Supreme Court of Last Resort?

Like a lot of us, I was sure the Supreme Court would make a favorable ruling on the Affordable Health Care case and render the whole thing unconstitutional.  Sadly, that didn’t happen.  I never actually read the act so I’m not sure why I thought it would be overturned.  I guess that NOT reading thing is a failing we all suffer from.

With regard to the Court’s ruling, the two sides can argue about the motivation of Justice Roberts and the merits of the health care statute till the cows come home but the fact remains until the thing is repealed it is the law of the land.

In the legislative arena we see majority parties jam through bad laws every day; whether it’s a state legislature or the US Congress, the majority rules.  I don’t remember which pundit said it but I have to agree that the laws passed by a majority don’t make them fair or just or right but they are legal. The recourse is to amend or repeal them. 

And, whining seldom changes a thing.  For all the years that the Democrats ran roughshod over the state of Wisconsin the Republicans had to take it.  That was just the way it was. 

Then, the tide turned and the remaining Democrats had to taste a little of their own medicine. 

Needless to say payback’s a bitch.  Interestingly though when they were getting their lunch handed to them, instead of gracefully taking it, they bolted the legislature to prevent the Republican majority from voting on legislation they disagreed with.  A very childish response revealing something about their character but again, whining doesn’t change a thing but it can make you look really stupid.

In all my years in government I have been a champion of process.  Reliable, predictable process is what makes the system work.

In the case of the Obamacare Affordable Healthcare Law the Democrats held a super-majority in both houses of the Congress so they didn’t have to follow the normal process prescribed by their “rules” because they were able to “suspend the rules” when it suited their needs.  The two thousand six hundred page law was drafted outside of the normal process and the substance was never debated in any committees so when the whole thing was engrossed for approval very few people knew what actually was in it.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi was crowing at the microphone prior to the House vote, “We have to approve the bill before we can find out what’s in the bill.”  And all the Democrats were actually onboard with her?  What’s with that?

Maybe they did know what was in it and knew of the firestorm that would follow if it were exposed in public.  So they consciously demonstrated a willingness to subvert the process and deceive the country with their supposed ignorance rather than taking the heat of the normal public process.  Those House members who supported that action should have been vilified publicly at the least and thrown out of office at the first opportunity.

From a process standpoint that should be a fatal flaw.  Not so much a Constitutional flaw but clear sign of bad faith government.

So here we are, the court has let stand one of the worst laws ever passed by the Congress.  In the Majority Opinion, Chief Justice Roberts tries to clarify that the Court’s job is not to invalidate bad legislation because it’s bad, but to determine the Constitutionality of the legislation.  In a very carefully worded opinion the Court ruled that most of the law would survive. 

Bummer!

It would have been so simple for the court to overturn the law and send it back to the Congress for a “do over” but it didn’t happen.  And in spite of the fact that I would have preferred that outcome the “process guy” in me knew the only real resolution for bad law is to amend it or repeal it in the same venue as it was created.

If we rally the troops to elect Republicans this fall, what exactly will our healthcare bill look like?  In the past two years the Republican majority in the House has held a bunch of hearings and voted on more than one healthcare bill that died in the Senate.  So do they have one they are willing to fall on their sword for?

Republicans need to articulate what Healthcare Reform looks like for them since the Democrats have their deal on the table.  Complaining about bad legislation is not a substitution for a better alternative. 

We need to elect enough members to both the House of Representatives and the Senate to send a bill the new President that will accomplish what we wanted the court to do.

I hope we’re up to the task.

Why is Covering the Spread So Important?

So I’m watching my friends on FOX News this afternoon and they were talking about an Auburn University basketball player suspected of point shaving.  One of the panelists asked about why it was such a big deal and Sheppard Smith made it sound as though something important was on the line when what is really on the line is the integrity of sports betting.

For many years the government prohibited sports betting on college sports but relaxed the regulation because of pressure from some high level interest group; I would imagine.

I would imagine it was the sports gambling industry.

So except for the gambling aspect, what is the big deal?  If a player by intention doesn’t play as hard as he normally does and his team suffers, the coach sits him on the bench or releases him from the team.  A coach’s job might be on the line for losing but federal authorities should never be involved.

