Massachusetts (Open Post) -- UPATED III

By now it's hard not to know what is going on in Massachusetts. Today is the special election to replace the late Senator Ted Kennedy. I think in any other year, no one would be following this election. However, Scott Brown stands a good chance to shock the nation today and upset the system to become a Republican elected in bluest of blue Massachusetts. Scott Brown has campaigned as a down to earth politician. One of his tactics has been to drive a pickup truck to his different campaign events. His biggest issue has been health-care reform. Brown has said that if elected he will be the 41st vote against the current health care legislation.


The Democrat in the race, Martha Coakley has made a number of blunders, with many of them coming in the last couple of weeks. Among the blunders, she has stated there are no terrorists left in Afghanistan, has misspelled "Massachusetts" in campaign adds, and said she had no knowledge of a reporter who was pushed down by one of her security people (photo's of the event show otherwise). Perhaps worse for her chances with Boston voters, she said on a radio interview that former Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Shilling was a Yankee's fan.

This race will end in one of three ways:

1. An outright win by Coakley. This will make for interesting news for about 24 hours, will give Sen. Reid the 60 votes he needs to hold onto in the Senate, and is the traditional wisdom in this election.
2. An outright win by Brown. Will be a political earthquake felt throughout the United States. It could change the very nature of the political debate for the next 9 months until November.
3. A close win by Brown. The ugliest of all options. This will bring out challenge and recount after recount. We will also probably see a legal challenge to determine if Ted Kennedy's temporary replacement in the Senate can remain seated until the election is decided.
   

I am leaving this post open throughout the day. As I hear news I think is important I will update this post. Feel free to comment and check back often.

**Update One**

I just saw this at Fox News:

Congressional Democrats are meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday, but the acrimony is starting to reveal itself as Democrats speak more and more in terms of who mismanaged the debate.

It may mean nothing, but if Democrats are already looking for someone to blame if Brown wins, that means they are very nervous about their own internal polling numbers.

**Update Two**

On Michael Medved's show this afternoon he interviewed one of the author's of the new book Game Change. Mark Halperin stated that in his private conversations with staff in the White House, they don't like their chances in today's race. Again, this doesn't affect the actual race, but it does point to poor internal poll numbers at the White House for Coakley.


**Update Three**

I just saw this posted by the Associated Press. They have already called the election for Scott Brown. Here is the first paragraph:

BOSTON – In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter anger to defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in a U.S. Senate election Tuesday that left President Barack Obama's health care overhaul in doubt and marred the end of his first year in office.

Senate Gives us a Lump of Coal

The Senate has passed what they are calling Health Care Reform. The Democrats in the Senate passed this in spite of breaking Senate rules twice this week, in spite of outcry on both the left and right. Why was it rushed through today? Because Reid was afraid of what would happen if the Democrats went home and heard from their constituents, and Reid was afraid the voters would get a chance to read the bill that was introduced less than a week ago.

Merry Christmas, here's your coal.

Of Government and Men: Term Limits

It is with an odd sense of fate that I begin this post. I scheduled weeks ago to write today regarding the need for term limits in both the U.S House of Representatives and the U. S. Senate. I had no way of knowing the Senator Kennedy would pass away this week and give me a perfect example of why term limits are needed.

The point of this post isn't to discuss Sen. Kennedy's politics. I instead want to focus on the length of his career. Ted Kennedy first entered the Senate in 1962 as the winner of a special election to replace his older brother John F Kennedy. When John Kennedy became President, he resigned his seat. A place holder was selected to replace President Kennedy and serve his term until 1) a special election could be held and 2) Ted Kennedy would be old enough to serve in office. That election occurred in November of 1962, and Ted Kennedy would hold that office until his death this past week. At the time of his death, Kennedy was the third longest serving Senator in the history of the U.S. Senate, serving a continuous 46, almost 47 years. For those trivia fans out there, Robert Byrd (D-WV) is the longest serving Senator in the History of the United States at over 50 years and counting. These careers can be measured in decades and that is a problem.

The U.S. Constitution does not include any limit on the number of terms a Senator or Representative can serve. Originally, there was no term limits for the President either. However, after FDR won four terms, the 22^nd Amendment was ratified, limiting the President to two terms, or ten years. There is no cap to how long a Representative or Senator can serve, as shown with Senators Kennedy and Byrd.

There are a number of groups and individuals out there looking to change this. Allowing Senators and Representatives to serve what can be life long careers in Congress can carry a number of disadvantages. First, the primary reason there are earmarks in congress is to provide incumbents with campaign items. A Senator can campaign in his home state saying, "Look at the money I brought back to this district from Washington." Second, one of the most heinous practices is gerrymandering voting districts. The only reason this is done is to guarantee that incumbents get reelected. Both parties practice this, and it could be done away with if representatives could only spend a certain number of terms in office. Many of the career representatives have begun to look at their position in Congress as "their seat" and not the property of the voters. Senator Kennedy's attempt to dictate who would replace him is a good example of this mentality.

Writing about the need for term limits, the Heritage Foundation noted a number of years ago:

"Term limits are needed at all levels of government. However, because of the large electoral advantages wielded by incumbents, the historically low rate of turnover, the greater threat from special interests, and the unique power that federal legislators hold, it is especially important to apply term limits to Congress."

While elected representatives will avoid passing term limits on their own, they have shown their hand before. Congress has instituted term limits on both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Why would they institute term limits on this committee? Our elected officials are worried that spending too long on these committees might cause the members to become more loyal to the committee and the intelligence bureaucracy and might lose their ability to exercise independent judgment on the committee. Couldn't we apply the same logic to Congress in general? If a Senator is in office for 40 years, does he still put the voters needs first?

