Sense In Politics

Check This Out

2010-12-07T22:44:00.000-08:00

This is something a marketing consultant friend showed me. It is a 2D barcode, and if you take a picture with your cell phone, it will supposedly take you to this site. It was simple for me to generate.

I hear that these are all the rage in the Far East and Europe, and are slowly catching on here in North America. This is the future, folks. This is how we'll do our web browsing.

Wow. This is, believe it or not, my url for this blog. I kid you not.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

New! Sense In Politics Book Being Written

2010-07-14T17:56:00.000-07:00

Almost since the beginning of this blog, I have thought often of compiling the ideas we have discussed and putting them in book form. It became one of those dreams to do "in the future," as something to do when I got the gumption. I guess I had had made authoring a book a mountain to be surmounted, and so put off writing it.

But as I reviewed the blog posts, I also realized I couldn't just lift substantial portions of the posts and try to make them fit in. Most of the ideas we addressed were specific to the moment, and they were not current to the problems we face now. I also felt I needed to develop the idea for "Practical Conservatism" a lot better than I did in the blog. My ideas of focusing on ideas that work is infused throughout the blog, but I needed to devote an entire section to explaining the whole political philosophy.

About a month ago, I finally decided the time had come to start the book. I entitled it "Sense In Politics: 8 Commonsense Steps To An All American Agenda." I have finished the Intro and one of the ten chapters, and am now working on the chapter on foreign policy and defense.

Those of you who have followed the blog for years know that I sometimes advocated ideas which were not a part of conservative dogma. I also explored new ideas which I thought might provide fresh perspective to stale debates. I will also sprinkle such ideas in the book as well.

What do I intend to do with the book? Well, it is with the same intention I started the blog. I wish to contribute to the national discourse by adding my ideas of focusing on results to fix a problem. I also felt that if we could take these ideas and fuse them with the conservative dialog, it would add even more to the national agenda.

While the cynic in you might think this is just another run of the mill generic political book, I will tell you that it offers refreshing ideas among the same ones you have grown tired of hearing. I will speak of ideas which have been brought forward before, but have not yet been generally accepted in national politics. But they are ideas which make sense, and which engage the imagination. For example, I don't think most Americans get excited thinking about our energy future with ethanol and other "green" technology. I think they instinctively know it won't replace fossil fuels. Which is why I focus on another energy source which could cut our dependence on oil by a third in four years, create millions of American jobs, and restore us to innovation.

Many of us have read and heard many ideas put to us in piecemeal fashion which individually would be great policies if we would implement them. Ideas that have swirled around include whether to choose the flat tax or the Fair Tax (I'll address that in the book), how we can be energy independent in 10 years, how we can protect our environment while not subscribing to extreme viewpoints, and how we can preserve the social safety net while cutting the deficit and reigning in federal spending. I will take all of these ideas and put them into public policy ideas.

All in all, this book is forward thinking, pragmatic, realist, and proud of America's place in the world. Since I know Americans are the same way, I hope the ideas I put forth here will spark some new discussions. It is also conservative leaning, but it also tempers it with wisdom that other political groups might have valid ideas we shouldn't immediately discount. I even dare to dream that some of the ideas published here might work their way into public policy.

Since I am not working on the book constantly, I do not know when it could be done. I am shooting for before year's end when I will seek out a publisher (I'll probably self publish through Amazon). I am not planning on it being a big book, either. It will be between 120-150 pp. long.

It's exciting to think of the possibilities, but also daunting. I have never written a book before, so I am going through first time author jitters. But it is liberating to write on ideas you have thought about for quite some time, and now you can formulate it in such a way that others might understand and (hopefully) be persuaded. I dare say most authors dream of their books becoming best sellers, and I am one of them. But even if it only sells a few, I know it will be an accomplishment of which I can be proud to have finished.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

A Way Not Considered

2010-02-08T15:55:00.000-08:00

Just last week, a Washington State court ruled that our state government is not living up to it's constitutional responsibility to fully fund education. This decision is already sending ripples all through our cash strapped state government.

The court defined what full funding means. It's when the children are given all the means at their disposal to be educated to succeed in our current society. And the models the state has been using to fund education up to now date back to the 1970s. This doesn't account for the widespread use of computers, the Internet in learning, and many different special education programs which have emerged since then.

I don't think anyone has yet a clear idea of what it would mean if we fulfilled this constitutional duty the way the court has defined it. For sure, it would mean the state would need to raise billions of dollars more every year, and good luck with that when you try and govern a state that has voted down most tax increases in the last decade.

The state, in my view, needs to put a long term plan in place that can fulfill these responsibilities or it will have to appeal the decision. They can also drag their feet, as politicians are good at doing. :-)

But I'd like to take a slightly different tack and propose something I think would help mitigate the high costs of education- higher education that is. Recently the University of Washington announced it would be raising tuition by 30% to make up for the cuts the state has made to higher education. And it looks as though more tuition hikes are on the horizon. More and more, families are finding the dream of a college education for their kids to be more and more out of their reach. The average family is saving less for college as they tighten their belts in this poor economy.

But is the dream of a college education dead for the average student? I hardly think so. There are alternatives that I think the state and municipalities and even more colleges should aggressively pursue. I think they need to pour more money into community colleges and distance learning programs, as this is slowly becoming the inexpensive way to obtain a degree. I call it 'tailored distance learning.'

I can say from experience that this form of education is viable for obtaining a degree. Some colleges allow you to earn degrees solely through testing and gaining credits, and also gaining credits from life experiences and internships. You can also creatively use these strategies and attendance at a local community college to ultimately go toward earning your degree.

They say that at the U of Washington average tuition is now around $7000+ per year. A young man I know used the strategies above to gain his fully accredited BS in Business Administration in less than six months for a total cost of $5000. Sounds like a hoax, I know, but he isn't the only one who is doing it. I know of naval officers, a CPA, and a teacher who used these strategies to gain their degree, and all of them have mentioned how it benefited them financially and professionally.

In my view, to reign in the costs of higher education, we need to have an entirely new focus. In today's virtual world, why is it that more institutions of higher learning haven't developed more virtual classrooms and lectures? Why are we stuck in this paradigm that a student needs to live in an expensive dorm, pay for expensive books, and spend a semester listening to lectures in order to gain the requisite 3 or 5 credits? Heck, I earned 5 credits in Humanities by taking the CLEP test one afternoon. This saved me weeks and hundreds of dollars. And colleges do accept this as valid proof of knowledge.

I think the US can save untold billions if it seriously undertook such a revolution in higher education. Tuition costs would go way down, there wouldn't be waiting lists for available housing, and professors would be able to leverage their time to teach more students using the email and Internet. One such college, Excelsior College in Albany, NY, uses nothing but the web and email to teach and communicate with students. They don't have a traditional campus, housing or buildings. Yet their students are actively serving in the military, or any other profession, and they are from all around the world. They have pioneered the concept of a virtual college, and turned the traditional idea of college on it's head. Instead of bringing the student to the college, they bring the college to the student, with amazingly cheaper results.

Other colleges, such as Thomas Edison State College, Charter Oak State College, and the University of Phoenix have followed in it's footsteps and are popularizing the idea of distance learning for use in obtaining your degree. And slowly students are becoming aware of the alternatives open to them. More and more are starting to use such tests as CLEP and Dantes to gain credits, but most aren't aware of the extent they could use these toward their degree. Others are now also taking online classes, and saving lots of money that would otherwise be spent on housing and added tuition costs.

These students are still a minority, yet if we wish to permanently reduce the spiraling costs of higher education and fulfill the dream that every child would have the ability to go to college, then we need to make this knowledge available to all students.

Here's a few ideas to help us get started:

1. The Federal and State governments need to coordinate a comprehensive plan for higher education based on the 21st century realities.

2. This plan should provide for shifting more money from the state university systems to the community college system. This is where the average American can right now afford, so I say we provide these local colleges with the best campuses and equipment they need.

3. Institutions of higher learning should also start developing better programs for distance learning. Further funding should be tied to this criteria. Their counseling offices should include whether the student would be better served studying remotely and communicating with their instructors via email or video conferencing.

4. There should also be more of an emphasis on tailoring the education plan to the needs of the student. If the student feels that they need to learn History from a Harvard professor, then they should be able to learn and transfer those credits to their "home" college. What this allows is a richer educational experience that is not tied to just the institution that will confer your degree. This is already being done in the colleges mentioned above.

These are just a few ideas, to be sure, but I passionately believe that if we start emphasizing distance learning more and offering this choice to the students, then the problems of overcrowding and prohibitive costs will slow or even decline.

Think about. Seriously.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

A Tried and True Health Care Reform

2009-08-24T19:41:00.000-07:00

We are in the middle of a long fight with our elected officials over the issue of universal health coverage. It seems to me that we, the people, are winning this fight, for now we are hearing prominent Democrats waver on the universal option, which drew the most ire from constituents. They are now putting forward modified forms of the same plan, and are even turning their attention to a health care provider that is one of the largest employers in my state: Group Health Cooperative.

GHC is a patient owned health care facility, along the lines of a credit union. Anyone can become a voting member, which will give you a say in setting policies for Group Health. It is renowned for it's quality of medical care, and for pioneering medical innovations you don't find much of anywhere else. The doctors are generally on salary, instead of being paid per patient, which give them less of an incentive to see as many as possible. They also extensively use Electronic Medical Records, which the Obama Administration would like to see enacted in it's health care reform bill. It also allows the ability to fill prescriptions online and then they can mail it to you. Another feature you are given is the ability to securely email your doctors and nurses.

The New York Times last month ran this article on Group Health, and tells how it is being looked at as a model for health care reform. Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/health/policy/07coop.html?_r=1

I don't see why we can't use a similar model as this on a nationwide basis.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Voters Are Angry Over Government

2009-08-18T08:02:00.000-07:00

This morning I read this commentary by a member of the Ripon Society, a centrist Republican group, and to me it reflects in words why people are angry. He states the very reason when he mentions Senator Specter's town hall meeting, when he referred to the questioners not by a name but by a number. We are just a number to him. How impersonal.

Government loses the consent of the governed when it ignores our desires. The Democrats think all this opposition is manufactured. If they ignore it, then it could come back to bite them.

IMO, this year's health care debate looks very much like the health care debate of 1993-94. And if this year's Dems continue in this path, next year's elections could be a boon again for Republicans. I think some of them know this, which is why we are now hearing from key Democrats that the public option will not be in the final draft. Support for a public option bit them before, and, judging from public reaction now, it could bite them again.

Here's the text of the CNN article.

Editor's note: Lou Zickar is the editor of the Ripon Forum, a centrist Republican journal of political thought published by the Ripon Society. He is a former aide to Rep. Mac Thornberry, a Republican from Texas.

(CNN) -- The biggest political story of the month so far is clearly the populist rage on display at town halls across the country. Democrats say this rage is manufactured; Republicans say it is real.

What can't be debated is that it is drawing a lot of attention, perhaps none more so than the town hall that Sen. Arlen Specter held in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, on Tuesday of this past week.

I know something about that part of the state. I used to work for Bob Walker, who represented that area for 20 years in the House of Representatives. In 1988, I was a member of the advance team that coordinated a Bush-Quayle bus caravan that traveled throughout the region.

To this day, I still have vivid memories of Dan Quayle throwing a perfect spiral in the gymnasium of Lebanon High School. The ball was caught, no words were misspelled, and all was right in that little corner of the Republican world.

The other thing I remember from that time were the people of Lebanon. They were, and I assume they still are, like the other Pennsylvanians I met and got to know -- decent, hardworking Americans who loved their families, cared about their communities and believed in the future of our nation.

In the few years I spent working on Bob Walker's staff, I have to admit that I never saw anything like the anger that was directed at Specter the other day. That said, I can't say that I'm all that surprised at the level of intensity. Lebanon is a very conservative town, and its residents are clearly concerned about some of the plans being proposed by Specter and his newfound Democratic allies in Washington, D.C.

Still, what surprised me the most was not the attitude that area residents displayed toward Specter. It was, rather, the attitude he displayed toward them.

I've been to many political events over the years -- from rallies in Pennsylvania to town halls in Texas. But I've never been to one where a politician addressed people by a number and not their name. And yet that is exactly what Specter did. People had to take a number if they wanted to ask a question. When their turn was up, he called out the number instead of recognizing them by name.

At a time when many Americans are concerned that the federal government is going to take over the nation's health care system and turn it into one big DMV where people have to stand in line to see a doctor, Specter unwittingly played right into their fears. In doing so, he also gave his Democratic opponent a ready-made tag line in the primary next year: "I'm Joe Sestak -- you'll never be a number to me."

Truth be told, it's a tag line that would also work for his probable opponent in the general election, Republican Pat Toomey, should both of them make it that far. For the fact of the matter is, even though the American people have strikingly different views on what government should do, most, if not all, Americans believe that government should be on their side.

Bill Clinton believed this. "We need a new government for a new century," he stated in his Second Inaugural, "humble enough not to try to solve all our problems for us, but strong enough to give us the tools to solve our problems for ourselves."

Even Ronald Reagan believed this. In his First Inaugural Address -- the same speech in which he famously stated that, "Government is not a solution to our problem; government is the problem" -- he also expressed his core belief that limited government has a role to play and has a basic obligation to the American people. "It is not my intention to do away with government," he stated. "It is, rather, to make it work."

Unfortunately, the potential for government to play a positive role seems to have been forgotten in recent years. From the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina under George W. Bush to the massive growth of the federal bureaucracy under President Obama, Americans are left to wonder: Whatever happened to the concept of making government work?

And yet, this question is more important now than perhaps ever before. Times are tough. Budgets are tight. Families are seeing a good chunk of their paychecks being used to fund government at all levels.

In Pennsylvania alone, the average resident pays more than $10,000 each year in federal, state and local taxes combined, according to the Tax Foundation. What are taxpayers getting for their investment in return? If they were in Lebanon this past week, it would have earned them the privilege of being recognized by their senator as a number, instead of their name.

Which leads to a final question: Is it any wonder that people are angry?

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Seattle Times: Myths, Truths About Canada Care

2009-07-21T15:18:00.001-07:00

So in the midst of the national debate on a government option for health care, attention inevitably turns to our neighbor to the north. Canada has been a model both for the Right and Left to prove their points on government run health care. And as usual certain disinformation has been spread by both sides as to what actually goes on.

This morning's Seattle Times had an article stating the truths and the myths of CanadaCare. It was remarkably balanced and acknowledged that it had it's shortcomings, while showing just what it costs to maintain this. What struck me in the article was when they said that the average Canadian pays twice what the average American pays in sales taxes to maintain the health care system. However, I have also known people from Alberta who tell me that they don't pay taxes on the health care system: it is shouldered by the oil taxes.

I also thought it was interesting that the average Canadian still has private insurance to pay for such things as eye exams and dental visits. But the benefit they feel for having such a health care system is that you won't go broke as most here do because they aren't faced with a crippling medical bill. That is an advantage.