We have a possible FBI investigation for a college basketball player supposedly failing to score up to his average when in neither of the games cited was the Auburn team favored to win so shaving wouldn’t be an issue unless the underdog was supposed to cover the spread and the shave was to prevent it.

If there is this kind of attention paid to college sports because of gambling, take the incentive off the table by reinstituting the ban on betting!  The government shouldn’t have a reason to investigate college athletics, there are too many other places where they should be focusing their investigations.  Lets’ get them working on the important stuff.

A Toast to the New Year

As 2011 comes to an end I can’t help but look back and wonder where it went.  It seems like just last month that we started the year anew, and like last week that football season started.  And yet, both are about over with neither ending particularly well.

I’ve come to the conclusion that the older you get, the faster time (seems to) passes.  I know, science taught me that all days are about twenty four hours in length, but the hours of daylight and dark change every day so we often characterize the days as getting longer or shorter as the seasons change.  Similarly, my older friends (and I) think the days just fly by while my grand sons complain about how time drags.

Since I am only 61, going on 62, I’ve got to wonder what it’s like for someone in their eighties.  Just visualize the hands on our life clock spinning faster and faster.  Finally, out of control, then exploding at the end with springs and gears spread around the room like shrapnel.  Time runs out and another old guy bites the dust.

It was four years ago today that my old dad’s time ran out.  It doesn’t feel like four years have passed but the calendar says otherwise.  It’s not that I dwell on it because I don’t.  He lived a great life and if you can have a good death, he did.  Right up to a couple days prior to his passing, he was alert and interacting with family and friends.  He was eighty-two years old; how could anyone complain about that?  I think about him often.

As January approaches I look forward to a new beginning like my old dad looked for new life in his flower beds.  Not that he ever planted one himself since he was not a gardener like others in the family. But, he was so optimistic every January because in spite of last year’s hardships new life popped up in the new year.  He really believed the new year signaled a rebirth with unlimited possibilities.

So, I’m looking for the crocuses in the garden pushing their way up through often frozen dirt symbolizing the positive outlook of a new year; bursting forth in all their glory announcing to everyone “it’s great to be alive!”  I’ll drink to that!  Here’s to a much better 2012!

Is Slashing Defense our Best Choice?

Facing the possibility of seriously cutting the Defense Budget, maybe we should think about withdrawing our military forces from bases located in foreign countries? Wouldn’t we save a bundle if we didn’t have our forces spread around the world? Considering the way many of them feel about us, pulling out seems like a win/win for everyone; right? How many of the host countries celebrate our presence on their soil?

I am not advocating that we withdraw our forces, quite to the contrary, but shouldn’t we think about it? Doesn’t it make sense that we reaffirm that assumptions regarding our national interests made many years ago have not changed? At the same time, our supposed allies can reconfirm that our presence is advantageous and desirable to them as well or maybe not.

We pay a lot to have a military presence in many of these countries which enables the host countries to allocate a much smaller portion of their own budgets for their own defense and military while substantially increasing our cost. Keep in mind that the cost is not just measured in monetary form; our military forces are made up from millions of young Americans that we ask to go in harms way to protect freedom around the world. Maybe I would feel different if our treaty partners asked their own kids to make the same sacrifice.

Since the European economy is significant, aren’t they capable of paying for their own forces? So what portion of our cost to protect their interests do they pay?

If they beefed up their own forces, couldn’t we support them from bases on American soil? And while we’re at it, who are we protecting the Europeans from? Since we already let almost every European country into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) aren’t they all our allies now? So who is the threat? Since we didn’t let the Russians in, they must be the threat along with China since nobody else has the ability to project force significantly beyond their own borders.

Besides America, who funds NATO?  Besides America, whose forces constitute the muscle of NATO? Without America, what happens to political stability in Europe if we pull out of NATO?

What happens if we give NATO a notice of intent to reduce participation over the next five or ten years?

The same questions could be asked about mutual defense treaties between America and a bunch of Asian countries like Korea, Taiwan, Japan and the Philippines. 