Finally, in today's world, incumbents have some advantages that are very hard for a challenger to overcome that have nothing to do with policy and issues. Elected Senators and Representatives can campaign while continuing to draw their salary. Most challengers have to quit their job and campaign full time. Any speech or press release an incumbent issue gets covered in the media. A challenger has to spend money buying media time, which Congress has made more difficult for challengers through Campaign Finance Reform like McCain-Feingold. McCain-Feingold is much more about protecting incumbents than getting "the money out of politics". Like gerrymandering, this is an example of elected officials protecting their jobs, and not doing what is best for the voters.

I want to end this discussion with one final question. I mentioned earlier that the 22^nd Amendment was passed after FDR won his fourth term as President. He didn't serve out all four terms and was only actually in office for a little over twelve years. If Congress thinks it's a bad idea for one individual to serve 12 years as President, why is it a good idea for one individual to serve as Senator for 46 to 50 years?

Health Care Benefits for Congress

Patrick requested a few weeks ago that I dig into the benefits of our elected officials in Congress and the Senate. I do my best to honor requests from readers for different topics. Here is what I have found:

The first thing to remember is that Representatives and Senators are technically federal employees. As such, they get all the benefits of a typical federal employee, plus a few for being in the Legislature. Federal employees receive their salary and benefits from tax payer dollars. The starting salary for a member of Congress or the Senate is $174,000.00 per year, with the leaders of these bodies making more. In 2008, tax payers paid $15 Million to provide benefits for 8.5 Million federal employees. Obviously, this includes employees who aren't elected as well as those who are elected. Representatives are also covered from day one. There is no exemption for a preexisting condition, and there is no waiting period for enrollment.

Our elected officials also get a number of plans to choose from. The federal benefits site is a little tricky to navigate. It appears that members can decide between 10 to 12 plans, or any insurance plan available in their home state. The benefits site has a map that members can click on to see a list of the plans available. As with any insurance, there are monthly premiums. However, again remember since their salary is paid by tax dollars, so are these premiums.

One of the benefits Representatives and Senators have that other federal employees don't have is access to their own doctors and pharmacy. From a February 2008 issue of the St. Petersburg Times:

Members of Congress have their own pharmacy, right in the Capitol. They also have a team of doctors, technicians and nurses standing by in case something busts in a filibuster. They can get a physical exam, and X-ray or an electrocardiogram, without leaving work...These are optional perks that cost about $300 a month for House members and about $600 a month for Senators. Taxpayers kick in another $2-million.

And once again, the $300 to $600 a month is a payroll deduction, meaning its paid for with taxpayer dollars. As a final perk, the Stimulus package from President Obama adds an additional perk in for federal employees. I am not sure how this stimulates the economy, but quoting from the federal benefits site:

The American Reovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, enacted February 17, 2009, provides a new health insurance opportunity for former employees who were or are involuntarily terminated between Septemeber 1, 2008, and December 31, 2009. Under this new law, former Federal employees may request premium assistance for thier temporary continuation of coverage (TCC) under the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program. Premium assistance means your former agency will make a Government contribution of 65 percent of the TCC premiums for your FEHB plan enrollment.

One Representative in Congress has refused health care coverage. In the recent bills that have been introduced, there have been a few mentions of forcing members of Congress and the Senate to switch to any public option they include in a final bill. So far, that has failed in House versions, and squeaked by in a Senate version. I would imagine it would be stripped if these bills made it to conference. Congressman John Fleming (Republican, Louisiana) has started a petition to get members of Congress enrolled in any health care insurance plan passed and signed into law. You can view his site and sign the petition here. Our Founders believed that members of the Legislature would be bound by any laws they passed, thereby giving them a stake in the effects of those laws. This was a good idea at the time, and an excellent one today. I will be convinced that our elected officials think the public option they include in a bill is a good thing when they are willing to force themselves into the bill.

Why the Rush to Change Health Insurance

As Health Care reform became more in doubt today, President Obama stuck to his guns insisting that both the Senate and the House pass Health Care reform by the August recess. With our economy continuing on a downward slope and with unemployment at 9.7% and expected to go higher, why the rush to spend huge amounts of money we don't have on health care reform?

The House Energy and Commerce Committee postponed voting on its version of health care reform indefinitely. They may pick it back up at a later date. However, Blue Dog Democrats have a large presence on the committee and they are concerned with how to pay for the health care reform the President is asking for. In testimony last week, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office Director, Doug Elmendorf, stated that the various proposals from Congress would not reduce the cost of health care. Yet, President Obama has cited reducing health care costs as a primary reason for reforming health care. If the proposals now before Congress won't reduce our costs, why are we even considering them?

Various estimates have been done on the assorted health care plans and have predicted huge costs to the American taxpayer. Congress is debating a tax surcharge and taxes on health care insurance, both of which are equally noxious. There is some debate that neither of these proposals will pay for the changes Democrats are proposing. With this in mind, why are we rushing to implement these expensive change. We rushed the Stimulus plan through and it has been a failure. It has failed to stop unemployment, it has failed to spur growth in our economy, and it has failed to keep state and local governments from raising taxes. We were told we had to pass the Stimulus plan and we had to do it without debate.

I am not opposed to health care reform. I would like to see a system that includes tort reform, more options for individual insurance, insurance exchanges, and a tax incentive for individuals to buy their own insurance. I would like to see insurance companies allowed to sell insurance across state lines. I would like to see more interaction between individuals and their insurance companies and less face time between the insurance companies and government or employers. These issues need to be debated. On a large fundamental change to our life style like this, the American public needs a chance to read the bills in Congress before they are passed and they need time to weigh in with their representatives. If we rush health care reform through, I can guarantee it won't be right, it will cost much more than our economy can bare, and it still won't cover the people it needs to cover.

Can Congress Read?

"If every member pledged to not vote for {the health care bill} if they hadn't read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes."