While I am against the public option that the president is proposing, I am not opposed to the government streamlining the system and possibly adding a public option. I am more in favor of the Swiss system and the Canadian system, where doctors work for themselves, unlike in England where they work for the government.

Switzerland in particular has an interesting system. It combines public and private options together. You are required to purchase health insurance, but for emergencies to the hospital you are not required to pay for it. Maternity and childbirth are free as well, you just pay for the hospital bed. But for routine visits you must have insurance before you visit with your physician. To me that makes sense, for it mixes the free market and a public option together, and makes them work.

I think what we need, and this is what is cited in the article, is a single payer agency that coordinates paperwork. Doctors say that most of their time and their staff's time is spent on paperwork for the appropriate insurance company. I think we should at least adopt an idea where there is a single medical clearing house, perhaps a quasi government corporation which would require all HMOs and insurance providers be registered with it, and the physicians just refer the paperwork to the agency. This could possibly be better done on the state level then at the federal level. Hmmm... have to give that one more thought.

Anyway, here is the link to the article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2009506926_canahealth21.html.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Fourth of July Reflections

2009-07-02T15:19:00.000-07:00

So the Fourth of July is upon us again- and once more our thoughts turn to celebrations. Although to many of us it is an excuse to party, in the back of our minds we still remember what the day is all about.

Most of us know the story if we paid attention in History class: a band of brave men who didn’t like how the King of England was treating them decided they wanted to have their own country and so they signed a document called the Declaration of Independence and our nation was born. Or something like that.

But kidding aside, it is a day we all take pride in. We celebrate in our own ways the liberties we have in this country. And sometimes we love this country and it’s liberties like we do a relative: we love them yet take them for granted.

It is a day that is not about politics or our government, but about freedom and America and the flag. It is a day that even the most jaded of us are unashamedly American. It is a day when we wave and wear our team’s colors of Red, White, and Blue. It is a day in which differences aside, we celebrate one thing together: that we are Americans.

I know that since I was kid I have always associated the Fourth of July with certain activities and foods. You know, perhaps a picnic would be in order or a barbecue. Certainly watermelon or fried chicken would be involved and definitely potato salad. And sometimes we would be invited out to a friend’s house on the lake, and we would spend the entire afternoon swimming. Fireworks would then be planned as the grand finale to a fabulous day.

And often a thought would float through my mind as I eat the special food and swim and have fun- I think of the many sacrifices we make to keep our liberties vibrant. Each of us serve our country and make our mark on liberty in our own ways, some of us choose to pay the ultimate sacrifice. Even in the little things we can serve our country: working our farms that feed the world, manufacturing the goods that the world wants, or it could be when we inform ourselves as citizens or defend our rights in our courts of law. Some of our fellow countrymen chose to serve in places such as the Argonne Forest, Iwo Jima, Vietnam, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Every day we choose to live our lives and serve we tell the story of freedom.

We have had well over 200 Fourth of Julys since our independence was declared. Yet the day never seems to grow old for us, for we know deep down we are celebrating something special. Yes, we may look forward to being with friends and family and plan a large fireworks display, but we also know that we are commemorating the deeds of 55 brave men, whose deeds that day changed not just America, but the world.

A Short Term Energy Solution

2009-06-09T15:18:00.000-07:00

Well, today the price of crude oil crept back above $70 a barrel for the first time this year, and gas prices are slowly following it. While it was very nice to have had low fuel prices these last nine months, one downside to it was that it seemed to have cooled the debate and sense of urgency over finding alternative sources of fuel.

The problem we have is that no one source of fuel is as plentiful or cheap as petroleum is. We hear much of converting cars to ethanol, but for the amounts we are talking about it would take tons more more corn than we are growing right now. And while I like the idea of electric cars, there is not an infrastructure available nationwide to accommodate the mass of drivers. As it stands, it is not practical to convert our oil based economy to an alternative, and expect the level of our standard of living to remain the same. I do think we should expand our reliance on alternative sources of fuel, but I do not think we can expect it to replace petroleum entirely.

Some economists and analysts believe that most of the world's main oil fields have played out, and the world is running out of oil. This is used as the impetus to find alternatives. But their are those-like me- who are pushing for expanding our offshore drilling off our coasts. And oil fields such as the one in North Dakota and Montana look promising for the future.

But will it all be enough for our needs?

I do not think so, and that is why I have become an advocate of the Pickens Plan, named after it's creator, oil magnate T. Boone Pickens. He states that the US possesses the largest natural gas reserves in the world, most of which has not been tapped. We're talking an estimated trillions of cubic feet. His plan is to develop more pipelines (similar to what Gov. Palin is doing in Alaska), and to convert our diesel trucks, trains, and cars to run on natural gas. He states that nearly a third of our surface vehicles rely on diesel engines, and converting them could take up to three years. But it would drastically reduce our dependence on foreign oil by a third, and would employ thousands of Americans as they help tap this clean burning fuel.

I first heard Mr. Pickens explain this concept on talk radio just before the elections last year, and it made the most sense of all the plans I've heard so far. He also stated practically that with all the twenty year plans and so on, no one has stated in a practical way what we are to do in the meantime. People want tangible results, and his plan could give us real results in the foreseeable future.

What do you think, is this a viable option?

Until next time, this is Statesman.

The North Korean Menace

2009-05-25T11:36:00.000-07:00

This morning another piece of disturbing news surfaced. North Korea reported it's second nuclear test in as many months, this time under ground. Indeed, the US Geological Survey confirmed a magnitude 4.7 seismic activity in the area reported. This is a grave development in our ongoing and uneasy peace efforts for the Korean Peninsula.

Since the Korean ended with the cease fire in 1953, an uneasy and highly armed peace has been enforced rigorously. Indeed, the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) is one of the most militarized sectors in the world, and has one of the largest concentrations of American forces anywhere. We are committed to helping maintain the independence and freedom of South Korea, even as it's northern communist neighbor claims the two should be one. North Korea also is reported to have one of the largest armies in the world, supposedly in the millions. And it's testing of nuclear weapons makes the ongoing Six Party talks more perilous, and the peace situation more grave.

There is somewhat of a status when a foreign power acquires a nuclear weapon. It increases (supposedly) their negotiating standing, and they like to think that it would make the world take them more seriously. I think that this was a partial reason why India tested a bomb in 1974, and why Pakistan acquired it. Possessing the world's deadliest weapons is a psychological shot in the arm for authoritarian regimes, and it solidifies the hold on power of authoritarians. It has made negotiating with India and Pakistan over Kashmir more perilous as both had threatened to use their nuclear force in their last conflict.

Now, with North Korea entering the arena as a nuclear power and Iran set to test their first missile, we face a new set of challenges. We can not attack North Korea, and it would make it dangerous to the tenuous peace if we attempted air strikes on their nuclear installations. They could retaliate by invading across the DMZ, and/or shelling Seoul. And in a conflict we do not want to get bogged down in another fight like what happened in 1951.

But we also can not allow North Korea to develop a bomb that could reach Seoul or Alaska or even Japan. So I am afraid our only option here is continued sanctions and diplomacy. But sanctions haven't seemed to work, as their government still is maintaining a tight grip on power even as their people starve. Trouble is, North Korea is such a closed society that it is hard I think even for us to gather enough intel to help us in negotiations. We are truly between Iraq and a hard place (no pun intended).

So, what do you all think we should do to get North Korea back to the negotiating table? Is there a way we can get them to cease testing their missiles, or is that a pipe dream? You tell me.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Helping To Change The GOP

2009-05-05T22:33:00.000-07:00

Well, there has been much talk since the election last year of changing the Republican Party's image. In fact, they have even gone so far as to have sent out their self proclaimed 'leaders' out on the speaking circuit to help in this "image makeover." For their sakes, I hope it works; but I'm not as sanguine as they seem to be. I think that the GOP needs more than just an image makeover, I think they need a makeover, period.

Let me explain.

Until the mid 1970s, the GOP was relatively moderate in their politics, and generally fielded moderate candidates. These people, tagged with the names of Eisenhower or Teddy Roosevelt Republicans, contributed to modern America and the quality of life we take for granted today. They especially left a legacy of conservation and environmentalism that was made possible by a prominent Republican president: Theodore Roosevelt. He helped dedicate millions of acres of our most precious resources as public parks and monuments, to be safe from reckless exploitation and for the enjoyment of future Americans. He used the powers of the presidency to not only advance the cause of conservation, but also to use the influence and power of government to help make right social injustices. He was not afraid to set himself against powerful elements of his own party arrayed to stop him. His vision for America's system of parks and forests is still around today, and treasured by many.

Unfortunately, as the GOP has strayed to a radical course, it has abandoned it's legacy of conservation and environmentalism in favor of so called "unfettered free markets." This perception, that the GOP was in the pockets of Big Business, was cemented when some GOP legislators stated that global warming is a hoax, and is based on junk science. Despite the environmental accomplishments of the Bush Administration, the GOP was still perceived to be anti environment. That, among other things coming to a head in 2008, helped cement the perception that the GOP is out of touch with reality.

Now, there are some of us proud Republicans who do think that the party needs more than an image makeover. All the leaders are doing in this public relations stunt is putting lipstick on a pig. But what I and many others believe is that we need to reclaim our roots, not as the party of Reagan- he was a part of it. We need to reclaim our place as the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, men of vision and grit who led with determination. Their vision was large, inclusive, and daring. Both were men who hated extremes, and didn't try to govern as puppets of interest groups. They are admired and loved today because their vision was larger than themselves, and would outlast their presidencies and their lifetimes.

The only way the Republican Party can regain credibility among American voters and become competitive once again is to find, somehow, a vision greater than itself. It should be inclusive, bold, and worthy of the American people. It should excite their imagination. We need to remember why one of our greatest vote getters in the 20th century, President Reagan, was so beloved. Because he appealed to the better angels of our nature, not try to incite culture warfare. And when we try to make right the wrongs of our society, we need to remember the patience that President Lincoln had when he helped to abolish slavery. He took it a step at a time, and sometimes stepped backward and compromised, instead of insisting on winning the whole issue of emancipation.

We have many things that need to be corrected if the GOP is to be competitive next year, or try to take on the president in 2012. And since the leadership still doesn't seem to be getting the message, it is time that we the grassroots make our voices heard. We want real change in the party, while not changing our core beliefs. And I'd like to contribute by calling to your attention an organization of moderate Republicans who are concerned about our nation's environment: Republicans For Environmental Protection. They are following in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, and attempting to revive the legacy of conservation. You can find them at: http://www.repamerica.org. Joining and supporting groups such as this can help send a message to our party leaders that we don't want change we can live with, not change that we settle for, but change that transforms.

Again, that's http://www.repamerica.org, or go to my blog roll and look for Republicans for Environmental Protection.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

A Reason To Write

2009-03-29T21:43:00.002-07:00

I am sorry to all those who read my blog regularly. I haven't written here in nearly six weeks, which seems an eternity when we discuss such a thing as politics. But I just read something that makes me so concerned for this country that I had to go here and share my thoughts.

I have just read that GM CEO Rick Wagoner is reportedly being asked to step down by the Obama Administration if he wants more federal money to flow toward GM. I was in shock for a almost a minute as I realized that this was this sets a bad precedent for unparalleled intervention in the economy by the government. As I recall, even in the dark days of the Depression and massive government oversight of business in World War 2, the Federal Government still didn't take their control over business to this extent.

This is something new, and I do not like the implications. Instead of a "block grant" type subsidy being given to the automakers- where no strings are attached- this is like a categorical grant in which the Feds tell the receiving entity how and where to spend the money, and by the way, we don't like your top management, so if you will throw them out, then it is all right with us.

I guess to defend the government, we could say that if GM and Chrysler don't like the proposals that Obama is set to unveil tomorrow, then they don't have to take it. Unfortunately, they are living off the bailout money that the Big Bank called the US Treasury is giving them. They don't have many options in this economy. So it sounds to me a bit like the Obama Administration is taking advantage of this crisis to expand their agenda, and it is looking more and more like socialism to me. And this is barely a hundred days into his presidency.

May God help us from our own stupidity! I know that the US is resilient and can survive this, but if too much of our free enterprise heritage and our heritage of liberty is chipped away because the liberals "can't let a good crisis go to waste," then I fear we won't recognize this country when we come out on the other side.

A writer (I don't know who) once wrote that "every generation must decide for itself the fate of liberty." Benjamin Franklin also was quoted as saying "They that would give up essential liberty to achieve a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." And in this generation we seem to be grasping for security, as fleeting as it is, and are willing to see our precious liberty being stripped away in exchange for a tyrant called Bigger Government.

At the very least we face a declining standard of living, unheard of deficits in the foreseeable future, and inflation like we had in the 1970s. Because our so called "leaders" are running scared of this depression, they are overcorrecting, and the results of their actions are likely to backfire on them with us being pinched even more. In seeking their answer to fix this depression, they have gone beyond Keynesianism, and have embraced socialism as the way out. And this country will be hurting because of it for a long while, unless we do something about it.

See, I think that with all these proposals coming out of Congress and the "third house" of Congress, called the White House, they are overextending themselves with big proposals. Energy, massive health care "reform," righting the economy, and restructuring the auto industry and the Iraq War will come back and bite them. I am seeing parallels here between Obama and the first two years of the Clinton Administration. Clinton tried to do too much, and after passing the controversial Brady Bill and similar legislation, he also pushed for a massive restructuring of the health care system, and the outcry was so intense that Congress voted it down, yet it didn't stop the Democrats from losing Congress that year. So I do think that the GOP can have another opening here, especially if the current bailout doesn't work and the people grow weary of the constant bailout practice. What we need, though, is another charismatic person like Newt Gingrich that can provide the leadership to retake Congress next year.

But here's an interesting side note: I was listening to a local talk radio host in Seattle who was speaking with an eminent economist on the economy, and they were discussing the welcome good news about the February housing starts, a key indicator of the health of the economy. This economist contends that this did not happen because of Obama's bailout, for most of the money won't be spent until next year, when we're on the way to recovery or more economic ruin. He contended that the economy is righting itself, and although some regulation was needed to put the financial industry in line, we did not need a massive bailout. I think it was a very revealing interview all around, and most of the people that I have talked to feel the same way the economist does: that we don't need this bailout to the big banks. It is just more of the same as we got last year when Paulson ran Treasury.

Needless to say, it's going to be a bumpy ride and we better hang on to what liberty is left, for we might find ourselves without a country that we have been proud to call home: this land of the free called America.

A Reason To

2009-03-29T21:43:00.001-07:00

The Un Stimulating Stimulus Bill

2009-02-10T09:21:00.000-08:00

I was pondering the whole debate and events that led up to the almost certain passage of the stimulus bill before the Senate, and I started hearing myself give my objections. I have written them down as if I were a senator in the throes of debate with my colleagues. Let me know how you like it.