If we closed American bases in all those foreign countries, what would happen besides our Defense Budget going down? Or, would it go down? Would the world become less safe if the United States of America did not have bases in all these places supplemented by a Navy that patrols international waters around the globe? Isn’t that an important consideration?

How would a withdrawal of American forces affect the aggressive tendencies of countries wanting to have a louder voice in international politics?

When you get right down to it, isn’t our military presence around the world the only reason things are as safe as they are? What is that worth to our allies and ultimately to our own people? Shouldn’t we be asking that question?

If our Army had not driven Iraq out of Kuwait when Saddam Hussein invaded in 1990, what would the Middle East look like today? If our troops weren’t stationed in Saudi Arabia, would Iraq have control of all their oil too? How would that affect our national strategic interests or more importantly, how would it affect our NATO allies? Would a Middle East controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood be a threat to Great Britain,France or Germany?

What would those countries have done had we held back and done nothing in 1990?

Consider the plight of Israel. If our forces were not in close proximity to that country, what do you suspect would happen to them? The fact that they are allowed to have nuclear weapons means they will put up a good fight if they are attacked, but there is not much protecting them from an increasingly hostile Middle East.

The lessons we learned over the years taught us that it is easier to defend our own shores if we maintain a presence in those foreign countries. If we prevent destabilization of our “allies” they are more likely to actually be allies.

There are good reasons for America to have presence in all these far off foreign countries, both tactical and strategic. I’ve listened to the rationale from knowledgeable retired Army officers I respect so I don’t doubt that we need to keep our forces in place, the problem is that not everyone shares my concern about the intent of many of our supposed allies and clearly many of the countries that would benefit if we failed.

So is slashing Defense our best choice as we work to balance our budget? I’m concerned that many in our own country are prepared to find out the hard way.

Dana Campaign Suspended!

On the occasion of the Memorial Day holiday, we reflect on the sacrifices made by Americans for Americans. We are somber in the realization that even though it was never their intent when they volunteered to serve, many gave their lives to preserve the freedom and liberty our country symbolizes for not just our own citizens, but for the world.

The battle for freedom and liberty rages on many fronts. Certainly our armed forces carry on the fight when they take up guns and march off to war, but in the modern age, the external forces aligned against freedom and liberty are matched by the insidious “evils” of liberal progressivism that attack our national values from within.

It is absolutely imperative that Americans who value our heritage step up to counter those evils by serving in any capacity, in any position that will offer a more desirable option than the left leaning drivel that steadily strips our property rights and our will and ability to defend our freedom from excessive government.

I have been a participant in that effort for more than twenty years through service to my community. I have been an elected official and a volunteer in my city. I have been a candidate for County Council and until today, I was a candidate for the House of Representatives running with Shahram Hadian against Hans Dunshee.

Circumstances in my life have changed recently and after substantial consideration, I have determined that I cannot continue with a campaign while taking care of my family obligations. To that end, I am compelled to abandon this legislative campaign.

Hopefully, by making the decision at this point in the campaign calendar, it will allow others to get into the race or for supporters to get behind Shahram. There is no doubt that replacing Hans Dunshee should be a high priority for voters in the 44th district and to the degree that I can, I will campaign to achieve that end.

It has been an honor to serve in the past and if it is meant to be, I will again. I am grateful for the support I have received and the confidence shown by so many that have offered to help in the campaign. I appreciate the efforts of Whitney Roulstone in particular who has served as my campaign manager.

I look forward to working to elect Republicans that will actually follow conservative principles. Too many talk the talk without substance. We need to demonstrate to voters that Republicans are more than cheap conversation through proactively articulating our plan. Elected officials need to be accountable for the regulatory failures that plague our country. If we insist on passing laws, we need to enforce them or repeal them.

Thank you for allowing me to be your advocate.

Vigilance and Dedication

This election year marks the first time in recent history where mainstream Americans have actually felt the sense of urgency to change government many of us have had for many years.  Loss of homes, jobs and savings will do that. 

Federal bail-outs for fat cats at the expense of mainstream Americans highlight the corruptness of a system out of control.  The failure of either political party to demonstrate restraint in spending has eroded confidence that they are capable of doing so.  Americans have seen their government collecting and spending record levels of tax dollars with no end in sight with little consideration to the return on our investment.