-- House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD)

This was Mr. Hoyer's response when asked about a petition being circulated asking House members to read everything they vote on. Mr. Hoyer believed the thought of members reading what they vote on was worth a few chuckles on camera. Quite often members and their staff don't read the bills they vote on. Some of this is laziness and some of it is due to the size and speed Congress now passes legislation. For example, the Stimulus Bill was 1,100 pages long (at a price of $787 Trillion) and members were given 13 hours to review the full bill before it passed. The Cap and Trade bill was 1,200 pages and had a 300 page amendment added at 3 AM the day it was voted on. The final version of the Cap and Trade bill didn't exist in written form when it passed the House. A printed copy of the U. S. Constitution is only about 10 pages long.

To be fair, this is not a Democrat only issue. The 108^th Congress, which was controlled by Republicans, passed 2,900 pages worth of legislation in a combined 48 hours (at the bargain price of slightly less than $1 Trillion). Both Republicans and Democrats have been embarrassed when provisions of these bills finally saw the light of day. Republicans were surprised to find their Ominbus spending bill included a provision to allow Republican leaders to review anyone's tax return they choose. Democrats outraged voters when it was discovered the Stimulus bill included provisions for AIG bonuses after the government bailed them out. After campaign finance reform passed in 2003, members had to hire experts to tell them exactly what was in the bill they just passed.

Most people would probably say this is a problem. President Obama campaigned on a 5 day period for bills to be posted on the internet and reviewed by the public. Conservative, liberal, and libertarian groups have all started petitions to get lawmakers to read what they vote on.

If bills are too long to read, they shouldn't be passed. If it can't be read in the time members get to debate it, they should take more time to review the bill. Our expectations of our representatives are so low, we wonder if we can make them read something that may tax us or our children. We give them a pass on legislation that may outlaw things we do, limit our freedoms, or may affect our children. In a reality, when they vote on something they haven't read, they abuse their power and insult their constituents. It isn't enough to read a summary a lobbyist puts in their hand. If they can't read the bill, why are they even there?

The 5 Stories You Missed While Watching Jackson

On June 25^th, Michael Jackson died. We may never know the exact causes. Michael Jackson was at one point in his career a very impressive entertainer. He also had a number of very odd things going on in his private life. Over the last two weeks, the media has covered Michael Jackson's life, death, and funeral as he had been the head of a very powerful country. There were a few important news stories that I thought should be covered. Here they are, in no particular order:

1. Minnesota makes 60. Al Franken finally won his challenge in court and is now a U.S. Senator. As I covered in my last post, the Democrats now have control of the Presidency, a filibuster proof Senate, and the House. They now have the ability to pass any legislation without a single Republican vote. It will be interesting to see what legislation they will try to pass.

2. Thomas v. Gibbs. A few reporters got upset with the White House for only allowing prescreened questions and prescreened individuals at the last town hall meeting. Press member Helen Thomas complained that this isn't what "openness and transparency" is all about. The Press appears to be a little testy that President Obama's town hall meetings are all staged.

3. Stimulus Part Two. By any standard of measure the stimulus plan didn't work. As President Obama begins to argue for a new stimulus bill, we should keep in mind his words from the first one. We were warned that if we didn't pass the stimulus bill, and didn't pass it immediately, unemployment could go as high as 9%. With unemployment now at 9.5% and climbing, President Obama wants a new stimulus bill, maybe even one focused solely on bridges and roads. But I thought that was what we heard with the first one…

4. Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Confirmation hearings for Judge Sotomayor are starting this week. While the world mourned MJ, the Supreme Court overturned Sotomayor's decision against the Connecticut firefighters. The U. S. Supreme Court found that discriminating on the base of race (even if the victims are white) is illegal. Judge Sotomayor may have to answer questions about this and her comments that a "…Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male…" this week. I have seen articles saying Sotomayor's supporters are going to try to attack the character of the firefighters. This might be a good story to keep an eye on over the next few weeks.

5. As Global Warming falls apart, the House acts. The evidence is really starting to look grim for global warming supporters. The tale-tale fingerprint of unusual upper atmosphere warming that the U.N. said would prove global warming hasn't materialized. The global temperature has been declining for the last 9 to 10 years. Things are getting bad enough that global warming supporters are now trying to get everyone to call it "catastrophic climate change". That way, it can explain highs AND lows. Into all this, the House of Representatives voted to enact cap and trade legislation just as New Zealand ditched their version of cap and trade. Cap and Trade will do two things. First, it will raise your energy prices. Everyone agrees on this, it's only the dollar figure that people dispute. Democrats claim your energy bill will only go up be a few measly hundred dollars each year. The Heritage Foundation and others have crunched the numbers and they believe it could be closer to $3,000 a year. Either way, you have a new energy tax coming your way. The second thing this did was violate a campaign promise of President Obama. This tax will be on everyone, not just those earning $250,000 a year or more.

Democrats don't need Republicans

I first saw this add at Red State and I really enjoyed it. It points out something that voters need to remember between now and November 2010: The Democrats control all of it. Any legislation the Democrats want to pass, they can pass without a single Republican vote. They have enough votes to pass anything in the House and they have enough votes to stop a filibuster in the Senate.

Any laws they write can go to the President. If he signs it, they get it. Want higher taxes, cap and trade, government run health care, they can do it all without a single Republican vote.

Remember this in the coming weeks when they say Republicans are trying to stop them or the Republican Party is the "party of no". The only way Republicans can stop any bill is to win the support of the public. Any legislation the Democrats want to pass, they can pass without any Republican support.

Remember this the next time you here Democrats say that the Republicans are preventing them from doing what they want. The only thing that will stop Democrats is the fear of being held accountable for the laws they pass.

The Specter Defection

There has been a lot of commentary in the media over Senator Arlen Specters move from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party. Many are portraying this as a wakeup call in some form or another. One of the best pieces I have read on Specter's move is by Noemie Emery of the Weekly Standard. Mrs. Emery uses Specter's defection as a call for more of a big tent in the Republican Party. I think she is right.

Mrs. Emery points out a fact that many voters on the right and the left forget: Conservatism is a movement and not a Party, while the Republican Party is not a movement. The goal of a movement is to advance a set of ideals. The goal of a political party is to get more people elected and to implement a political platform. Republicans need Conservatives to win national elections. Conservatives need Republicans (even the not so conservative version) in order to get their ideals acted on. As good as Mrs. Emery's article is, there are two points she and most commentators seem to be missing.