Mr. President, my colleagues,

A few months ago our president, while still a candidate for the office he now holds, spoke at the beginning of this financial crisis and called for action for the “fierce urgency of now.” Well, I stand before you with a fierce urgency today, as we debate a question that will have tremendous implications for years to come. I come before you not as a Republican, not as a conservative, but as a concerned American who has grave doubts about this package we have before us.

We must consider carefully the proposals set forth in this package, and we must not heed the calls, even from our president, for all possible speed. To approve nearly $800 billion, to add that amount to our already ballooning deficit, while not being sure that it will have the effect that’s intended, should give us pause.

But the first thing we need to consider is the name of the package, what the media is dubbing ‘TARP 2.’ It wasn’t five months ago that the bottom fell out of the markets, and one bank after another started falling, and our whole financial system seemed in peril. What was proposed by the Bush Administration was the original TARP program, also with the same price tag, and with the same goals. With more trepidation this Congress considered it, and our colleagues in the House voted it down once. At least half of the money allocated was to buy the toxic loans and assets of failing companies, which was scrapped once the program was approved. And they hardly spent half of it when this program was proposed.

The original program has not had the effects we had hoped for. We hoped that by loaning to the banks, and backing them up with the government’s credit, they would start lending again. Instead, the banks continue to hoard. Wall Street is still hemorrhaging, and thousands upon thousands are unemployed or soon to be.

And many ask “Why, why doesn’t it work?” I will answer by supplying this well known adage, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make him drink.” The media and mortgage brokers report that they’d love to lend to people who qualify, but people just aren’t taking out loans right now. They are gun shy, and rightfully so. There is not the security they had even six months ago, knowing that they will have their jobs and be able to meet their obligations every month. Without even a modicum of security, there is not the incentive to seek out credit. They are instead saving and cutting back and living within their means, not seeking to expand their means.

And with this bill, it seems, as Yogi Berra so famously quipped, “It’s deja vous all over again.” This bill is almost exactly like it’s predecessor, almost the same price tag, and with many of the same provisions. It is hoped to have the same effect of jumpstarting credit in a worse economic situation than we were in five months ago.

But if the first one didn’t work, then what makes us think this one will? I hardly think it has anything to do with a change in the White House, and we certainly can’t point to recovery brought on by the original program. So what, I ask you, are we doing here?

There is an appropriate quote for this program and this debate: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.”

This package was originally sold to the American public as one that would create jobs by spending money on infrastructure. Well, after reviewing it, I have realized that infrastructure improvements make up only 5% of the spending. The rest is a smorgasbord of pet projects, not unlike the appropriations bills we routinely vote on in Congress. This is merely a thinly veiled attempt to buy votes come election time.

Now, my eminent colleague from Missouri (Sen. McCaskill) claims that this bill is necessary because “every economist says it is necessary.” I respectfully disagree, and wonder which economists the lady is listening to. But for wont of time, I could name numerous economists- some of whom are Nobel laureates and Presidential advisers- who think that this bill is the most ‘un-stimulating of stimulus bills.’ While many economists do agree with the Administration’s position on this bill, hardly does that make everyone. It makes one wonder if there is a hidden provision in this massive bill whereby these economists would be paid for supporting the Admininstration’s assertions.

But beyond all of that, the gravest doubt of all is this: our blasé attitude toward using deficit financing as a cure for all our ills. Now, those of you who know me know that I am not against deficit financing in all cases. I do think that is has been a blessing to our nation in times of war and was a useful tool for helping to expand our country’s resources and infrastructure. Thomas Jefferson used it to make the Louisiana Purchase, and every other land deal was financed with debt. We built railroads, highways, and schools on debt.

But in the last generation we have fallen into this trap of buying everything we want now, and charging it to pay another day. I am speaking of not just our Federal government, but also of our society in general. For years we have heard stories of how average Americans fell into the credit trap, only to find themselves crushed under the weight of debt. Slogans of “buy now, pay later” enticed many, and the “pay later” has now come back to bite us. It is said that the average American held an average of $8000 in credit card debt, and more and more of his income was going to pay for the debts they owe. It is the same with the debt the Federal Government incurs: more and more of our national treasure is going to service the debt, and this package will expand the deficit about $1 trillion this year, with more money having to service that debt also.

Many were also extended mortgage credit who shouldn’t and wouldn’t have had credit several years ago. Much of this debt was unpayable, and the banks knew it, and yet they sold it on the markets. Now, many people have lost their homes and banks are having to declare bankruptcy because of these toxic mortgages.

I remember my grandfather telling me of a time in America where getting credit was more difficult and more regulated- not just anyone could get it. You had to show proof of income, you often needed a good size down payment on a house, and they would rarely lend you money for anything much beyond a house or a car. The financial industry was highly regulated, and it created a stable money market in one of the most prosperous times in our history.

We also can not deceive ourselves by thinking that we can pay our way out with debt, and not have to levy higher taxes to meet our obligations later on. That is wishful thinking of the worst kind. Up until a generation ago, when this nation took on massive amounts of debt, such as during World War 2, we levied higher taxes to pay for them. And there was once a time when my party was the party of fiscal responsibility. We would insist on paying for programs with money we had, instead of saddling later generations with a debt they do not want. The more the obligations, the more taxes needed to pay for them. It served us well for many years.

Unfortunately, my party has fallen into the trap of thinking that we can cut taxes, maintain current levels of spending, and add to the debt, and the economy will be as strong as it has ever been. Everyone outside this fishbowl called Washington, DC, can tell you that that is a recipe for disaster. It’s that attitude that keeps us spending at the rate of $2 million dollars a minute or more.

My fellow senators, and especially those who are conservatives, think on this. Remember that if we follow our fears and let ourselves be drawn away by fear of the unknown future, we will inevitably make terrible mistakes. There are sensible alternatives to this boondoggle of a bureaucratic nightmare, ones that comparatively low cost, and are in keeping with the American tradition. Allow me to suggest some of these.

1. Repeal the Community ReInvestment Act, which forced financial institutions to lend money to people who didn’t have credit. Also, reinstate the banking and lending regulations of our forebears, and keep the lid down on interest rates banks and credit companies can charge.

2. Add more mortgage tax credits, and also re instate the new car tax credit to help stimulate Detroit.

3. Remember that the more the government borrows, the less capital there is to help create jobs and grow businesses. So we should also adopt budgeting guidelines and stick to them, and allow the president to have the authority of some kind of veto over spending. The more money we leave to the private sector, the more there will be for them to lend to the private sector.

4. But to truly stimulate the economy, let’s scrap the current tax code and go with the Fair Tax. Many economists have stated that this act alone will work wonders on the American economy, and will eliminate all the taxes on productivity and production in this country. It will eliminate “special” tax breaks for the few, and will not penalize you for earning more. You will be taxed on what you spend, and not on what you make. It is revenue neutral, and will encourage investment in America again.

In the coming days, whether this bill is passed or not, I will incorporate these proposals into a true stimulus bill. My intention is to raise public awareness for the alternatives before us, and to make others see that we don’t have to be saddled with a debt burden that we aren’t able to bear.

Senators, my fellow Americans: what the president said in his Inaugural Address was true. We have a long, hard road ahead of us, and no easy choices to be made. But it seems that with this bill we are taking the easy way out of our present troubles, ignoring the warnings of what our children will go through that would make this crisis seem benign. Consider this when you vote, and ponder if you wish for our children’s future to be less than it was for us.

Thank you, and may God bless the United States of America.

--------------------

Until next time, this is Statesman.

What's Happening...

2009-01-19T14:41:00.000-08:00

Wow, it has been nearly six weeks since I have written anything on this blog. Sorry to all about that. I won't say much today, other than to say that on this eve of the inauguration of Barack Obama as our first African American president, I wish him well and will be praying for him.

I do have mixed feelings about the departure of George W. Bush. He was a likable guy, and the answer to the prayers of many of my friends on the Christian Right, but he allowed too many things to get in the way of him being truly effective as a president. I think he allowed himself to be led too much by his advisers and his Vice President, and they led him down a path of destruction when it came to torture, the Valerie Plame case, or even the firing of the district attorneys.

His accomplishments- such as the Clear Skies initiative, funding for AIDS, the establishment of the Homeland Security apparatus, and No Child Left Behind- will be overshadowed by the debacle that has become Iraq. Also his inability to reign in spending and going from an excess of $100 billion surplus when he came into office to leaving a deficit of $500 billion and a very weak economy will be remembered as squandered opportunities.

I do appreciate his focus on keeping the country safe, and fighting the War on Terror. I think that he did allow faulty intelligence to guide some of his decisions. For a man who "trusts his gut" when faced with a decision, his gut was in error when he allowed violations of civil liberties in America. It also didn't serve him well when he could have come clean about Administration involvement in the Valerie Plame case, instead of obfuscating.

These are only a few reasons why voters are overwhelmingly voting in the polls that they are glad he is going home to Texas. They just got tired of it all.

And as far as our new president, Barack Obama is concerned, I am mildly hopeful about his government. As you know, I didn't vote for him for president, but I am finding myself this inauguration eve feeling proud of my country. For a nation known for it's homophobia and racism, we have come a long way in electing a man of mixed race as our Chief Executive. I certainly don't agree with him on alot of issues, but will call him my president and support him as best as I can.

So farewell, 43, and welcome, 44.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Gov. Huckabee's New Book, and His Future Plans

2008-12-04T09:51:00.001-08:00

I finished reading Governor Huckabee's new book Do The Right Thing. It was mainly a campaign memoir of how a small state governor with virtually no name recognition and even less cash became the last man standing when Senator McCain won the nomination. It is an inspiring read, and for a former Huckabee supporter it brought back many memories of his exciting campaign.

As you probably know, Huckabee is now a talk show host on Fox Weekend with his show called Huckabee. He has also recently signed a contract with ABC Radio to do political commentary pieces on weekdays. Both of those jobs really will give him name recognition, and keep his ideas in the limelight. I ultimately think he is using this as a medium to keep his name out there in preparation for a run for the GOP nomination in 2012. And if Gov. Sarah Palin decides to run, it will be an interesting fight for the conservative wing of the GOP.

There was a few things he advocated in the book that never set well with me when he advocated them in his campaign. One of the major issues was his support of a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution. In my view, the Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights is supposed to be about the government's relation to the people, and it states the rights of the people; it isn't supposed to deliniate moral values. While I am pro life and believe we should do everything we can to promote life, I stop short when it comes to codifiying it in the Constitution.

I like Huckabee for his bold ideas. His belief in 'Vertical Politics:' the view that Americans don't care if a policy is right of left, Republican or Democrat, as long as it will lift them up not bring them down, is very much like my platform or "Practical Conservatism." I also supported him because he recognized that we needed to totally replace the tax code, not reform it. And I liked that he recognized the merits of the Fair Tax and that his campaign brought it more recognition. He also had bold ideas when it came to cutting health care costs. He believed that we should focus on prevention, and mold policies with that in mind. Now, even President elect Obama is saying the same thing.

All in all, I think that Gov. Huckabee will be a big player on the national Republican scene for the next several years. I look forward to a presidential campaign with him as the nominee. Believe me, it will be one of the funnest campaigns. He is a talented communicator, a bass playing Baptist preacher who lost 110 lbs., and he doesn't fit stereotypes of what a conservative is. And the same goes for Gov. Palin, as I have explored in previous posts. These two people represent the new face of conservatism, and can make it populist again.

Like I said, 2012 will be very interesting.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Rediscovering The Republican Brand

2008-11-11T12:55:00.000-08:00

I read an excellent article written by South Carolina's GOP Governor Mark Sanford. He gave some very good reasons on why the people didn't reject conservatism, they just rejected the Republican Party that didn't live up to those principles. In twelve years of control of Congress and six where both the White House and Congress were controlled by the Republicans, they didn't do what they say they are for. If a person was asked, they can tell you that the Republican Party is generally for low taxes, smaller government, a strong national defense, etc. It also can be defined by the general opposition to abortion and gay rights, but that is because of the loud voices of the Religious Right.

There is going to be some soul searching I am sure, and some cleaning house as the GOP rids itself of it's cancerous icons such as Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska. There will be a call for solidarity; and I am concerned that in that call the GOP will shut out the voices of it's more moderate members. They shot themselves in the foot when they try to enforce conservative dogma, to the point of trying to unseat Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a moderate Republican, in 2004. I am also concerned that they will retrench themselves and go back to negative sniping, instead of presenting a united, upbeat, conservative/moderate message of liberty, prosperity, and peace.

I do think, though, that last week's defeat was short lived. I believe that the GOP will take it's defeat to heart, and will present a more upbeat message in time for the 2010 elections. I also think that with a White House and Congress controlled by the Democrats, there will be a great temptation for them to overreach, and then it could be 1994 all over again.

So here is Gov. Sanford's article, as posted on cnn.com:

Conservatives Didn't Lose Election, GOP Did

By Mark Sanford
Special to CNN

Editor's Note: Mark Sanford, a Republican, is governor of South Carolina.

Gov. Mark Sanford says Republicans campaigned as conservatives but didn't govern that way.

COLUMBIA, South Carolina (CNN) -- For all Americans, this election represents another glass ceiling broken, and in the words of my 16-year-old, "That's very cool." The election of the first black president is an inspiring and transformational moment for our country.

I am happy for President-elect Barack Obama, and for many who supported him. They and, in many cases, their ancestors fought for this day for centuries as they experienced first-hand the unthinkable wrong of segregation. As an American, I wish him every success.

Beyond the presidential race, it goes without saying the Republican Party took a shellacking nationally. Some on the left will say our electoral losses are a repudiation of our principles of lower taxes, smaller government and individual liberty. But Tuesday was not in fact a rejection of those principles -- it was a rejection of Republicans' failure to live up to those principles.

I believe in the Biblical notion of taking the log out of your own eye before worrying about the splinter in someone else's. Accordingly, let me focus on my own party and the way Ted Stevens personifies what went wrong in the election.

As a senior ranking Republican from Alaska, he was a proud champion of pork barrel spending and bridges to nowhere, and stayed so long that he developed a blind eye to ethical lapses that would be readily seen by scout leaders and soccer moms alike.

Republicans have campaigned on the conservative themes of lower taxes, less government and more freedom -- they just haven't governed that way. America didn't turn away from conservatism, they turned away from many who faked it.

So during our "time in the wilderness," it's my hope that we go back to the basics of conservatism -- what it stands for and its real-world implications for people's lives. The sooner we do, the sooner we will see good policy from Republicans, and the sooner I suspect we will return to electoral favor.

Don't Miss

A political party works much like a brand. Companies like Caterpillar and John Deere earn loyal customers by consistently delivering what they advertise -- they walk the walk. The same is true of brands like Fed-Ex, the Boy Scouts of America, or the Marine Corps.

I'm always struck by the degree to which the rank and file indeed know what they're about. I'm equally struck by the degree to which those in office don't always act on the same.

Chick-fil-a does not say to its franchisees, "However you want to cook the sandwiches is cool with me." They are precise in what they expect, and it's my hope going forward more conservatives in all corners of America will be equally precise and exacting in making sure their views are reflected by the party that supposedly represents them.