“Among a people generally corrupt liberty cannot long exist.” -  Edmund Burke

Failure to follow the Constitution is even more discouraging.

The fact that citizens had faith that their elected officials shared their values lulled them into a false sense of security.  Inattention allowed the government to steadily erode our liberty and our property rights, but more importantly government has been undermined by questionable ethics and morality and certainly a lack of religious faith.

The idea that the government can solve all our problems has conned us into allowing government to take over our lives.  The “welfare state” is on the threshold of enslaving our country.

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”  -  Alexis de Tocqueville

Bureaucracies have mushroomed at every level of government in the name of progress.  At the same time, you have to wonder what contribution those bureaucracies make to the quality of service or product delivered.  What contribution does the Department of Education make to the quality of education?  How does the Department of Health and Human Services improve your health?  How about the Departments of Energy, Interior or Agriculture?  The list goes on and on.  The bureaucracies consume billions and billions of our tax dollars without actually delivering a quantifiable service to any of us.  Certainly these federal agencies are guilty, but state versions are no less so.

“Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.”  -  Alexis de Tocqueville

The downturn in the economy has been devastating to many, but in spite of the damage done the resultant exposure of flaws in government systems, policies and laws may turn out to be a rare opportunity to redefine government priorities both at a national and state level.  We can re-establish public policy based upon Conservative values widely shared by most Americans rather than liberal progressive values that are bankrupting our country stripping away our American identity.  In this case the lesson we must learn is that without vigilance and dedication to preserving our liberty on an everyday basis, our liberty is at risk.

“But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.”  -  Edmund Burke

We need to have elected officials who are proud to be Americans and are willing to fight for the Constitution of the United States.

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”  -  Ronald Reagan

We have the opportunity in this election cycle to change our representatives to more accurately reflect the values of most Americans; values like smaller government and lowering the federal deficit, but more importantly values of a moral and ethical government guided by our faith in God regardless of religion. 

“The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.”  -  Alexis de Tocqueville

Separation of church and state does not mean elimination of faith as a driving force of our government.

“Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.”  -  Ronald Reagan

At the end of the day, Vigilance by every citizen will be the only protection for the American way of life as visualized by the founders. 

“All that’s necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.”  -  Edmund Burke

Rick Larsen “Leading us to Ruin”

I received an electronic newsletter today from Congressman Rick Larsen telling me how he was looking out for my interests by voting on various bills before the congress. It occurred to me that what we really need is elected officials that look out for our interests before the crisis rather than after the crisis.

My number one priority is creating jobs and restoring fiscal responsibility so we can create an economic environment that will grow and support good jobs well into the future.

But if we want to build a foundation for future economic growth, it is critical that we change the underlying rules that helped to create the recession in the first place. A failure to act will merely set us up for another economic disaster.

That is why Congress must pass legislation to end the Era of Big Bank Bailouts.

Two years after the economy collapsed, we continue to uncover shocking new details about the risky practices and reckless behavior of Big Banks that cost Americans trillions of dollars in retirement, college savings and financial security.

Congressman Larsen should tell us specifically what he recommends we do proactively to change our government so us regular folks are better protected from perils like this one. The proposal before the congress has many regulatory changes; which ones in particular does he think change things for the better? If creating jobs and restoring fiscal responsibility are his number one priority, how would passing the Dodd Bill make that happen?

The “underlying rules that helped create the recession” have been in place for a long time. What effort did Congressman Larsen make to safeguard us during his ten years in office?

What exactly is Mr. Larsen or for that matter any of our elected officials doing to solve the significant problems that are spiraling out of control already but are not at crisis proportions yet?

Many of us regular folks have known for a long time that the banking regulations were not protecting us consumers, but Congressman Larsen wasn’t fighting for banking regulations until after the collapse. What kind of leadership is that? We need leaders who are out in front the issues, preventing a crisis, not responding after the fact.

Mr. Larsen would have us believe that big banks are the problem. So what legislation did he propose that would change banking regulations to protect us?

There is a current outcry about the Arizona governor’s decision to sign legislation from the Arizona Legislature requiring that Arizona law enforcement agencies enforce state and federal immigration laws in Arizona. As elected officials in that state, they were bound by their oath of office to enforce the laws, to protect and defend the people of their state. How could that be a bad thing?