First, many elected Republicans have pushed the parties platform aside. Elected Republicans have forgotten the Contract with America, and have become as big government as their Democratic counterparts. Many voters who traditionally vote Republican are upset with that. To make matters worse, since the 2006 elections, the Republican party has had trouble convincing voters that they want to get back to the Party of the 90's, let alone Regan's big tent party of the 80's. Many Republicans talk about attacking new voters. But they phrase this in how they wish to change the party. Republicans should be looking at ways they can phrase their message or better communicate it to traditionally Democratic voters.

The other point that seems to get lost is why Specter changed parties. Mrs. Emery touches on it, but then forgets it. Arlen Specter was most likely going to lose his primary battle. He looked at the numbers, and in order to stay in the Senate, switched parties. He is very likely to get reelected as a Democrat. In my opinion, this speaks to a larger problem. Specter has been in politics since the 60's. He started his career as a Democrat, and switched to the Republican party after his first election. He has been in the Senate since 1981. He is approaching 30 years in the Senate. Mrs. Emery and other Republicans seem to think it is tragic that he would loose his primary. I think it would have been a good thing. Do we really need Senators in office for 30 years? One of our problems in the Congress is that these older Senators are more concerned with winning another term than they are with fulfilling their role as the outlined by the Constitution.

Specter's defection should be a wake up call for the Republican Party. I think Republicans needed to be doing some soul searching right now for a number of reasons. However, I believe Specters defection should call us all to examine a different issue: Term Limits in Congress and the Senate. Specter switched parties to stay in office. Do we really need any Representative or Senator in office for thirty years? I don't think so. If a President is term limited to two terms, why should a Senator (or Representative) be able to make a full career of sitting in the Senate or the House?

Transparency in Government?

Didn't President Obama campaign on a new era of transparency in Government? It seems like that era has already come and gone. The more the American people hear about the economic stimulus plan and it's comprimise, the more they don't like it.

You may argue that this isn't President Obama preventing the American public from reading the bill. It is at his urging that the Democrats are trying to push this through so quickly. I am convinced the Democrats konw the public doesn't like this bill. They are trying to pass it inspite of the fact that we don't like it!

Sit back and think about this for a minute. From the time the compromise bill was made avalialbe to the public (late last night) to when the House and the Senate will vote on it will be less than 24 hours. Already Congress has violated this bill. What makes you think they won't violate the rest of it? And if none of our representatives (Republican or Democrat) have time to read the bill they are going to vote on, how can they not violate it?

More Surprises from the "Stimulus" Package

If you are supporting the Democratic Spending Bill before the House and Senate, perhaps this paragraph from Bloomberg (authors Mark Pittman and Bob Ivry) will make you think twice:


The stimulus package the U.S. Congress is completing would raise the government’s commitment to solving the financial crisis to $9.7 trillion, enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation’s home mortgages.


I hope you read that very carefully. The money involved would pay off more than 90 percent of all home mortgages, not just troubled ones. I have written a number of times regarding the insane cost of these plans. However, another Bloomberg author has found another reason to oppose these plans. Betsy McCaughey explains that the stimulus package, as currently debated, will usher in a new world for you and your health care.


In her article, Mrs McCaughey references the exact page number each of these provisions are contained in. For brevity, I have not reproduced the page number. To start with, the stimulus package with digitize your medical records. This sounds innocent enough and is even billed as a way to save your life if you are traveling and need medical attention. The doctor will have access to your medical records via a federal website. Assuming you are confident these records are secure, and there can't be any breach at the federal level, we will continue on. If this worries you, don't read any more because the rest of this will terrify you.


Now that your medical records belong to the federal government, a new entity called "The National Coordinator of Health Information Technology" will begin reviewing your files and the treatment your doctor provides to ensure that your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate. If your doctor isn't, and is trying to treat your specific circumstance, or is trying some sort of experimental treatment on you (even with your consent) then your doctor can face very serious repercussions. The exact language of the bill is vague on this, and will create a separate federal group to decide what that penalty is. According to Mrs. McCaughey, most of these recommendations are out of recent Health and Human Services nominee, and non-tax paying Democrat, Tom Daschle's book. In his book, Daschle says our health care should be more like Europeans. We should slow down the development of new drugs and experimental treatments because they simply cost to much. We should also be willing to accept "hopeless diagnosis". In laymen terms this means if it costs to much to keep you alive, the doctor shouldn't be doing it. To quote the article:


Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).


If the stimulus package is signed into law, then a person and council named by the Democrats will decide what treatments you should or shouldn't receive, will be able to penalize your doctor or hospital for not following those treatments, and will decide how much it should cost to keep you or a loved one alive. If it costs too much you shouldn't get the treatment.


Consider this fact from Mrs. McCaughey: the bill provides more funding for these provisions than for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marince Corp combined.


You may believe this new Health Care system should be implemented. I think it will be a dark day in our country if it ever happens. I also believe our country could be permanently damaged by this. However, either way, it should outrage all Americans that the Democrats and President Obama are trying to sneak this in. This shows that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama know the American people will not support it. The Democrats control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. If they really thought Americans wanted this, they would create a separate bill and pass it. The Republicans would be powerless to stop it.

I encourage you to contact your Senator and tell them to vote against this. Ask them to defend these Health Care provisions to you and explain why they support them. If you don't know their contact info, look it up here. Don't let them sneak in legislation that could affect how, and how long, you and your loved ones live.

“Land of 10,000 Lakes”, More or Less

Minnesota has certified their election today and awarded Al Franken the Senate seat that has been in contest since November. On election night, Norm Coleman had a 725 vote lead. Now, after the combined efforts of a few county boards, and the Democratic Secretary of State, Democrat Al Franken leads Coleman by 225 votes. This election is sure to now head to the courts.