The time for doing so is short. President-elect Obama proposed $1 trillion in new spending on the campaign trail with no clear plan for paying for it. As a nation, we're on the hook for $52 trillion -- that represents an invisible mortgage of nearly $450,000 held by every household in America.

We've thrown $2.3 trillion toward bailouts and stimulus this year with little to show for it in the way of results, and Congress is already contemplating yet another $150 billion to now bail out states that spent faster than even the federal government. I fear an Obama administration will welcome this.

Borrowing from Medicare, Social Security, our grandkids and the Chinese to remedy a problem created by too much borrowing strikes me as odd, and hardly the "change" Americans really want. Accordingly, on these and other issues that involve borrowing to spend, I will work with others to change this kind of change.

History will prove that we live in remarkable times. As we prepare for the future, it's my hope that we take time for introspection as Republicans on where we go next as a party, and take time as Americans for reflection in appreciating the significance of turning part of Dr. Martin Luther King's dream into reality.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Gov. Mark Sanford.

----------------

I do agree with the tone of the article, which is saying that the people didn't trust the Republicans when they promised change, because they knew the track record of the past eight years. But I don't like the seeming blame shifting that the title seems to do.

Any thoughts on this?

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Proposed: Property Taxpayer's Bill of Rights

2008-10-12T15:34:00.000-07:00

In November of last year I spoke about an idea of a Property Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. Well, after about a year of gathering ideas and formulating them into a plan, it is now ready to see the light of day, and face your scrutiny. I hope to have your comments on this.

Here it is:

Property Taxpayer's Bill of Rights
by: Matthew Hines

Summary: To ensure justice and equity in collection and assessment of property taxes. This is to assure that all owners of real and personal property will be treated fairly.

Right #1: That there shall be added to the Washington State Constitution an amendment which shall place a 1% growth cap on all annual property tax increases. This is to reinstate the overturned Initiative 701, and make it constitutionally protected.

This protection is to safeguard property owners from large increases in their property taxes every year.

Right #2: Voters have the right to vote on any increase in the property tax above and beyond the annual limit. This is already provided for in Maintenance and Operations Levies, where a simple majority is needed to pass such a levy.

Right #3: That homeowners have the right to their homes and lands even in times of economic hardship. If a homeowner should lose their principal source of income and faces a large property tax bill, the county or municipality shall “forgive” the tax until the homeowner is in a condition to pay.

But the taxing authorities:

Must not tax him on what his current taxes are, i.e., back taxes plus taxes accrued since then.
If the homeowner has investment property or other real property, then the county has the authority to place a lien or sell the land to pay the taxes owed.
The homeowner shall make a good faith effort to secure employment so he will not be seen to be taking advantage of the tax forgiveness.

Summary of Right#3

The fundamental belief is that it makes no sense for a family to lose their dwelling simply because they fell upon hard times and momentarily couldn’t pay. If a family loses their home, it makes it much harder for them to get back on their feet financially than it would be if they were allowed to keep their home. Therefore, in the long run, it is in the best interest of the taxing authority to allow such a tax “forgiveness.”

Right #4 That taxpayers have the right to freedom of information. That includes a breakdown of where the taxes are spent, how the increase was arrived at, and what they propose to do with it.

Right #5: That taxpayers have the right to be shielded from “hidden” tax clauses and provisions in their tax bills. This means:

That taxing districts will provide all information as to all hidden and added rate increases
That it is illegal for tax districts to “bank” their deferred taxes that are owed to them. As it stands, a person who can not pay his taxes will have it deferred and when he sells he pays his back taxes plus interest on his taxes. This provision will abolish that practice. Therefore, under this right the taxpayer shall only pay the taxes due him.

Right #6: That you have the right/choice concerning tax deductions for home improvements. If a homeowner remodels, adds to, renovates, or otherwise add to the cumulative selling value of your house, you have the right to a tax deduction for the current year’s tax bill.

This tax deduction shall extend to anything that increases the efficiency of a home, such as if you install a solar powered water heater, thereby cutting your overall electricity bill.

The deduction shall be between 5%-15% of the total cost of the project, that the taxpayer may deduct from the total of his tax bill. He must, however, show receipts and other proof that his improvement cost him said amount.

Right #7: Home values shall be assessed by fair market value of houses of comparable size and age. For example, if there is a new housing development that drives up the values of the older houses around it, the older houses taxes shall not be assessed by the property values of the housing development, but by houses in the area like it. County assessors shall value the worth of real estate in the same way real estate professionals do.

Right #8: If average home prices decrease, then the homeowner has the right to see their taxes decrease accordingly. But in the current housing crisis we are not seeing this happening. Housing prices have declined in place as much as 20%-30%, while taxes on the housing have grown, not decreased with the home values. This is where the advantages of tying housing values to fair market values comes into play. For example it will:

Allow the rates to more accurately reflect the true value of the house or property,
Taxes will increase or decrease based on fluctuations in the market.
Taxing districts won’t be able to get around the 1% annual restriction by jacking up home prices arbitrarily.

Right #9: That the taxpayer has the right to due process, and the right to question before tax authorities the assessment of their taxes. They also have the right to see all documents relating to how such assessment was arrived at.

So, what do you think?

Until next time, this is Statesman.

How Great Was The Fall

2008-09-27T20:38:00.000-07:00

Well, the past two weeks have seemed an eternity for American financial markets. Ten days ago, the markets opened amidst worries about high energy prices and the continuing mortgage crisis, and by the end of the day the big investment giant Merrill Lynch was sold to Bank of America because it was insolvent. That started waves of bad news as first AIG, then Charles Schwab followed in Merrill Lynch's wake. It all culminated Thursday with the sudden news that the faltering Washington Mutual was sold to J.P. Morgan Chase for pennies on the dollar. It is the end of Wall Street as we know it.

Wall Street, in a very real sense, hasn't seen this dramatic a crisis since the Great Depression of 1929. Literally trillions of dollars in value was lost not just in the New York Stock Exchange, but also in the devaluing of the mortgage securities, to the point that they are now not worth a cup of coffee. And it looks as if the dust won't settle for quite some time.

Bad economic news continues to come in. As I sit here, it is now rumored that Wachovia Bank, the fourth largest in the US, is in buyout talks with, among others, Wells Fargo & Co. It almost makes one wonder if there bank will be the next on the chopping block.

But the failure of WaMu hit especially hard. It not only was the bank of the author, it was also the largest Savings and Loan in the world, with nearly 2,200 branches and with it's headquarters here in Seattle. With nearly $500 billion in assets, it is the largest bank failure in the history of finance. And all JP Morgan Chase paid for it was $1.9 billion to the FDIC.

Many Americans have been asking the "experts" a question since this whole debacle began: how could this have happened? What is the root of all this instability in the markets and in our largest investment banks? Some like to say that it was all this bank deregulation that's to blame, and in part they are right. Banking and finance deregulation in the 1970's helped lead to the S&L bailouts in 1989, and it allowed banks to make these risky loans to people who couldn't even qualify for the worst lines of credit!

But a large part of the problem, as other economists have pointed out, is that most of the banks that are in trouble securitized, or sold, their mortgages on the open market. These same risky loans that were made were sold to investment firms like Merrill Lynch or Lehman Brothers, and when the debtors failed to pay, foreclosures spiked up, and it was only a matter of time before the mortgage securities would be worthless.

So yes, in a real sense, deregulation of the financial system helped cause the problem, but behind that is an even bigger problem: our infatuation with debt financing. The attitude that we can buy today and pay for it tomorrow was a favorite idea of policymakers and advertisers, both in government and the private sector. The federal government would pay for new programs they enacted by issuing more Treasury securities and adding to the liabilities column on our balance sheets. In the same way, "easy credit" and "no money down" became popular catchwords in a consumer society. Cars, houses, vacations, even our educations, were paid for with debt, to the point that most Americans' paychecks go to paying some form of debt. Heck, even the taxes that are withheld from that check goes to service the national debt. And after a space of nearly thirty years, our (virtually) limitless national credit card seems to have sneezed, or at worst developed a bad cold. How or when we'll recover is a big question.

Now, to answer the jittery emotions on Wall Street and the concerns of the American public, the Administration proposed a huge bailout deal worth $700 billion dollars, added of course to the national debt. It is supposed to inject needed new capital into the investment markets, which now are holding all their liquid cash close. It also is to buy up all the bad mortgages that felled Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch, and back it up with the sweat and work of ordinary Americans. But, true to it's secretive nature, the Bush White House also proposed that the Secretary of the Treasury be given sweeping authority to not only buy these toxic bonds, but to also have emergency powers to intervene in the markets when such crises happen again. And they asked that the Secretary act without Congressional scrutiny, which strips him of accountability.

The American people smelled a rat, and let their elected officials know where they stood on this. The Democrats put up strong objections to bailing out Wall Street without strong accountablility protections and taxpayer protections. They proposed an amendment that would require Congressional supervision and limit CEO's salaries. On Thursday it looked as if it was headed toward a bipartisan agreement, when the Republicans backed out. Rep. John Boehner, the GOP leader, told the president that his members were being flooded with calls from angry constituents. They are 9-1 against the plan, he said, and it is making his members understandably nervous. The talks collapsed.

Now that we're up to date, let's talk about why the bailout is causing such raw emotions among average Americans. For some time, we average ordinary work a day Americans have seen our government become corrupted by the influence of Big Money, and the access to the national credit, and the insular society of the Establishment. We see a government as being two faced: they are against bailing out average Americans and their bad mortgages, saying that it won't encourage responsibility; yet they seem all too willing to bail out Wall Street firms who bought the bad mortgages, and then call it a bail out not corporate welfare. This is the burr in our saddle, and I would venture to say that we've not been this united on anything since Pearl Harbor. Conservatives and liberals, Republicans, Independents and Democrats all oppose this bail out, albeit for different reasons. But with polls showing nearly 90% of Americans opposing this plan, members of Congress can not help but be queasy about it.

My next question to you is: what should we do beginning today that will help ensure that we don't experience such a thing ever again? That, I think is beyond the scope of this posting, and as this recession, and more likely depression, continues we will have ample time to reflect on this. But for now I think we should get back to where banks used to be in the 1950's and 60's. I can't speak from experience, but from what my dad and others have told me, is that it wasn't terribly easy to get a loan back then. If you wished to get a real estate loan, you typically had to put up a 20% down payment. You generally had to be employed, had some savings in the bank, and basically demonstrate that you were of good moral character to get a hold of the bank's deposits. Likewise, the banks also encouraged saving and investing by offering generous rates on accounts. Dad told me that some would pay you 3% interest, and then they'd loan it out at 6% (which sounds a lot like my new bank), and it was all held down by regulation.

But part of the reason that the Baby Boom generation was so prosperous was because of the high savings rates during World War 2. Economists have speculated that Americans were possibly expecting the depression to resume after the war, and so they saved up a nest egg for hard times. But rationing of resources during the war also held down consumption, and some of the excess money was invested in war bonds. The end of the war brought the men home, and in converting from wartime to peacetime we did suffer some upheavals, but now with all this excess money and new families to spend it on, a new consumer culture was born. And the virtues of our Greatest Generation were lost within a generation.

You know, in many ways I see a parallel of what is happening to the markets and a parable that Jesus Christ told his disciples in the Sermon on the Mount. At the end of the sermon, he spoke of a "foolish man who built his house upon the sand. And the rains fell, and floods came and the winds blew and beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof." Likewise, we have been like foolish men, building our financial houses upon shifting sands of credit, and the tides came in and the hurricanes wrecked our coasts and the winds of war and famine blew to our ears, and we panicked, and responded with more debt, and the house fell, and it how great was it's fall.

Ultimately, I do see us enduring and reviving and prospering again. We'll get through this, but not without some expensive lessons that could take years for us to learn. I think that Wall Street as we know it is no more, as evidence by the end of the investment banks. I think that this crisis is forcing Americans to cut back on spending, and perhaps saving a little more than they're used to. In my retail job I have noticed that far fewer people are using credit cards now than they did even one week ago. They are therefore using cash and spending less.

I think that the market was just over hyped and just got too high, and is now in a time of recovery as it corrects itself. Housing prices are now at their true value, not at the artificial levels they reached because demand far outstripped supply. If we would just ride it out and let it correct itself, the free market will eventually find it's stride again.

But hey, here's a silver lining. This recession makes for great deals for aspiring investors like me to buy and invest. Then when the good times come once again, we will again be able to prosper.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Conservatives Take Note: The World Won't Like Us If We Reject Obama!

2008-09-10T07:51:00.000-07:00

I came across an editorial from the Guardian, a British newspaper, which made me angry enough that I had to write this posting. The headline should be enough for you to get the picture: "World's Verdict Will Be Harsh If The US Rejects The Man It Yearns For." I should not comment on it, but I will.

'The World's Verdict?' There's not enough words in my vocabulary to describe the contempt I have for such an opinion. We don't choose our leaders to make the Brits or the French or the Germans happy, we choose a leader who will advance American interests and protect Americans freedoms. We can care less if our allies like him; they don't have a vote in our elections, and rank and file Americans usually don't consider world opinion when making their decision at the ballot box.

'...(US) Rejects The Man It Yearns For.' Why not come out and say that he is the man who the world yearns for? I mean, they don't like having to deal with a Bible thumping cowboy from the American heartland, aka George Bush. Here comes a (supposedly) learned, urbane, young and handsome senator who's politics would fit into the European mainstream, and the Europeans act as if we 'provincial' Americans would be stupid enough to not see what a savior Senator Obama is. More than anything else, this would be the reason why 'provincial' America, the heartland, would reject Senator Obama is because we get the sense in our gut that he is just too... elite.

Let me clarify one or two things here. I am not, per se, against someone being well educated or being a member of the educational 'elite.' I hold education in high regard, but I'd hope that an American who is highly educated and intellectual wouldn't forget who he is and where he came from. If he was, he would know that the US has 50 states, not 57 (that's Heinz ketchup). If he truly was an American to the core, he would know better than to criticize Americans for clinging to their 'religion and guns.'

This is the thing that this British editorial writer seems to think: that Americans choose their leaders irrationally. Don't they know that the world despises them? Don't they see the world economy is on an unsure footing, and could collapse? Don't they see what the policies of that cowboy in the White House has done to the US economy? And yet they don't see the light as the enlightened Europeans do. They will choose a leader because he promises to protect their guns and religion, which is silly to our Continental friends. They will pick a woman who, if elected, will smash all the work that liberal feminists have built that defines a 'successful' woman. If Americans were more rational, they would choose Obama, who is cosmopolitan (not that there's anything wrong with that), been to Harvard, lived internationally, and sounds all the right notes for their ears. But the writer forgets that he is not running for Chancellor of Germany or Prime Minister of Great Britain, he is running in a very conservative country called the United States of America.

