of TABOR laws, with TABOR standing for Taxpayers’ Bill Of Rights. This provides for necessary increases in government but not excessive ones. Yes, there is the weakness of not requiring cuts which should be made (since the natural tendency would be to budget to within a gnat’s eyelash of the limit) but the principle is sound.

I would only change number 20 to a 12+12 rule (6 House terms and 2 Senate terms.) However, the one thing missing from this plank is to restore the states’ voice in the process by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment. The idea of popular election of Senators has shifted the balance in Congress and federalized the government, when the intent was to create tension between states and Washington.

Number 21 might just have been my suggestion from three years ago, back when I did my ’50 year plan’ series. My argument now is the same as it was then – if Congress is busy justifying the renewal of old laws, they may be too busy to think of new ones.

I could probably vote for 10, but it’s likely I’ll only vote for a few to strengthen their position. Bullet voting may be a good practice in this case. In any case, here’s a chance for the people to decide what they think is most important and what they’ll vote to change come November.

On the Mount Vernon Statement

Every so often I suppose society feels the need to reinvent the wheel.

Much has been made of the recent resurgence of conservatism as a counterpoint to the statism being foisted upon us by those in power in Congress and the White House. In this instance, President Obama is just the head of the tiger but as a whole it remains a dangerous creature. Responding to this threat is a loose confederation of TEA Partiers who remain leaderless by instinct or by choice; regardless their influence has been credited with stopping the march leftward and winning elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

One thing they have not been is – for the most part – a creature of Beltway conservatives. But, in their effort to create order where they see chaos, a group of Washington-based organizational leaders got together to create the Mount Vernon Statement. They see this as a necessary update on the Sharon Statement William F. Buckley and a small group of like-minded conservatives put together a half-century ago.

But it’s interesting to see where the conservative movement has gone in the interceding fifty years. A brief history sees that it influenced Republican politics to one degree or another, but it hasn’t always been successful in convincing the American people of its merits. Barry Goldwater was a disciple, but he was shellacked in the 1964 election. (One caveat is that this occurred less than a year after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, so LBJ could burnish Kennedy’s memory as needed. A little-known fact about JFK’s trip to Texas was that he was worried about re-election and wanted to shore up his base.)

With the possible exception of Reagan, it seems Republican presidents who have ran and won as staunch conservatives moderated to various degrees upon taking office. Nixon started the Environmental Protection Agency and installed disastrous wage and price freezes for a time to combat inflation. George H.W. Bush told us to “read my lips” but knuckled under to Congressional Democrats who promised him spending cuts if he’d raise taxes – only Bush kept his end of the bargain. His son George W. Bush cut taxes but expanded the federal role in education with No Child Left Behind and created a new entitlement program with Medicare Part D.

In my lifetime, we’ve never had a conservative President and Congress simultaneously who have truly acted in concert to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Consequently, we’ve never had a populace who’s seen the principles in the Mount Vernon Statement (or the Sharon Statement for that matter) put into action.

Yet Presidents when inaugurated don’t swear their fealty to any statement but to uphold the Constitution, which brings me back to the idea I began with of reinventing the wheel.

I have the utmost respect for those who put together the Mount Vernon Statement, just as I do William F. Buckley and those who participated in crafting the Sharon Statement. But in neither case did they pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor as our Founding Fathers did when they declared their independence from the Crown and later wrote the document our system of government is based upon.

A lot changes in fifty years, and even that is miniscule compared to changes in the whole of our rich history. While Buckley and his cohorts were rightfully concerned with the Communist threat from outside our borders, today we face the danger of statism from within our seat of government. More troubling is that neither political party is immune to causing the backslide toward tyranny to continue.

Instead of trying to restate the Constitution to the issues of today, we may need to work all the way back to a new revolution – a revolution which begins at the ballot box in November and continues through 2012. Obviously a Congress dominated by conservatives won’t get a lot past a statist President unless they can achieve a majority able to override his vetoes, and the situation with Senate elections makes that impossible to achieve. Even if Republicans achieved an unprecendented miracle sweep of every Senate seat available this year they wouldn’t even have a clotureproof majority – it would be 59-41 GOP.

Luckily in this case we don’t have foreign soldiers protecting the Crown, but this revolution won’t be swift nor will it be easy. The battle continues for the hearts and minds of America, and the future of the Republic depends on our success.