An op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal points out a few of the more laughable moments that have lead to this outcome. First, more than 25 of the precincts in Minnesota have more ballots than voters who signed to vote. According to the WSJ, "State Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson has acknowledged that 'very likely there was a double counting, '". Ramsey County ended up with 177 more ballots than there were recorded votes on Election Night.

In a number of counties there were discrepancies between the number of votes cast and the number of ballots available for recount. It appears from the news today that the state canvassing board decided to count which ever tally benefited Mr. Franken. More votes on election night than today? Go with election night if it helps Al. More votes today? They were probably lost; count them if they were for Al.

Before the recount began, we had a preview of what was to come. Election officials "corrected" typos on their reports from election night. These typos were to the tune of some 500 votes from Norm Coleman to Al Franken. John Lott, Jr. has pointed out that virtually all of these corrections occurred in three counties. Most of these changes occurred in the Democratic precinct of Two Harbors. Writing for Fox News, Mr. Lott points out, "To put this change in perspective, [Two Harbors] corrections accounted for a significantly larger net swing in voters between the parties than occurred for all the precincts in the entire state for presidential, congressional, or state house races."

After screaming "selected not elected" for eight years, it appears the Democratic Party is ready to show the nation how one truly steals an election. When this entire process started, The Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, remarked that Minnesota is known for its fair and open elections. I guess that reputation is a thing of the past.

A Terrible, Terrible Decision by Our Government

Something has been bothering me the last few days, and I have decided to use this forum to get it off my chest. Our government passed a $700 Billion economic bail out package last week. We were told last week that the government had to do something. Some members of the House who voted against the plan on Monday, justified their vote on Friday by saying, "Things are bad, and we can't sit by and do nothing, so I am voting for this plan I don't like." Let's put aside the millions of dollars of earmarks (bribes?) that were associated with this bill. This logic is terrible because there are more than the two options of (a) do nothing, and (b) pass a bill that is so large, I can't even consider the amount of money it encompasses.

The "funny" thing about this is we were told we had to pass this bill. The Senate passed it, the House passed it, and the President signed it. Both Presidential candidates voted for it. The market, however, seems to have other ideas. The market tanked on Friday, and tanked again today. The market closed just below 10,000 points for the first time in a long time.

We are now being told that these things take time. The market will respond over the course of the next few weeks. We are also being told that the government has to take its time when using this $700 Billion so they don't abuse it and don't misuse it. What happened to "we have to do something now?" What happened to "we were going to see a crisis if Congress didn't act"?

The truth of the matter is there was always the (c) option. This option entailed looking at other options that might fix this situation without costing $700 Billion. This option entailed taking time to examine the situation, examine the failures of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and then proceed with that knowledge and with the caution this situation required.

However, this is an election year. Obama and McCain have now both showed that nothing trumps looking like you're doing something in an election year. Most Representatives and Senators have done the same thing. Political commentators that I admire spent last week arguing that something needed to be done so that this won't be saddled on their presidential candidate.

For the first time I can think of, I am truly mad at my government. I honestly believe our government got it wrong last week. Getting it wrong if you think you are doing the right thing is one thing. Getting it wrong with the intent to simply win an election is an entirely different can of worms.

Over the next few weeks, I will be adjusting a few things. We have reached a point where more seems to be required of me and like minded individuals. I don't know what my new course of action will be, but I am going to chart a new one. This blog will continue to be a forum for open, honest, political debate. However, I will be getting more active somehow, and I will be bringing my readers along on the journey.

Government 101 – Me and My Soap box

I have been spending some time this week reading up on the economic crisis. I have been struggling with the question of if I believe our Congress should give the Executive branch a $700 Billion check. Proponents say if we don't do it, then our economy (and the economy of the rest of the world) will collapse. Opponents say that bailing out the market is irresponsible, will saddle taxpayers with a huge debt, will devalue our dollar further (thus hurting our economy and the world's), and may not fix the problem. Some have argued for other solutions such as suspending the capital gains tax for two years. They argue that there is private capital out there waiting for the right price to jump in. Warren Buffets infusion to the market of $5 Billion yesterday sure seems to give this argument some weight. What is the right answer? Honestly, I think all of the arguments have their strong points and their weak points. The bailout check would be used to buy up bad mortgages. Managed correctly (which I don't know if the government can do) this could actually return a profit to the government and to taxpayers. I am always a fan of removing taxes and getting private capital flowing, but is suspending the capital gains tax for two years enough to get that money moving? If we have learned nothing from the Great Depression, we should have learned two lessons. First, business and the market hate uncertainty. It scares them. Businesses will hold on to money, and not invest, until they are sure what the government plans to do. Second, passing laws just to pass laws can sometimes make matters worse. What if giving the Fed's a $700 billion check simply delays a much worse crash?

My wife made me watch Glenn Beck last night. If you didn't see it, you should go look for it on CNN or YouTube. I found the transcript for the show here. If I am recommending you view a CNN program, you really should sit up and take note. Glenn Beck had former Shell Oil executive John Hofmeister on and asked viewers to call in to ask any question they wanted of Mr. Hofmeister. Mr. Hofmeister has a new organization called Citizens for Affordable Energy. While watching that episode, and talking to my wife about the economic crisis and the energy crisis I realized we haven't come up with the correct solution yet because we haven't asked the right question yet. The right question is: When are we going to start legislating like adults, and not like children who just want to feel good?

Go look for articles on the economic crisis. Most of them blame it on the "Sub prime mortgages" or "bad mortgages" or "questionable lending". This is code speak for "loans that were given to people who should have never gotten a loan in the first place." Congress encouraged / forced banks to give loans to people who wouldn't have qualified for them. They did it under the guise of "making homes affordable for everyone." This is the problem. Any sane adult should be able to take a step back and look at the world and realize there are people in this world who will never be able to afford a home. There are charities that have as their goal fixing this. This is a noble goal. However, it isn't a realistic one, and it isn't one our government should be legislating to fix.