Now, although I do think that it is good if we have harmonious relations with our allies, and I think that we made some mistakes in trying to fight the War on Terror, the last thing I want is for a non American to tell me how stupid I am if I don't see things his way. And they say we have "imperial hubris!"

As I recall, America won the Cold War because we had resolute allies standing with us, and it was so at the beginning of the War on Terror. But, my criticisms of the Iraq War aside, I think that the war would have been won a lot sooner if the world had stood with us.

Anyway, here's the link for you: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/10/uselections2008.barackobama.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Palin: Reagan's True Successor?

2008-09-05T01:05:00.000-07:00

Last night we got to see a rare event; we got to see history in the making. For it is rare in politics to have a communicator and a public official stir your heart and soul. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin did just that when she accepted the GOP Vice Presidential nomination last night.

Many pundits, well known for hyperbole, called it "the speech of her political life," and set a bar of low expectations for it. But even the MSM (Main Stream Media) was left in awe of the sheer power of her words. Even jaded reporters like CNN's Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper went off script for once and highly praised the speech. That's a shocker.

Since she was announced last Friday in Dayton, and her prime time speech last night, the nation hasn't really gotten to see the real Sarah Palin. The media tried to spend the intervening five days to create a narrative of her: she's radically pro-life, she's vastly inexperienced (as if being governor doesn't mean anything), and they even floated the rumor that Trig, her four month old special needs baby, wasn't really hers.

These scurrilous whisperings got so bad that the Palin family reinforced our worst fears. Trig was theirs, but their 17 year old daughter Bristol was pregnant. The media jumped on that like a tick to a cat. It would sink her and McCain for sure.

His judgment for choosing her was called into question, and it was rumored that she wasn't vetted properly.

All this speculation created such a stir that nearly 37 million people tuned in to hear hear speak for herself. It was the largest TV audience ever for a VP nomination speech.

Sarah Palin vindicated herself and John McCain last night, and won many converts to her side. Her speech was fiery, witty, and full of the red meat served with generous portions of spice and it lit a fire under the Republican base.

Rarely have we heard a new comer on the national stage deliver such a speech like a pro. It was vintage Ronald Reagan, and for many it reminded them of why they were Republicans in the first place.

She made the obligatory pitch for John McCain, and then launched some oblique, but not so subtle attacks on Barack Obama.

She called him out on his twosidedness: "I don't know what to think of a candidate who tells us one thing in Scranton when we're listening and another in San Fransisco when we're not listening."

She took care of the inexperience charge in one swoop: "And since our opponents don't seem to think much of it (being mayor), let tell them what the job involves. I guess it's sort of like being a community organizer, only you have actual responsibilities." Now do have an idea why I backed her early on?

But she also ad libbed a great line. After describing herself as a "hockey mom," she asked, "Do you know the difference between a hockey mom and pit bull? Lipstick." That just went down into political lore as one of the great lines in political history.

You could tell that she was having fun. She smiled as she delivered her body blows to Obama. She did what needed to be done, firing up the base and making it excited to support the ticket.

But it also debuted something else I think people sensed. They just saw and heard the future of their party up on stage, and that future wore lipstick and a skirt. Palin represents a newly revived conservative movement, one with reformist overtones. Indeed, with two maverick reformers on the ticket, there is no doubt that conservative reformers are getting top billing in the Republican Party.

Now, the MSM has backed off on their reckless accusations of her, and has offered tepid praise for the speech, qualified of course. It's clear that this woman hit a grand slam with the speech, and it leaves her opponents sputtering.

The responses on left wing blogs show that they are running scared. This was to be Barak Obama's coronation, the election was just a formality. President Bush was unpopular, the Iraq War was unpopular, the economy is in the tank. Surely the voters will take out their anger on the Republicans, just as they did in 2006. But now it looks like the election is the Democrats' to lose.

The avalanche of support on blogs and alternative media was overwhelming. Former Hillary voters said she persuaded them. Independents weighed in, and are on board. Women called into my favorite local talk show and said "She's me! She get's it!" Many said that they were on the fence before, but now are firmly behind the McCain-Palin ticket.

McCain, that wily old gambler, just vindicated himself, and proved a political genius. For he not only unified the party with this pick, he also gave us our new standard bearer. Many are already talking the presidency in four years.

Many party insiders and pundits say they haven't seen anything like it since Ronald Reagan. Which broaches the question: is Sarah Palin the true successor to Ronald Reagan? She has the style, the communication skills of the Gipper. She also stands firmly on her beliefs and can articulate them with sincerity. And her leadership ability and integrity while Governor of Alaska are extraordinary. Time will tell if she can lead America and the Republican Party to the 'shining city on a hill.'

Last night, we watched a star being born. And it wasn't just the speech that did it, either. It wasn't a bunch of words without deeds, it was deeds backed up by words. It was a life articulated, and we see our lives in hers. It wasn't about hoping for change, but rather a record of change. And this gun totin', straight talking, go-go boots wearing mama who also is stunning, epitomizes that change. Now she belongs to America.

Palin's In!

2008-08-29T15:35:00.000-07:00

Wow, my wildest dream has been fulfilled. For some months now I have been a blogger in support of a Palin candidacy, but didn't expect McCain to choose her as his No. 2.

Like every other Palin-ite, I was pleased she was on the short list, but expected that McCain would do the expected and choose Romney. Then I am browsing the news early this morning and I read that some air traffic controllers saw a private jet from Alaska land in an airfield near Dayton, OH, and I knew then that Palin was his running mate.

You know, McCain really hit it out of the ballpark on this choice. Just gauge the Democratic responses to her nomination. They are hysterical, and (I think) afraid of losing the election, even after Obama's great speech last night. For the GOP ticket just got stronger, and fresh blood and new life was injected by this new conservative rising star named Palin.

She is the epitome of the kind of politician I have been writing about the for the past sixteen months. She is conservative, but she walks the walk, and has a solid reputation for integrity. She is a mother of five, with her oldest being sent to Iraq, and her youngest having Down Syndrome. She has a blue collar, union background, and her husband is a commercial fisherman and he also works as an oilman on the North Slope. She made her name in politics by taking on the old boy network in Alaska and defeating two governors (one sitting and one former) to become Alaska's first female Chief Executive.

Some detractors are pointing to her lack of experience as a disqualifier for holding national office. But if anyone knew American history they would know that some of our greatest presidents didn't have a whole lot of experience in office, yet they led our nation capably through trying times. Take Abraham Lincoln, for instance. He was a lawyer who spent a few terms in the Illinois Legislature, and only one term as a Congressman. He lost two senatorial elections, the last after he participated in the famed Lincoln-Douglas debates. Yet he succeeded a president, James Buchanan, who is universally considered our worst president, and who was also the most qualified politically to be president.

Now Palin has spent nearly 20 months as governor, and one who has the highest approval ratings in the nation. To say she doesn't have experience is a little disingenuous. One senator from Virginia, who had also been the state's governor, was once asked which office he liked best. "Governor, hands down," he replied. He went on to say, " As governor I made more decisions before lunch in one day than I make sitting in conference in the Senate." Palin, in my opinion, has more practical experience running a government than Senator Obama or, respectfully, Senator McCain has.

Governors also, especially in the past forty eight years, have had a better track record of winning the White House than sitting senators and vice presidents have had. I think that when voters look at a candidate's track record, they are more apt to consider the one who has had executive experience over the one who has sat in a legislative body for years. In many ways being governor is considered good training ground for the presidency. As governor, you are Chief Executive of your state, you are commander in chief of the state's National Guard, you formulate and introduce the state's budget, appoint executive and sometimes judicial officers, and have the power of veto and executive clemency. President Reagan once wrote that on his first day as president, it reminded him of just how much being governor trained him for the Oval Office.

Palin also represents an emerging generation of conservatives, who don't fit the mold of what we think 'conservative' means. She's hot, hip (she even was on the cover of Vogue this year), and highly intelligent. She represents a new kind of feminist: one who is a wife and mother and balances that with a fulfilling career. And while being against same sex marriage, she surprised many conservatives by vetoing a bill that would have denied state benefits to same sex couples. She is unabashedly patriotic, and is well informed on energy issues, having spent most of her time as governor negotiating a natural gas pipeline with Canada.

I have a sneakin' hunch that if Biden thinks he can steamroll over her in the vice presidential debate, he's going to be in for a big surprise. Palin is a fast learner, and is not afraid to speak her mind, and I do think she will hold her own against Biden on October 4th. Indeed, with energy issues figuring so prominently on the agenda, she might get a chance to educate him on energy policy.

With 67 days left in this campaign, McCain finally has energized his base- the right wing he needs to be behind him order to win. And choosing Palin showed just how ingenious it was. Obama-Biden, who looked so fresh and new last week, now look old fashioned and stereotyped. And "Change we can believe in" shoe is now on the foot of the GOP, with two mavericks heading it's party, McCain-Palin '08.

Suddenly, Biden is pailin' with Palin in the race!

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Georgia On My Mind

2008-08-14T09:34:00.000-07:00

When people hear about Georgia, they tend to think about that wonderful state deep in the heart of Dixie. And understandably so. So it wouldn't be at all surprising if folks turned on their television sets this week and learned that Georgia was invaded by Russia. Shock would turn to chagrin when they discover that the Georgia of which the news is speaking is a small republic on the Black Sea that used to be a Soviet satellite country.

That little country took center stage this week as Russia invaded it in it's own version of "shock and awe." It attacked the small break away province of South Ossetia, and essentially splitting the country in two. Reports say that casualties are in the thousands, among both the Georgian military and civilians.

Now, the timing of the attack, coming as it did during the Olympics, seems to indicate that Russia was counting on the world's distraction in Beijing so it wouldn't concentrate on what it was doing in Georgia. It is also suspicious that former president and now Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, left the Olympics to personally supervise the invasion.

The invasion seems to have caught the Western world flat footed. For several days world leaders have not come up with a workable cease fire and don't seem to know how to respond to Russia's recent aggression. But yesterday President Bush announced that he was beginning an airlift into Georgia, somewhat like the Berlin airlift was in 1948. He is also dispatching Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to help broker a workable ceasefire. It can't come a moment too soon.

But let me ask this question, what is Georgia to us strategically? Why must we get in Russia's way in it's quest for Eurasian hegemony? For several good reasons:

1.Georgia has a history of being the first country to officially recognize Christianity as it's religion.

2. Georgia and Azerbaijan are the gateway to Iran, and as more and more evidence is mounting that Russia is supplying Iran with weapons, we need a buffer state between those two hostile powers. If you have watched the movie The Peacemaker you'd understand what I am talking about here.

3. It is well known that Georgia was seeking membership in NATO, against Russia's wishes. It also made the Kremlin nervous with the close ties Georgia is maintaining with the West. Perhaps they felt that western influence was encircling them and they needed to protect themselves from foreign intrusion. It's not unlike the maneuvering they did when it was the Soviet Union.

4. Russia opposed Kosovian independence, and it's joining NATO. It is also opposing the Ukraine's close ties with the West. Perhaps it is gambling that it's conquest of Georgia will discourage it's other former satellite countries from even attempting to get closer to the West.

Now, what should be the response of the West? Well, I don't think that a full scale military involvement is to be advised. We are already stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to put military assets into Georgia would stretch it further. Also, you don't want to go to war with Russia. It still has the second largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, and it's military is still among the best in the world. Any confrontation with Russia could only end in a full scale war, perhaps another world war.

We do have other options on the table though. This morning's Washington Post column by Charles Krauthammer discussed some of those options. You can find the article here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/the_cards_in_americas_hands.html

I like the idea of isolating Russia diplomatically and not giving into it's wishes for global participation. I would welcome the effort to thrust it out of the G8, but since it wouldn't go, we should dissolve the G8 and reinstate the G7. Also I do agree that we should not allow it's membership in the WTO. Such measures would send a message loud and clear to Russia that we won't accept it into any alliances and mutually beneficial organizations unless it stops it's belligerent ways. Russia may loudly protest, but the West must hold firm in this. It may take another Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to provide the backbone to the western alliance.

I also think that we need to concentrate more intelligence assets around Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Iran. The area around the Caususes Mountains can be the next hot spot in the world. We can also provide arms and money to Georgia, since it seems like Russia will be there a long time. A rebel force is bound to form, and it could become another Afghanistan for the Russians if Georgia has Western support.

Russia, the Big Bear, is feeling threatened and is lashing out at perceived threats to it's security. And in this round of the geo strategic chess game, it has bellowed a loud Check! to the rest of the world. It's time we got our game together.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Do Toll Roads Work?

2008-07-28T10:03:00.001-07:00

In my state there is an ongoing public debate about toll roads. We are just starting to put some into place, and our state and regional transportation agencies are relying on toll roads for future transportation needs. Even Dino Rossi, the GOP candidate for governor, says that he will rely on transportation funding to come from tolls.

I remember a few years ago we wouldn't even countenance toll roads here in Washington. We have grown used to driving on any road we like without having to pay a user fee. Our highway funds came from the gas tax, which is still one of the highest in the nation. But our state officials realized that it wouldn't be enough to complete all the transportation projects we desperately need.

So last year they introduced our first toll bridge in 30 years. We added a new, eastbound span to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, a near mile long span, and the toll on it started out at $3 one way. So far I haven't heard any complaints about it; people seem to accept the need for user fees.

Another span of highway near Seattle is opening up with HOT (High Occupancy Toll) lanes. It won't have any toll booths, but will have high tech cameras and lasers situated at certain points along the lanes, and all users of the lanes will have HOT travel passes, issued by the state Department of Transportation. The jury is still out on how it is working, so I don't have any information for you concerning it, but I am wondering if any other regions have HOT lanes and how they work for you.

A major campaign issue this year is the expansion of toll bridges and roads. No one in this state is questioning the need for it; I think we have accepted the need for user fees, as long as the state does a corresponding cut in the gas tax. One of the reasons why the governor and her DOT are relying on tolls is because with high gas prices people aren't driving as much and therefore the gas tax revenue isn't as high as it used to be.

It looks like in the next five to ten years Washington is going to join the ranks of the states who rely heavily on toll roads in metropolitan areas. A transportation plan was released the other day by Sound Transit (Seattle's regional transportation agency) that provides for a plan of toll bridges and roads on the major arterials going in and out of Seattle. We have three long floating bridges that span Lake Washington, and two of them, I-520 and I-90, will be replaced and repaired and we'll be using tolls.

But here's the thing that I can't understand. The 520 bridge isn't supposed to be replace until 2016, yet they are going to start collecting tolls in 2010, six years before the fact. I am wondering if this is normal? I would think that a bond issue would pay for the bridge, and that the tolls would be there to pay off the bonds. But I know my state, and unfortunately so does my governor. The voters here I think have a bad taste in their mouth when it comes to bond issues. They saw what happened to the planned monorail even after they voted for a bond issue to cover the costs of construction. It went way over budget and the governing board wanted billions more and it finally ended when the mayor of Seattle scrapped the whole thing.