So Congressman Larsen tell us what you think Immigration Policy should be! If you think law enforcement agencies will have to do illegal profiling, how do you propose they identify illegal aliens without it? Tell us specifically what you think about this issue? Should we be securing the border? How should we secure the border? Are Mexicans the biggest threat we face from an unsecured border? How should we deal with the millions of Mexicans (and others) living in the U.S. who have come across the border illegally? Do you support deportation or amnesty?

So Congressman Larsen tell us what you think about the explosion on the drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico that is currently creating an environmental crisis in that region? What should government’s responsibility be in the aftermath? Should we suspend all off-shore drilling? Have we learned anything from this experience so far? Do we need more or different regulations?

Every elected official in the land should be advocating we enforce the laws on the books today. If there are laws that jeopardize our well-being and you are doing nothing to change them, we should assume you are in agreement with them. Not serving on a particular committee is not an acceptable answer to inaction!

During his ten years in congress, what exactly did he do personally to prevent the housing crisis, the banking crisis, the energy crisis and the debt crisis? Or whatever other crisis that has not already come to light? And maybe just as important, what is he working on today to avert another crisis from damaging our country?

How has his service in the congress made a positive difference to his constituents? Where has his leadership been demonstrated best during his ten years in office? Has Congressman Rick Larsen demonstrated leadership qualities at all during his five terms in office?

We need leaders elected who will work proactively for the betterment of our citizens, not special interests and after the fact.

E-Verify can work for Public Sector too!

If the answer to the immigration debate is to make employers responsible for enforcing immigration laws by steering them to the E-Verify system managed by the Department of Homeland Security in partnership with the Social Security Administration I have to believe the same system can work for public service providers as well.

Media pundits point to the high cost of services rendered to illegal aliens on a daily basis. California is supposedly drowning in red ink from the excessive cost of services for illegal aliens. In our state, there is the suggestion that public services are being overwhelmed by illegal aliens. Yet none of the public service entities are allowed to ask about the immigration status of the recipients; and in many cases, they are specifically prohibited from asking.

In Arizona, the state tried to address the failure of the Federal Government to secure the border and stem the flow of illegal aliens and illegal drugs into our country by giving the police the directive to check violators’ eligibility to be in the country. Under my plan, all they have to do is link to the E-Verify system like any business owner would to determine the status of the individual. But unlike the business owner, the police are in a position to investigate further and facilitate the deportation of those folks determined to be in the US illegally. E-Verify is a system that is already in place and would not require a significant addition to the bureaucracy.

If we instruct our Department of Motor Vehicles to link to E-Verify before issuing a Driver’s License (to every applicant to avoid profiling) like business owners could be required to do, we could identify those folks who are legally eligible to be in the country regardless of their ethnicity.

We issue provisional driver licenses to drivers under 21 years of age. We should issue licenses different from the standard one for all aliens. Authorities should be aware when a driver license is presented as identification that the person presenting it is either of legal age to buy tobacco or liquor or that they are citizens of the United States or not.

On a state by state basis, the function of the department of motor vehicles can standardize for that state the process they choose to use with the idea that all the formats be linkable to the E-Verify system. It wouldn’t be a national ID card, but it would be a way to check the national data base.

If we are stopped by police or apply for services we are already asked to provide our driver’s license as identification. If a person is stopped by police or applies for services without that ID, they can offer an alternative explanation that should be verifiable. Either way, the public service agency has a method of determining eligibility. Failing to provide proper ID or acceptable alternative, follow-up action can be pursued.

At the same time, before we enroll children in schools or render medical services at public health providers we link to E-Verify to determine eligibility of the individuals to be in the country legally. The decision to render services or not then can be made with that in mind. If an agency decides to continue offering the service to those individuals, they can at least track them.

If E-Verify is the standard for determining private sector employment eligibility, it can serve in the same capacity for public service agencies.

Certainly there is a cost of implementing the E-Verify system for this application, but if it is a cost small businesses must bear, it cannot be an unreasonable cost to public agencies if the security of our country is at stake.