Another example is Polar Bears. How? Simple. Recently our government, under the evil George Bush, placed Polar Bears on the threatened species list. Bear in mind (no pun intended) that the worldwide Polar bear populations are at a high point. There are now more Polar Bears in the world than at any point in the twentieth century. Why did they get placed on the threatened species list? Because it "felt good".

We can't drill in water closer than 50 to 100 miles from our shores. Even though the most productive oil rigs are within the 50 mile mark, congress has decided we shouldn't drill there. Why? Sun bathers don't like to see oil rigs. What if there is an accident? Who will protect the birds? The safety record of the oil industry is actually pretty impressive. You have heard of a few spills, but by and large, oil is moved around this country every day and the only time we hear about it is when our gas prices go up. For those of you who think we can get rid of oil and replace it with solar or wind power, you are living in a pipe dream. If you think political environmentalist are going to let you construct wind and solar energy "plants" you haven't been paying attention. Already there are concerns with wind mills killing migratory birds. Sane adults can pass a comprehensive energy plan that uses oil, coal, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro and anything else we can safely squeeze energy out of.

What about our tax code? Here is a colossal waste. We have a cumbersome tax code that is designed to make the wealthiest people in the United States give their money to the "poor". Think Robin Hood with a gun and the federal government. We don't tax business and individuals to keep the government running and for the government to do those things the Constitution gives it power to do. We tax to try and earn votes, and because it "feels good" to stick it to the wealthy and to Big Business. What this really does is to drive businesses over seas and to take money from the people who might be able to bail us out of our current financial troubles.

I have great faith in the American people. At some point, Americans are going to wake up and tell their representatives to start passing laws like adults and not like 60's era hippies. When that happens, you will see a real energy policy, a tax code that makes sense, and as Glenn Beck would say, the few surviving hippies running for the hills while the rest of us chase them there with torches, cell phones, and SUV's.

Quick Notes -- Gang of 10, Energy, and Georgia

The late William F. Buckley once said, "I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University." I wish to change that just a little. After watching the campaigns of both Senator Obama and Senator McCain, I would rather be governed by a random lottery of 1000 people in the United States than our current elected Congress and Senate. I have lamented many times that neither Obama nor McCain represent the best from their parties. This week has further depressed me on the ability of our currently elected representatives. This means you get to enjoy a somewhat expanded version of Quick Notes.

Energy. Without looking at the polling data, I think it is safe to say that Energy has become the number one issue of the election. This can always change. On a daily basis, I see more in the paper, on radio, and on TV about energy and gas prices than any other issue. There are a number of positions out there. Obama wants to stop using oil in our country in the next ten years. He also wants to give "middle class families" a $1000 check to help with prices at the pump. How would he pay for this? With windfall profit taxes on big oil companies. If we put profit taxes on oil companies, what do we really think will happen to the price of gas?

McCain has been better on this issue. He has changed his position on off shore drilling. He wants to increase nuclear power in the U.S. He even wants to increase our alternative energy production. I agree with these issues, but don't believe they go far enough. I am an "all of the above" kind of guy. I believe we need to drill for oil in our country wherever we believe it is economically feasible. If that means off shore, in ANWR, or in the Grand Canyon, then do it. We need to build more nuclear power plants in the U.S. If France can get 80% of their energy from nuclear power, why can't we. The Pickens Plan calls for more wind energy. I am skeptical, but the plan calls for it to be financed 100% from private sector funds. Any alternative energy that private financiers want to go for, I support. They use their money, they drive the market, and if they are successful, they should reap the profits. This is Capitalism at it's best.

This is a long winded way of saying that there is an issue out there that both McCain, and the Republicans can win on this year. Conventional wisdom is that this year, Obama should win, and the Democrats should pick up seats in both the House and the Senate. Imagine turning that on it's head. However, into this discussion steps...

The Gang of 10. Democrats aren't the only one trying to drive a stake in the discussion of off shore drilling. 5 Republicans in the Senate have joined the fray. There is a great article on this at Get Drunk and Vote 4 McCain. If you follow politics, and are a conservative Republican, all you need to hear is Lindsey Graham and bipartisan compromise. These two phrases generally mean Democrats get what they want, and Republicans get screwed. The Gang of 10 plan allows off shore drilling, but only in a few states, and with the permission of those states. It bars drilling in ANWR, it provides $84 billion of tax incentives for alternative fuels that are paid for with new taxes on oil companies. These senators have decided they can tax certain companies to provide incentives to their competitors. Imagine Congress taxing Microsoft and giving the money to Apple. Or taxing Starbucks and giving the money to McDonald's. It is arrogant, unwise, and against the very nature of our market economy. The five Republicans, Graham (R-SC), Chambliss (R-GA), Isakson (R-GA), Thune (R- SD), and Corker (R-TN), have shown a colossal lack of judgment.

Georgia. Turning to world events, Russia has started a full scale war with the nation of Georgia. This is a very complicated matter that I may more fully explain in a future post. However, something to keep an eye on is the possibility of a nuke being used in this engagement. When the Soviet Union collapsed, 5000 small nuclear weapons went unaccounted for. The government of Russia said they were destroyed, and that all evidence of their destruction, and all correspondence ordering their destruction was also destroyed. In addition, Georgia was sitting on some nuclear weapons, which they turned over to Russia in exchange for U.S aid. In both of these cases, there is a chance that some nuclear weapons (some as small as 44 lbs) may be in the hands of the Georgian government, or some of the smaller groups fighting in this engagement. If they feel that Russia is about to take over their entire country, Georgia may feel it has no option but to set one of these off. Keep an eye on that part of the world to see what happens.

Number One Issue in ’08: Gas Prices?