I think the voters here are wary of allowing our government to spend any more of our money than they already take. The feeling is that they don't do a very good job of wisely spending what we already give them. That's why the voters won't countenance a state income tax, and constantly vote for measures that would restrict the tax and spending authority of the state.

I believe that, more than anything else, a new governor should work to first of all rebuild trust in his new administration. If he wishes to get anything done, transportation wise, the voters need to know that if they entrust him with more money, he'll spend it as advertised. I think that if they trusted their governor, and he gives them a vision for what this region could be like, they'll support bond issues and toll roads and give him/her the benefit of the doubt. Many of us are hoping that Dino Rossi, should he succeed this time around, will be that for Washingtonians.

This is a great state to live in, as evidence by thousands of people migrating here from all over the country. But it has a high cost of living, and it's transportation systems are not on par. We have the highest amount of college grads per capita in the country. Sure it rains a lot, but we don't have hurricanes, or tornadoes, or frequent snow storms. Those of us who live here love it, but we are concerned because we might not be able to afford to live here.

Sorry, just had to put a plug in for my native state, which I love (can't guess?).

But for those of you who travel on toll roads frequently, I'd like to hear from you. Does it inconvenience you to travel on them, or do they free up traffic congestion? What is the average toll you pay? Do you prefer to pay a toll over paying a gasoline tax?

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Do Toll Roads Work?

2008-07-28T10:03:00.000-07:00

It's About Time

2008-07-15T19:54:00.000-07:00

I have just read an article in the Economist concerning the International Criminal Court's (ICC) indictment of Omar al-Bashir, the president of Sudan, for "crimes against humanity." You can read the text of the article here: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11737170&source=features_box_main

My response to the article is that it has taken too long for us to get to this point. While we do not know the exact numbers of dead and homeless in the Darfur region, we do know that it is a civil war that shouldn't be going on, at least not against innocent people.

President Bashir's ruling party, according to the article, is calling the indictment blackmail, and is threatening more violence should the indictment go forward. This in itself should steel the backbones of the ICC and the international community to universally condemn Sudan and continue not only the indictment of Bashir, but also of his ministers and anyone who colluded with him in this. I think that they are gambling that further threats of violence would make us back down, after all 'America doesn't like to see more women and children die.' That's the depths of evil these men have fallen into, using their people as bargaining chips.

What the ICC has done is what they did to Slobodan Milosevic in 1999. What I know of that event is from the film "The Hunt For Justice." Before he was indicted and convicted of crimes against humanity, no sitting head of state had ever been indicted on criminal charges. In many ways it was a great step forward for human rights. Unfortunately it takes years to gather enough well hidden evidence that could make a criminal case stick, while in the meantime more people die under their hideous regime.

And what of the West? Why has it taken us this long to build such a crescendo of condemnation of the current regime? Why didn't we do the same for the hundreds of thousands who died in Rwanda in 1994? Why not do the same with Burma? A conflict far from our shores might not seem like it's our problem, when in fact it it is very much our problem. For if we believe it the fundamental right of all men everywhere to live in peace and to eat the bread he toils for and to be whatever he wishes to be, then we must act when these rights are violated. We must defend the weak against the strong when the weak can not stand to fight for themselves. There is an evil in these conflicts that only survives because of the passivity of good men.

Make no mistake, men such as al Bashir, Milosevic, Stalin, the Burmese ruling junta, or even Hitler would do anything they can to preserve their power. They thrive because their people fear them; they are the bullies with the bigger guns. If you keep your people ignorant, if you keep them on the brink of starvation, it is much easier to rule over them than if they had full bellies and thinking minds. These are the tactics that tyrants throughout the ages have used against mankind.

If there is any reason I believe we should do military ventures and peacekeeping in other countries, it's for this reason. Since the beginning of our world, we've gone to war with each other and often we don't know what that war is about. It's just that it's always been that way. The strong have always enslaved, killed, and ruled over the weak. Tribesmen have fought over land to graze their cattle and water their flocks, which believe it or not is still the reason for some tribal conflicts. Men such as Hitler or Stalin have risen to power by marshalling the collective hatreds of their people towards others.

This is the reason why we in America must strive to banish all our hatreds and our homophobic tendencies. We fear that illegal immigrants are taking our jobs away from us. We fear our multicultural country because we believe that people keeping their traditions will kill what makes America unique. Some of us hate and fear at the thought of gays marrying, because we think that traditional marriage will be undermined. Our fears lead us to do many things, and politicians capitalize on them by playing up whatever we fear.

One thing that we should connect both between the situation in Sudan and with our own problem here in the United States is that governing by fear works. That's how political parties and corrupt men stay in power. That's why people find it refreshing when a politician such as Reagan or dare I say it Obama comes along and appeals to us from an aspect of hope, and calls on us to put aside our fears and live in brotherhood from 'sea to shining sea.'

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Founding Faith

2008-07-02T12:06:00.000-07:00

I have just finished reading an excellent book called "Founding Faith" by Steven Waldman. In it, he speaks about five of our founders- Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison- and how their religious tradition influenced them and the fight for religious liberty in America.

But before he does the profiles of the founders, he looks into the religious tradition of colonial America, and it is not a pretty picture. Save for Pennsylvania, there was no true freedom of religion in the colonies, and if you weren't a member of the established church, you were persecuted and ostracized. Although America produced some great theologians such as the Mathers and Jonathan Edwards, for the most part the clergy was corrupt with the power and support they received from the colonial governments.

The religious turmoil of the times directly influenced the religious beliefs of these founders. As a boy, James Madison witnessed the persecution of the Baptists in Virginia, with his family taking an active part in it. Benjamin Franklin grew up in Boston, which was still heavily influenced by the Puritan tradition perpetuated by Cotton and Increase Mather. Although most members of the established Puritan church were lapsed, he also saw the fanaticism of the clergy and their assault on reason. But it wasn't until he moved to Philadelphia that he witnessed true religious and political freedom, and that affected his vision for the United States.

Jefferson's religious views are nothing new, but the surprise was in John Adams, the puritan of the bunch. He was raised, like Franklin, in the religious culture of Massachusetts, but his inquiring mind and sense of justice couldn't accept certain aspects of organized religion. He even admitted to Jefferson later in his life that "wherever Christian fanaticism went, it left more blood and tears in it's wake than any other religion." Adams couldn't have been more right. He would become an active member of the Unitarian Church.

Because of what Madison witnessed in his boyhood, he became an active champion of religious freedom in Virginia. He would succeed in that endeavor three years before he helped fashion the Constitution of the United States. His views on the separation of church and state were perhaps clearer than Jefferson's statement to the Connecticut Baptists. Madison vetoed a bill which would have established a church in the District of Columbia. He was opposed to even having Congressional chaplains, because it was respecting an establishment of religion.

None of them were Christians in the sense that evangelicals would like you to believe. All of them, save Jefferson, did respect the Bible and the moral teachings of Christianity, although there is no indication that any of them were born again.

The thing that evangelicals won't like about the book is that it does dwell on Jefferson's views on the separation of church and state. Jefferson, and Madison for that matter, believed that the 1st Amendment's prohibition was for the federal government only, it didn't apply to the states. Madison did try to pass an amendment with the original ten that would have applied the Bill of Rights to the states. It failed, and it wasn't until 1868 that the 14th Amendment was applied to the states that they became obligated to follow the US Constitution.

To get a deeper appreciation of our founding history, I would highly recommend this book. It makes you really reflect on what this country is about.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Find New Oil Sources

2008-06-20T10:12:00.000-07:00

Oil- the life blood of modern civilization. Oil- that black substance without which our lives would be at least on par with an 18th century lifestyle.

I remember the day when gas at my local BP was $0.97 a gallon. It was the summer of 1997. I remember when it was $1.50 around 9/11. Now, most of us would move heaven and earth if there was a place that sold gas for $3.50/gal. There was a time when we would never have considered paying for gas what we are paying right now, but our comfort levels change with necessity.

A lot of us like to ascribe blame to the people who control the oil: OPEC, the Saudi royal family, Big Oil, etc. We talk of enacting an excess profits tax on oil companies because we assume they are making these record profits off the backs of the working class. We speak of oil running out, and of mapping the oil fields in Iraq to tap the huge reserves in that country.

Indeed, in yesterday's paper there was an article which stated that the huge oil cartel which Saddam threw out over thirty years ago in order to nationalize it is being re-established. They are mapping out the proven reserves and are planning a trans Iraqi pipeline to funnel it to tankers in the Persian Gulf.

This proves to a lot of my friends that we only went to war to protect our interests in oil. There could be some truth to that. Existing fields are drying up, and potentially huge fields (such as in Venezuela) are nationalized. There's fewer petroleum sources for them to tap into without encountering fierce environmental opposition.

Take, for instance, the president's proposal to lift the ban on offshore drilling. It is an asinine rule, for just outside our territorial waters international oil firms have offshore rigs that are producing oil. Why can't we inside our own waters? It doesn't make sense. Since we have somewhat shifted gears from drilling in ANWR (the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge) this is one of the next battles we face.

I am also hearing of great oil and natural gas fields being found in Montana and Colorado, but it would be a few years before they start producing. Canadian companies have better technology to melt the tar sands of the Athabasca. But will this be enough? Probably not.

Now, about a year ago Brazil announced that two of their biggest oil companies discovered two huge oil fields lying offshore, potentially billions of barrels, which will make Brazil one of the top five oil producing states in the world. A top oil consulting firm in Texas stated an interesting fact: that if the United States were to corner the market on Brazilian oil through trade agreements, then we wouldn't need a military presence in Iraq. Draw your own conclusions from that.

Brazil is a tantalizing prospect, but I think that we also need to develop our own sources here at home along with using a foreign source such as Brazil. Let's drill offshore; I am sure that there is an environmentally safe way of doing it. But at the same time let's also put some serious R&D dollars into developing alternative energy sources, so that when our own oil fields peak, we won't be caught unprepared.

In the meantime, it looks as if we are going to pay through the nose for gasoline. But at least give us hope that we can see lower prices in the future by doing something, anything, so long as we don't have to go to war over it.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Fixing Ballooning Medicaid Costs

2008-06-03T19:45:00.001-07:00

Hello everyone! I'm sorry for not posting for a while. I was trying out some new trading software for my business, so it was time consuming.

OK, I have an idea that I think is in keeping with our forward thinking conservative philosophy of limited government and financial responsibility. I, along with many others, have been seeking ways to curb the growth of Medicaid costs to the states. Now as you know, Medicaid is shouldered by the states, and they have to fund the costs of the program from their state's budget. In the last few years Medicaid costs have skyrocketed, making it one of the biggest outlays in state budgets. The problem that governors and legislators had was how to fund it properly and not raise taxes prohibitively.

Now in late 2005, the Maryland Legislature passed a measure that would have required employers who employ over 5000 workers in the state to set aside 1/8 of their payroll for health benefits to be provided to their employees. You don't have to be clairvoyant to know that the measure was aimed at major retailers such as Wal Mart, everyone's favorite whipping post. Then Governor Ehrlich vetoed the measure, saying it would put an undue burden on businesses and they would take their business somewhere else. The Legislature let the governor know they disagreed with him by overriding the veto with a near unanimous vote.

I have to say that I think the law was a good idea, and if Governor Ehrlich would have seen it the way I am going to point out, he would have probably signed the measure into law. But first let me show you some facts. Most state welfare departments, as well as the ones who administer Medicaid, will tell you that most of the growth in Medicaid or Basic Health benefits come from people who are employed by a major retailer or restaurant chain. Now, as an employee of a major retailer, I can tell you that it would be no great loss to the company if it would set aside just 1/8 the value of it's payroll for health benefits. Most of the people I work with are on some form of state aid because they can't afford insurance or the company's health insurance policy doesn't cover enough.

All the law sought to do was to place the burden of providing for health benefits to the company who employs it's workers. In a sense the law is an ingenious little bit of policy. It straddles both liberal and conservative ideas. How is it conservative? It seeks to proactively curb the growth of Medicare costs by putting the burden on private employers. It therefore can reduce the growth of government and provide for better accountability of the taxpayer's dollar. And how is it liberal? It will see to it that big corporations shoulder more of a burden for the welfare of the worker, like our parents knew during the 50's and 60's. I think that if Governor Ehrlich wasn't so beholden to big business, he could have seen that this law could fulfill conservative principles of limited government and financial responsibility by not raising taxes.

More states have followed Maryland's example and though I don't know if any more have passed, I at least know that similar measures have been introduced in some other state legislatures.

This is another example of how my "Practical Conservatism" platform can work. It can incorporate some conservative and liberal ideas and meld them together, such as what was in this bill. Since Medicaid is not going to go away we need to find ways to help relieve the overburdened state government coffers without just raising taxes. This idea is just one way to do that. Any thoughts?

Until next time, this is Statesman.

A Broken Immigration Policy

2008-05-20T12:23:00.000-07:00

I was listening this morning to Dave Ross, a local talk show host, and it became clear to me how broken our immigration policy is. He was interviewing the mayor of Postville, Iowa which had a major raid on it's local meat packing facility. Apparently it was- wait for it- employing illegal aliens! But the real shocker came a few minutes later, when the mayor stated that the informer(s) didn't like the fact that the meat packing facility was owned and operated by Jews!

My shock was matched by the talk show host. Does this mean that somebody informed on this facility because it didn't like the fact that it was producing Kosher meat? "Apparently so," replied the mayor.

Since I have no reason to doubt the mayor's statements, the logical conclusion is more shocking: that our immigration policy can and, in this case, is being used to fulfill a grudge or a dislike someone has against a certain culture. Dislike people who hold a different religious belief than we do? Well, here's a favorite scapegoat: illegal aliens are working at that plant! It's a double whammy of religious and cultural bigotry if ever I saw one.

The mayor went on to say that the townfolk didn't expect the consequences: which were the town virtually shut down. The school district lost 138 kids, and therefore the funding they received for the students. The town has a population of 2500, and the raid was big enough that it shut down the plant, the big employer in the town, for a few days. This whole episode, according to the Mayor, is a big wake up call to the town.

For their sakes I hope so. It's a rather expensive lesson, but one that needs to be broadcast to not only other small towns, but big cities as well in this country. It needs to help spark a true discussion on our broken immigration policy and our policy toward illegal workers. Such a discussion would require us to put aside our assumptions, what we have been told about the illegal problem, and search for actual facts. We need to be statesman, who seek a practical solution that isn't tailored to having us win elections by stirring the fears of the electorate.

But truly our xenophobia and our disdain for other religions can only be changed when we decide for ourselves to change our views. We can banish outward displays of bigotry and hate crimes, but only when hearts are changed will the problem disappear. Hatred and fear comes back to haunt you, as this town found out when the result of it's fear was the town shutting down. God help us all!

Aren't you mad yet America? Will the land of opportunity and this all inclusive land of freedom finally stand up and say "Enough?"

Until next time, this is Statesman.

When Lions Roared

2008-05-15T20:07:00.001-07:00

A few days ago I finished watching a documentary on World War 2, in particular, about the "Big Three:" Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin. It is called "When Lions Roared." Superstar Michael Caine superbly played Stalin, and Bob Hoskins was excellent as Churchill. Although it stays to mainly the correspondence between these men, there is some high drama, such as the Teheran Summit and the Casablanca Summit.

One thing that disappointed me though was it didn't dwell enough on how Roosevelt came to his decision to swap bases for destroyers. It was a brilliant foreign policy maneuver, and one in which he was nearly crucified for not consulting Congress. It would have been an excellent addition to the documentary.

I got chills down my spine when Churchill/Hoskins gave his "Blood, toil, tears and sweat" speech to Parliament. It was as if I was sitting there hearing him give it, and thinking that I will never hear such grand words again. What happened to writers of Churchill's caliber?

Anyway, get "When Lions Roared" if you want to see how three very different men helped to defeat a common enemy, Nazism, and set the stage for what would become the Cold War.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Election Prospects Six Months Out, and Other Observations

2008-05-08T08:31:00.000-07:00

With the split decisions in the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, it is still looking very much like Obama will be the Democratic nominee. Although he will compete hard in the half dozen states that are left, he and Senator Clinton's focus will be on the all important list of superdelegates.

It is also looking like that this might not be wrapped except by a good ole' convention, like they had in the olden days. Up until 1968 and the disastrous Democratic convention in Chicago, which was dogged by riots, our candidate selection process was still determined by bosses and blocs of delegates. Since then, we usually knew who the candidate would be, and the convention was just a formality.

But for a while it has become increasingly clear that it will be the convention that will decide the candidate. Numerous political analysts say, though, that that doesn't augur well for the Democrats' prospects in November. Yesterday a poll was released in which Clinton supporters were what they would do should Obama be the nominee. An overwhelming majority of them said they would either stay home or VOTE FOR MCCAIN. Clinton fares a whole lot better in the poll.

A long drawn out Democratic selection process is nothing but good for McCain's prospects in November. Here you have the two most galvanizing forces in the Democratic Party, and neither of them can consummate the deal with the voters; neither of them has sold themselves sufficiently to build a winning coalition. Obama, the agent of change with rock star status, has some antipathy among mainline Democrats and the working class. And Clinton, well, that's a different story. I think she has too much of an ego and an entitlement attitude to give up without exploring every possible angle in which she could win. If by some miracle she did win, I think there will be a lot of angry people that will stay home because of how Clinton "stole" the nomination from Obama.

If other polls are good indicators, they show that the drawn out process is making McCain look good to many voters. It is very possible that this 73 year old will do what another conservative Arizona senator (Goldwater) tried to do: win the presidency of the United States. It's lookin' good.

Everyone knows about the Amber Alert program; you know, the nationwide warning system to announce children who have been abducted. Well, several states have started a similar program for senior citizens who have dementia or other kinds of memory problems. It's called the Silver Alert, and it is activated when a concerned family member or caregiver is concerned when their patient disappears. The message is broadcast on radio and television, alerting motorists and citizens to keep an eye out for a very confused senior person. North Carolina, which was one of the first states to start the program, is reporting it a great success, where at least 95% of the disappeared persons were found alive but lost.

Now, Congress is going to get on the bandwagon, by starting a nationwide program like they did for the Amber Alert. It will provide modest funding to test the program, using law enforcement dollars. This is an example of a public service program in which government can do maximum good. In fact, here is a perfect example of a program that does maximum good while not costing the nation a ton of it's treasure to run inefficiently. This is an example of a good government program that conservatives can get behind and widely tout.

But why wait for Congress to come to the rescue? Why not write our legislators and encourage them to help champion this idea in your state?

If you want to know more about this, read the editorial at www.stateline.org.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

The Inside Story

2008-04-30T09:12:00.001-07:00

I am in the middle of reading a definitive work on the War on Terror. It is Ron Suskind's newest work, "The One Percent Doctrine, America's Pursuit of It's Enemies Since 9/11." Suskind, who made some waves with the first critical look at the Bush presidency in 'The Price of Loyalty,' has come out of the woodwork to offer an exceptional work on the successes and failures of the War on Terror.

It is not a book about Iraq, although Iraq is mentioned. It is about the intelligence war, and how we are winning and losing based on the intelligence we have. It gives you an insiders look at the frustrations of the CIA and the State Department as they started pursuing Al Qaeda and ended up trying to make links to Iraq. It shows, in detail, how the Vice President made his office extra constitutional and became the guardian of presidential prerogative and why.

Among other things, it shows:

1. How a president can hamper risk taking and cause second guessing, by being constantly on the backs of his agents.

2. How President Bush categorically made a claim of WMDs in Iraq, and CIA Director Tenet telling him it wasn't true, and the president basically saying don't embarrass him.

3. Because of wholesale fear, our government has stooped to new ethical lows by permitting torture to obtain information. He examines how it has worked, and how it hasn't.

4. Elder statesmen, such as the President George H. W. Bush, were ignored or sidelined when they tried to warn Rumsfeld and Cheney about the perils of fighting a war in the Middle East. The only one of them who was on the National Security Council, Secretary of State Colin Powell, would lose his considerable credibility when he would make spurious claims for war to the UN Security Council. Powell would later find out that it was "Scooter" Libby, the VP's chief aide, who fed him the questionable intelligence.

5. It also details how a certain terrorist, who was on his way to New York to bomb the subway system, discovered that the FBI was onto him, and so he stayed behind and masterminded the London Subway bombings on July 7, 2005.

One thing is for certain, the war on terrorism is being fought, and will be won, by having the best intelligence and sharing it with our allies, and by using small commando units to undertake the raids. Large forces do not work well for such a war as this.

I would recommend anyone to read this book, even if you are the best cheerleader for the War in Iraq, as it would help us understand the mistakes we made, and how we can prevent them from happening in the future, as we fight this great evil.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

True Campaign Finance Reform

2008-04-20T18:30:00.000-07:00

My mental juices are really flowing now.

For the last week I have been getting back into one of my first loves: day trading. I focus mainly on the currency markets, as they are an international, 24 hour market.

What does this have to do with campaign finance reform, you ask? I'll get to that, but I need to lay some foundation so it'll be easier to describe. Let's look at a typical scenario of how a candidate traditionally solicits funds. In this case, we'll look at two candidates (we'll call them Candidate A and Candidate B) running for, let's say Congress. Now a typical run for the House of Representatives usually is around $1 million. This then can be a huge hurdle for Candidate B because Candidate A has name recognition and deep pockets and can outspend him any day of the week. All the big donors give to Candidate A because he looks like a winner. They tell Candidate B, "if you looked electable, then we could consider giving to you." But it's their money that would make him look electable! If the dictum "politics is perception" is true, then this is a perfect example of it.

So now Candidate B is running the vicious circle that all well meaning candidates find themselves in, and are not able to raise themselves into contention and get the necessary attention he needs to win. Faced with little funds and few resources, he'll say "our ideas will resonate with the people, and then when we win in some crucial polls we'll start seeing money coming in. He tries alternate ways of getting his message out, such as that untapped medium called the Internet.

But in the end, Candidate A won because he was able concentrate more people and money on getting his message out and solidifying the perception that he is electable. He is probably a guy who has no personal magnetism with his constituents, a guy who doesn't know how to connect with average folks, and has no new ideas of his own. But money won out on this one, and Candidate B, who was much better as a candidate and as a person, will have to wait another time.

But what if Candidate B, who we'll call Smith, spent the next two years investing some of his modest fortune into the markets, and hired an experienced trader and money manager to help him trade, and an initial investment of say $10,000 turned into $1,000,000 in two years (which veteran traders will tell you is entirely possible); if he did that, wouldn't he be in a good position for a rematch? Undoubtedly! Donors would take a second look at him, but he would be in the position of not needing to take their money and thus not needing to be beholden to them.

My point here is we need to look beyond the traditional means of financing campaigns. Everyone chases the big checks and thus us "little" guys get forgotten in the scurry for money and electability.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. There are some writings among the papers of certain of the Founding Fathers that they actually toyed with the idea of having officeholders serve without pay, which they nixed as impractical. But in those days a candidate for such an exalted place as Congress would usually be a man of some means, and could thus foot the bill for his campaigns. We could cite recent examples by looking at Ross Perot's presidential race in 1992. He footed the bill for his campaign, bought media time,and built a campaign infrastructure all in a very short period of time. Arnold Schwarzenegger, when he first ran for governor of Cal-ee-fo-nia, footed a large part of his campaign, at least the initial stages of it, from his considerable fortune.

That's the ideal, but my idea is so a person of modest means can raise the money so he can be put into serious contention. There's only so many campaign dollars floating around out there, and a large majority of them will go to the most electable. This idea could enable people like Smith to be able to receive a large share of attention and money.

I am still fleshing out this idea, as I don't know whether it would violate any campaign finance regulations. Anybody know if it would?

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Offering Odds Anyone?

2008-04-13T16:57:00.000-07:00

You know, until this week it seemed like Senator Obama had the Democratic nomination sewed up. That is, until his rash remarks about gun toting frustrated unemployed rural people in Pennsylvania. When I heard a replay of the remarks, it reminded of other times in presidential history when promising young idealists shot themselves in the foot and lost a nomination for such remarks.

Even if he does squeak out of this one and win Pennsylvania and the nomination, you can be sure that certain 527 groups will use it against him in the general election. I don't know if this remark is enough to swing Pennsylvania to McCain, but it will swing other Democratic leaning states his way.

Odds are, I'd say that unless Obama regains the magic, he is going to be defeated by a Senate colleague. And it won't be Hillary Clinton, either.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

The Sad Politics of Health Care

2008-04-03T13:25:00.001-07:00

This morning my local talk radio host, Dave Ross, highlighted a story
that is really about a month old. He was looking into a story that has
become standard stump fare for Senator Clinton on the campaign trail.

The
story was of a young waitress working minimum wage in a pizzeria in
Meigs County, Ohio. Apparently she became pregnant, and several months
into her pregnancy experienced hard pains and went to her local clinic.
The health professionals told her since she didn't have health
insurance, she had to PAY THEM $100 TO SEE A DOCTOR. Well, she didn't
have that kind of money, and went home. She continued having the pains,
and tried again to get in, and was given the same answer. She finally
called the ER, and ended up being medi-vacced to the nearest medical
center, where she died 15 days later.

This is a tragic story,
and I am bringing it up because, in a way, I can relate to such poverty
and lack of adequate medical care and facilities. I know what it's like
to not have the $100 to help pay for a doctor's visit. It's a terrible
feeling to have.

And Dave Ross, the talk show host, spent a good
part of his show this morning discussing how such a thing can be
prevented in the future. In my view, we can not put in place a fool
proof system where no one falls through the cracks. But we all can
admit that there are terrible fissures in our health care system that
need to be corrected. And some of them go beyond mere cosmetic fixes.

Let
me first off comment on some of what Dave's callers said. One man
suggested that she could have moved out of the area to find a better
job to support the baby and to find better medical care. It was a
personal choice issue. But the problem I see in that is she probably
didn't have the option to move. People of a limited education and
skills level have a hard time finding good jobs and other necessities
that we urbanized Americans take for granted. They're stuck in a rut
economically, and having family responsibilities compounds their
predicament.

Also, when the only steady jobs in an economically
depressed area are either in Wal Mart or chain restaurants, the
community can not support the level of infrastructure needed in modern
America. I was told that Meigs County is the second most depressed
county in Ohio, and that the medical clinic she went to was the only
one in her area. Not much choice for her, is there? Why is that so? One
doctor put it this way: when you don't have enough patients coming in
every week to meet malpractice insurance costs, it isn't feasible for a
medical clinic to operate in such an area.

On the flip side,
businesses that could provide the jobs and infrastructure aren't
generally willing to move into an area that doesn't at least have an ER
or emergency response services. So it perpetuates the almost
chronically depressed situation that some of these rural areas are in.

Like
I said, this hits close to home, as I have lived in such a rural
community that didn't provide steady jobs in the area, and was
considered one of the poorest counties in Washington. That all is
starting to change, as the real estate market is red hot there. That
area is some 25 minutes from the city of Spokane, and commuters are
starting to move to the country. It might take many years for it to
noticeably change and bring steady jobs and cultural facilities, but it
is on the right track.

But in the meantime, what do we do? I
think I understand the health clinic's reasoning on why they wanted her
to pay pre pay her doctor's visit. They probably had a very high number
of uninsured and unemployed persons in the area, and to ensure that
they'll get paid, they started charging upfront instead of billing. In
the past, they would have been reimbursed by Medicaid, but with budget
cuts and other health related functions being cut, that now leaves them
with treating those who have the ability to pay. It's still true, as
far as I know, that you can go into the ER and get treated and then you
get billed later. It's the paying that's the whole problem.

For some solutions, we could:

1.
Restore, at least partially, funding for Medicaid and S-CHIP at the
state level. Those programs have experienced huge cuts in the past few
years.

2. Help educate people on how to make better health and
economic choices, so that they don't have to face bringing a child into
the world when they can't possibly support them. This would include
providing for pre natal and crisis pregnancy centers. Eating right and
exercising and not smoking also go a long way to cutting down on
sickness.

3. Find a way to limit malpractice insurance costs.
This is among the highest costs for doctors. What my former doctor did
to cut his costs is he joined a nationwide group of family practice
physicians and refused to be insured. He just limited the amount and
kind of cases he could take. As a result, he charged a flat rate for
every visit, and saved his secretary a lot of hair pulling from dealing
with the insurance companies. That's what doctors could do.

4.
There has also got to be a way to limit the built in costs of producing
and marketing a drug. One way is to import them from Canada, if the FDA
would allow it. They won't do it because it would mean competition for
the pharmaceuticals industry.

5. We could also do a modified
plan of what President Eisenhower tried to do in the 1950's. He
suggested that the government be willing to help companies who would
provide a certain level of health benefits to their employees. It was
sort of what the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation does for banks.
As you can imagine, the health industry killed it, much to Eisenhower's
chagrin. But hey, imagine a Republican president proposing such a plan
today!

There are many more reforms we could do without moving to
a totally centralized health care system. It's a job for serious minds,
and calls for statesmanship and compromise. But how long has it been
since we've seen that in American politics?

Until next time, this is Statesman.

A Byproduct of Being Conservative

2008-03-28T09:22:00.001-07:00

Ha! I am going to put you onto an article today that is refreshingly lighthearted, especially when you look into the political orientation of folks. The article is from the Economist, and is entitled "The Joys of Parenthood: Why Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals." It is mostly plugging a book, but it also touches on 'the politics of happiness.' Read it, have a laugh, and see if you can relate.

Here's the link: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10924082.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Conservatives for Obama, and Decisions for A Tortured Conservative

2008-03-19T17:06:00.001-07:00

I am reading an intriguing piece in this month's The American Conservative magazine. The topic of this posting is the topic of the article. It was astonishing, though not surprising, to find that some very principled conservatives could find themselves supporting Senator Obama should he win the Democratic nomination.