I have written a few times on this site about energy and gas prices being an issue this Presidential Election season. I am now convinced that it could be a very big factor in not just the Presidential election, but Congressional and Senatorial campaigns as well. Gas prices hit an all time high today for our national average at $4.11 a gallon. The Democrats campaigned on lowering energy and gas prices back in 2006. So far, they haven't done anything about it. $4.00 appears to be the point when most Americans begin to lose patience with the "environmental movement" and decide it is time to do something. A few days ago I saw a t-shirt selling on ebay. The shirt had a picture of a polar bear and said, "I'd drill through his A—, for cheaper gas!" I have always been amazed at the good PR the Polar Bear gets. Let's not forget that this is an animal known to stalk and kill people, and routinely eats seals. Why do you think the Polar Bear hangs out on ice?

I digress. Many Republicans are pushing hard to at least get a floor vote on off shore drilling. Pelosi and Reid are both playing this down. Neither of them wants a roll call vote with their members voting against off shore drilling come November. I'm not a professional campaign manager, but I bet a very effective add could be made with a Representative or Senator voting against drilling, and gas prices at $5 in November. Pelosi has said she won't allow any energy bills to see the floor for fear that an off shore drilling vote could come up. Reid has said he doesn't think anything will happen in the Senate, but Republicans and some Democrats don't agree with him.

There is a move in the Senate to create a "Gang of 14" style compromise. According to the Politico, this would show up in a bill that opens up the coast for drilling, but includes some conservation or alternative fuel measures. Depending on the language, there is a real opportunity to get some meaningful legislation passed here. There are already Democrats committing their support to this bill. If it passed in the Senate, there would be more pressure on the House to do something.

I called a U. S. Representative’s office today to discuss off shore drilling with them. I called as a simple voter, and not in any way associated with this blog. While discussing the merits of off shore drilling, and discussing alternative energy such as bio-fuels and nuclear power, the staffer I talked to wouldn’t commit one way or another for the Representative they worked for. At one point in the conversation, the aide even asked not to be quoted. I have never been told from an elected officials office that they didn't want to be quoted while talking to a voter. I took one very clear message from this: This particular Representative isn’t willing to commit one way or another on this issue. If that is true, then Reid and Pelosi may be in for a loss as Democrats work to craft a bill with Republicans against the Democratic Leadership’s wishes. This could make this years Congressional and Senatorial campaigns much closer than the conventional wisdom.

Democrats and Oil Just Don't Mix.

It would be hard for anyone alive not to know that gas prices are at an all time high. I would bet a gallon of gas that gas prices are going to factor big in the election this year. Everyone running for election or re-election this year is going to have to address the price of oil.

So, what do we do about the price of gas? To solve any problem, we must first find what may be the cause or causes of said problem. If the Republicans have any brains, they will make the argument that gas prices are directly the result of a Democratic Congress. Don't believe me? Sit back and prepare to be dazzled.

I did a little homework (something most members of Congress and the Senate fail to do). The price of a gallon of gas on January 22, 2001 was $1.46 per gallon. On June 9th, 2008, the price of a gallon of gas is $3.98. Today, most people are placing the average price of gas around $4.00 or $4.05 per gallon. It would be easy to look at this and say, "Well, we have two oil men in the White House, it must be their fault!" Of course, one would think that oil men would understand perfectly well how oil prices work. But lets dig a little deeper (no oil pun intended).

Over the course of the Bush Administration, the price has gone up 63% over seven years! That translates into 9% per year! Before my Democratic fans get outraged, I have more numbers to share. The price of gas on January 23, 2006 was $2.31 per gallon. That translates into an increase of $1.67 since Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Reid, and the Democratic Congress took over. Again, on a per year basis, Pelosi and Reid can claim credit for a 21% increase per year in gas prices! And, worse still, if we give Bush credit for all the gas increase before the Democratic Congress, he gets 86 cents over 5 years. I think Pelosi and Reid still win.

Some of you out there might think I am skewing numbers to my own benefit. Let me end with a question based on what the Democrats want to do, and what most Republicans want to do.

Question 1 (Democratic Plan). Many Democrats are in favor of a "wind fall profit tax" on oil companies. What do you think this would do to the price of a gallon of gas?

Question 2 (Republican Plan). Most Republicans are in favor of domestic drilling. If Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and Clinton had a press conference tomorrow and said they would remove all obstacles to domestic exploration of oil, what do you think would happen to the price of a gallon of gas?

Pigford Claims Remedy Act

Like any political junkie, I spend a substantial amount of time each day reading political commentary, and the "hot" news items of the day. Some of the best articles I like to clip and file away for others to read, or I may hold onto them for background information for a future blog post. When the stars are perfectly aligned, I come across an article that makes me take immediate action. I found one such article today by Ms. Jennifer Rubin entitled "Farmer Reparations". After reading Ms. Rubin's article, I started digging into the topic, and contacted my Representative and both Senators.

The Pigford Claims Remedy Act of 2007 (HR 899 and 3073 and S 515) is designed, "To provide a mechanism for the determination on the merits of the claims of claimants who met the class criteria in a civil action relating to racial discrimination by the Department of Agriculture but who were denied that determination." These bills in short are designed to extend the claims process from discrimination suits brought against the Department of Agriculture in the 1990's. To date, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has paid out almost $1 Billion for, "…alleged racial discrimination by local offices administering farm loans under the Farm Service Agency." If the USDA discriminated against a number of people, and those people are owed money, then the government should have to pay up. However, Ms. Rubbin points out that many people associated with the cases believe that a large number of the claims that have been brought forward are fraudulent.

The original case was brought forth by three black farmers in 1997 (Pigford v. Glickman) alleging that the USDA had discriminated against them and other farmers by denying loan applications to African-American farmers. In 1999, a consent decree was issued settling the lawsuit and setting up a process where those individuals who felt they had been discriminated against could file a claim. According to Ms. Rubbin, in 1997 there were an estimated 18,500 African-American farmers (remember this number) and of those, it was estimated that some 2500 to 5000 farmers were discriminated against. However, a lawyers dream was laid out in the settlement, with, "…only a simple affidavit signed by someone who alleged he had applied for a loan or merely that he had 'attempted to own or lease farm land,' $50,000 (tax free no less) would be paid out." The USDA began notifying people who might be involved, including a $500,000 TV ad campaign to get the word to African-American farmers. Meetings were held in local communities explaining how African-American farmers could file claim.

There is an Office of the Monitor website where anyone can get the latest details of the settlement. As of April 28^th, the total payout is over $750,000,000 in cash with almost $ 1 Billion total in "relief". I told you to remember the fact that there were an estimated 18,500 African-American Farmers in 1997. The Monitor's website shows over 22,000 claims have been approved. Ms. Rubbin points out that there have been almost 96,000 total claims!

Simply put, the Pigford decision has become a great money making tool for scam artists, lawyers, and unscrupulous advocacy groups. The original deadlines have now played out and some Representatives and Senators want to extend this deadline and allow more claims. Already the U.S. government has paid out $1 Billion dollars. Isn't it time to put this behind us?

Senate Reaches New Low

The actions by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, John Kerry, Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, and other Democratic Senators over the last 24 hours have reached a new low point for American politics. These 40 Democratic Senators, who suddenly develop outrage whenever their patriotism is questioned, have attacked Rush Limbaughs “unpatriotic and indefensible comments”. On the Senate floor, they disparaged Rush, and impugned his reputation. Remember, Rush Limbaugh is a private citizen. He is not an elected official. Rush would not be able to say the same thing about these Senators in Senate chambers as they said about him.

Agree with Rush Limbaugh or disagree with him, if you don’t like what he says, don’t listen. I disagree with the New York Times for running the Moveon.org ad. Therefore, I have no intention of buying the New York Times. Rush is a citizen of the United States. The U.S. Constitution, Amendment number One, which most liberals claim to cherish, guarantees Rush the ability to say whatever he wants on his own radio station. People can choose to listen to what he says or not.

As I said in a previous post, no one who objectively listens to the segment that Rush has been miss-quoted from can possibly come away with the impression that he was talking about soldiers who served in Iraq. There were stories about phony soldiers in other news outlets leading up to Rush’s comments. Senator Reid, Senator Clinton, and the other signatories of the letter to Mark Mays of Clear Channel or either not doing their homework, or are intentionally misleading the public. Either way, they have now publically embarrassed themselves and the U.S. Senate.

If we wish to be charitable and grant they haven’t done their homework, then all 40 members who signed this letter should resign from office in disgrace. To think that a U.S. Senator would ask a media agency to, “…publicly repudiate these comments…,” without doing his or her homework is beyond belief. This action comes very close to censoring a media outlet. Surely a Senator would do his homework before embarking on such a course. If he or she hasn’t, the Senator should be asked to leave office.

If, as is more likely, these 40 Democratic Senators are intentionally misleading the public, we should still demand they resign. A U.S. Senator is a public servant. Many Senators (both Republican and Democratic) have forgotten that. If they are going to go to the floor of the U.S. Senate and intentionally lie as a matter of cheap theatrics, we don’t need them in office. Surely intelligent adults from both sides of the political spectrum can agree that this debate was a colossal waste of time and public money. Do the Democrats who control the Senate believe this is the most pressing issue of the day?

Either these 40 Senators are too lazy to seek the truth in this matter, or they prefer to intentionally mislead the public with regards to Rush. These Senators owe Rush a formal apology from the floor of the Senate. Of course, that would require these Senators have some sort of honor. I seriously question that after seeing this letter.

My Ramblings, Part two

There has been some pretty hot debate on here about global warming, so I thought I would change things up with another "ramblings" post. I got the ramblings idea from another site, and really enjoyed my first attempt. I might make this a semi-regular part of the blog. So, without further ado, here are my thoughts tonight…

I think Senator Craig shouldn't resign. I don't condone what he is accused of doing in the Minneapolis airport. However, if you break down exactly what happened, I don't think he did anything that warranted his leaving the Senate. He plead guilty to a misdemeanor. He isn't accused of having sex in the bathroom, gay or otherwise. The Democrats have said because he is a member of a party that claims to have morals, he should leave because of his actions. This is a slippery slope for the Democrats. Does this mean the Democrats are a party without morals? What would they do if they had a party member who did something scandalous?

For example, Ted Kennedy plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of leaving the scene of a crime at Chappaquiddick. Should he resign? Nancy Pelosi is accused of using her position on a committee to steer contracts to her husbands company. She removed herself from the committee after the scandal came out, and the husbands company stopped bidding on those contracts. Harry Reid is accused of numerous unethical land deals in Nevada. He has attempted to get federal road projects in Nevada that would improve the price of property he owned. Sen. Robert Byrd is a member of the KKK, and was elected Cyclops.

I think the Republicans should have let the people of Idaho make their own decisions with regards to Sen. Craig. If they decided they didn't want him in office anymore, that is their decision. Both Republicans and Democrats have bigger issues to worry about in Washington than a misdemeanor.

"A McDonald's worker…was arrested and jailed Thursday night for putting too much salt and pepper on a police officer's hamburger," reports Fox News. As the story plays out, the worker claims some salt fell into the bowl she was mixing hamburger meat in. The worker ate one of the burgers later. However, when a police officer bought one of the burgers and got sick, the worker was arrested and charged with reckless conduct. The worker says the camera recording her work station will prove it was an accident. I am sure she will have her day in court, but I can't believe those police officers really felt the need to arrest her. And I can't believe McDonalds actually makes the patties on site.

Fred Thompson announced he is running for President. After flirting with it, and the Republican base for some time, he is now officially in the race. Personally, I think he has waited to late. I think he has made mistakes by not attending some of the debates, including the one that was held the night he announced. Next year will tell us if he is a genius, or if he misplayed the entire thing.

That's all the ramblings for now. My next post will be about Al Gore's movie, and then I am going on a global warming hiatus for a few days. There has been a lot of discussion on global warming on here. If you are looking for the latest, check out this, or this.