Their main reason for doing so would be that he is the only one of the remaining candidates who is opposed to the Iraq war and would do what he can to withdraw the troops. The position of the American Conservative, founded by Pat Buchanan, while it is largely in opposition to the Iraq War, on a larger scale is also opposed to the whole philosophy of neo-conservatism.

The article also defines what the recent Republican Party dogma is, as it is defined by party "purists." It also details the supposed myth of the conservative ascendancy in national politics.

On so many issues, I find myself more philosophically in line with the writers and editors of the American Conservative than a lot of other publications. It is more libertarian on social issues, as I am. It opposes the War in Iraq, as I do. It is skeptical of the Religious Right.

And, if I may speak frankly, I do agree that with the current choice of candidates, anti war conservatives, since they don't have Ron Paul to support, might have to choose to support a liberal anti war senator from Illinois. There are many reasons for this, but let me explain my thinking.

I started out as a supporter of the war, and believed what I was told- that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. As the war progressed and violence mounted, I started questioning the president's bull headedness, and didn't like where the war was heading. Still, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. He is the president, and he has access to a wealth of intelligence that I certainly don't have. I swallowed my doubts and voted for him in '04.

About two years ago, my political education had progressed to the point of being anti war, and I became cynical of this administration. I was even speaking political blasphemy! For example, I have stated that I think Clinton was more fiscally responsible with federal spending than President Bush is. A quote from the article backs me up here: Over the course of Bush’s two terms in office,
federal spending has increased 50 percent to $3 trillion per year.
Disregarding any obligation to balance the budget, Bush has allowed the
national debt to balloon from $5.7 to $9.4 trillion. IMO, President Bush has broken every cardinal doctrine of conservatism, except for advocating a strong national defense, and pushing a strong Religious Right social agenda.

Though I am in opposition to the Iraq War, I am a supporter of the Global War on Terror. I don't think they are one and the same. We had solid intelligence after 9/11 that Osama bin Laden was behind the terrorist attacks, and we were justified in taking out the Taliban. But instead of focusing our resources and attention to strongly root out terror cells in Afghanistan and around the world, we committed men and resources to remove a former ally named Saddam Hussein from power, on what turned out to be false intelligence that he was linked with al Quaida. We stretched our armed forces so far that now they are at the breaking point. We have expended so much national treasure to build up Iraqi infrastructure, while our own is crumbling. Indeed, a poll released today shows that a huge majority of Americans believe that the Iraq war is helping to put a strain on a fragile economic climate.

We have all heard the famous axiom, "war is hell," but it is also hell to fight a war that is bankrupting our country and dividing it's people against each other. It would be hell to pay when our sons and daughters return from extended deployments, with the scars of war permanently etched on their minds and bodies. This is the first war in recent history where we tried to win it without expanding our manpower needs and increasing taxes to pay for the increased spending. If you add the resources really needed to fight the War on Terror, then we are truly in a pickle.

I truly hope that in the near future the conservative movement will take some time to reflect on the effect of it's policies on the country, and return to it's true roots. If I had a say in it, we would be largely libertarian on social issues, recognize that government can help the needy among us while being fiscally responsible, and preferring diplomacy to bullets. We would also realize that corporate bail outs are another form of welfare, which conservatives supposedly abhor. We would not be afraid to use ideas that work, even if they come from the minds of liberals. I am wanting true statesman, who will put country above political gain; who will submit their own best interests to the country's best interests.

Is that too much to ask?

If Obama is able to help us move on from Iraq and help to heal the wounds associated with it, so much the better. I don't care that he is a bleeding heart liberal, labels don't matter much to me. I love this country too much to see it continue on this path of "staying the course." It is my prayer that one day when I hold office I will have the wisdom and courage to show a different way to my fellow citizens.

Here is the link to the article that got me going today: http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_03_24/article.html. Read it and reflect, please.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

A Swift Fall, And Reflections

2008-03-12T16:58:00.000-07:00

The last 72 hours have seemed like an eternity. And in the kaleidoscope that is a political scandal, it especially seems so. For it has been three days since a bombshell was dropped.

On Monday, the FBI implicated New York Governor Eliot Spitzer for involvement in a call girl ring. But he wasn't implicated for being with a call girl, it was because he broke several state and federal laws while doing it. For example, he paid to have one of the girls meet him in a hotel room while he was in Washington, DC, and to she had to travel across state lines to do so.

Just a few hours ago, the governor resigned his office, effective Monday. That's when the Lieutenant Governor, David Paterson, will take over.

His fall from grace was so sudden and so shocking that it seems everyone in New York is still trying to recover. It is shocking because of the persona built around the governor. When he was elected in 2006 he had, as Attorney General, a reputation for making negligent insurance and drug companies pay. He was hard nosed about white collar crime. And he promised similar reforms if elected governor. He won with 69% of the vote.

In fifteen months he made plenty of enemies with his take no prisoners approach to governing. It seemed to me that he clashed with Republicans and Democrats over petty things. But because he had such a huge electoral mandate, it gave him some credibility. That evaporated in no time at all.

But I'd like to join the bandwagon here and ask a question that many media outlets are asking. I am wondering what makes such men, men of superior intelligence and moral authority, to take such risks? In asking that question, I think I can go to the nature of power and politics itself.

On the Spitzer issue, I heard one psychologist say it is not uncommon for men and women in such high places to not think of the consequences of such actions. As she stated, they wouldn't have gotten to where they are if they thought all the time of consequences. And dovetailing into that mindset is the ability to compartmentalize. For a politician it means that they could be the high minded public servant during the day, and sleep with strangers at night, and not think that the two could be incompatible. Being governor is the day job, and what I do in my personal life is not the public's busisness.

But compartmentalization is not just what Type A's suffer from, many men, including this one, suffer from some form of it.

But what's unnerving about this is whole episode is how often it seems to happen. We had something similar happen with President Clinton, and while he was being such a great president, he was meeting for liaisons with an intern. He lied about it, so the House of Representatives believed it was an impeachable offense (which it isn't). While they were debating the articles, the Speaker designate, Robert Livingston, resigned because he also was guilty of an affair. He was going to succeed Newt Gingrich, who is known to have had an affair with his second wife while still being married to his first. These men were hardly qualified to cast stones at a sitting president because they also were guilty of violating their marriage vows.

Power, it is said, corrupts. How else can you explain a person in a position of trust and power to rail against the evildoers, while he ignores or justifies his own sins? Jesus Christ called such people "hypocrites." They first of all had to deal with themselves before they could have the moral authority to speak out on society's ills. For if they would have dealt with it and overcome it, it would give them empathy and ability to lead others who have the same problem.

Governor Spitzer suffered from this myopia. In his little shell of a world, it perhaps seemed invulnerable, that he took some risks. Reality broke that shell. Reality is forcing him to come to terms with choices that he made.

I do feel for the governor, and forgive him for shattering such trust as was put on him. And why do I forgive him? Because as a man I am not immune from such sins myself. He needs the grace of God just as much as I do. My job is not to condemn him like a self righteous saint, but by being a true saint by demonstrating the love of Christ.

I am reminded of a story that happened to Richard Nixon. In the months and years following the Watergate scandal, no high ranking official or politician would have anything to do with him. He was a pariah, a Jonah to any political career. He didn't have a friend among the political classes, except one. For years, Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon was the only one who would visit Nixon and would keep him abreast of world affairs. He was about the only one who bestowed grace to this fallen man. In many ways he acted more Christ like than good church goers.

Now, Mr. Spitzer must pick up the pieces of his life. He must work to repair his relationship with his wife and daughters. He must rebuild his professional reputation. How he does it, and how he responds to the shunning he will inevitably get, will bring out the true character of the man. For his sake, I pray that he succeeds.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Goodbye, Governor Huckabee...Hello, Senator McCain

2008-03-05T10:12:00.000-08:00

Well, something that we could see coming these last few weeks finally happened. Senator John McCain finally clinched the GOP nomination with wins in Texas and Ohio last night, which prompted Gov. Huckabee to graciously drop out.

In many ways, it was a good run. Here was a former governor who, as he said, "started out with little name recognition and little money, and ended up with little more recognition and little money." Who would have thought he would have lasted this long? It was such an improbable run, but many of us die hards were looking toward Huckabee as the savior of the GOP this election cycle.

He is credited with bringing a new face to Republicanism. He famously said, "I am a conservative, but I am not mad at anybody." The way he espoused social conservative principles so articulately reminds many of us of the Gipper.

Indeed, we can draw some parallels between Governor Huckabee and President Reagan. Both had a gift for one liners and quips. Both were/are gifted speakers who talk in a way that lifts people up, not tear them down. Reagan, like Huckabee, was distrusted by the establishment of the Republican Party.

But there are some glaring dissimilarities. The reason Huckabee failed, it seems to me, is because he tried to cater to his strength, the Christian Right, and then broaden his support. That proved to be a losing strategy. Reagan, however, was like McCain: a man who wasn't a part of institutional Christianity and looked at as a maverick. Reagan spent years building a broad coalition, and if the Religious Right supported him, they were looked at as equals at the table, not as the dominators of the agenda. Reagan (again like McCain) was a divorced man who professed faith but didn't go to church. This was the man who the Right now looks to as their hero. One wonders if he would get very far in today's political climate.

I had several reasons to support Gov. Huckabee the way I did. Those who read this blog know that I am a person of faith, but I don't take as dogmatic a view on "moral" issues that other Huckabee supporters did. I supported him because of his fresh ideas on how to reduce health care costs through prevention, the Fair Tax, and his ideas about encouraging music and art in schools to help increase scores. I think that the American people are tired of old mantras they hear from both parties, and ideas such as these come across as new and refreshing.

However I will admit that in the past few months some positions Huckabee took have been unsettling. I do not support the Federal Marriage Amendment, he does. I don't have time to explain why, perhaps I'll use another posting to lay out my position. Though I think that abortion is reprehensible, I am a libertarian on the issue: I don't think it is the government's place to decide what should be a decision between a woman and her doctor. The government can discourage abortion by adopting certain policies that make having the baby more advantageous.

It also is unsettling when you have his key supporters say that they support him because he will help us get back to being a "Christian Nation." Again, let me be clear, I was raised in both the Evangelical and Fundamentalist movements, and know the arguments for why America is a 'Christian nation.' My reading of history, however, doesn't seem to back that up. I'll probably expand on that, too. But what I am hearing when I read such statements is a Christian version of what we are fighting against in radical Islam. From their actions, it seems that unless we support displaying religious symbols in our public facilities, we aren't acknowledging our heritage as a "Christian Nation."

OK, I got off on a rabbit trail there. Back on subject.

I will credit Governor Huckabee for teaching me some things about how to address touchy issues. When asked about why he is pro-life, he explained that the GOP has too narrowly defined what being 'pro life' is. He defined it as encompassing all of life: giving kids a good education, making sure they have good jobs waiting for them, that they will have a reasonable chance of succeeding. Even some liberals stated that it was the best answer they had heard on the pro life stance. I could definitely use a variation of that answer for when I run for office in my state.

So, it is time to close the books on an epic Republican presidential campaign. It didn't turn out the way I wished it to, but that happens in American politics. I want to say congrats to Senator McCain, and that I support you for the sake of party unity. I do think that you will be a refreshing voice for moderation in the party, which it has long needed.

Goodbye, Governor Mike Huckabee. You have given me many fond memories of this campaign, and have helped spark some new policy positions that I and perhaps many other budding candidates will use in the years ahead. May God bless you in whatever you do.

Now on to November!

Until next time, this is Statesman.

A Supreme Dilemma: The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment

2008-02-27T15:16:00.000-08:00

Several months ago, the US Supreme Court caught the attention of America when it decided to take up the case of a the constitutionality of a gun ban in Washington, D.C. It was the kind of landmark decision that the gun lobby has been waiting for.

Now, as we near a decision of the court, it becomes clear that whatever they decide, it won't really decide the issue for most Americans. A USA Today poll shows that 73% of Americans believe that their is an individual right to own firearms, compared to 26% who believe the 2nd Amendment is clearly referring to state militias. That gap narrows a bit when you ask non gun owners. 63% of non gun owners believe their is an individual right, still a large majority. One thing is for sure, if the court decides to defy public opinion and rule that government entities can regulate guns, they will have a bunch of really angry protesters on their hands.

One of the reasons why the argument for or against gun ownership is so pronounced and so polarized, is because we have so little to go on when it comes to legal and constitutional precedent. Both sides cite the 2nd Amendment, the gold standard for defense against tyranny. The language in the amendment is so vague that both the NRA and the gun control lobby can claim it as their source of constitutionality.

So what does the 2nd Amendment say? "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the defense of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Very erudite, but vague. But how do you interpret it correctly? To do that, I will take some rules of interpretation that I, a student of theology, have learned from studying the Scriptures.

One of those rules is you have to interpret it in context. Context is everything. If you didn't use context, people would (and often do) get the wrong interpretation of something. For example, when St. Paul stated in 1st Corinthians ch. 15, 'else what will they do who are baptized for the dead?" if looked at just by itself, has created a whole doctrine around it, especially among LDS. Taking a small chunk of text and concentrating on that alone is called "prooftexting." A much better way is to look at the verses around it, and the whole theme of the chapter, and then you will get a better feel for what St. Paul was saying.

So now, let's look at the context of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia" is the opening phrase, and what the rest of the amendment is about. However, if you just had the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," there would be no ambiguity to it at all. The way the amendment was written leads me to think that 'a well regulate militia' is the context.

Another way we can try to interpret a text is by trying to understand the life and times of the authors. Why did they write this? What is their motivation for doing so?

The Bill of Rights itself came about because there was misgivings by ratifying conventions that didn't like the Constitution because it didn't have a "personal guarantee of rights." The only way men like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton got Virginia and New York into the union was by promising to amend the constitution, and add a bill of rights.

Madison, while serving in Congress, did so in May 1789. The original draft of the amendment, as proposed by Madison said: "That right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." It was trimmed for purposes of brevity, and the "conscientious objector clause" was removed.

The Founders believed that large standing armies were a threat to liberty. Hence, in the early years under the Constitution we had a very small professional army and navy and relied on the state militias to "put down insurrections, and repel invasions." While the states would recruit and train the men, the federal government would prescribe the method of training, as well as the minimum requirements of arms. Congress fulfilled this in the Militia Act of 1792. It prescribed that every able bodied male was to serve in the militias, and was to be armed and trained in the use of arms. This was the main defensive force in America until after the Civil War. In fact, the Union army was based off of individual state regiments.

Today, the militias have been institutionalized in the form of the National Guard. While still under state control, they are considered part of the United States Military. The sum total of all the units in the states is about 500,000; almost equal to the total forces of the US Army. And the Guard is bearing the brunt of the War on Terror. They are fighting on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan, and as a result, our forces here at home are stretched thin.

Anymore, the state militias have been superseded by the part time National Guard, which calls itself "the citizen's army." And in legal terms, the only reason the Militia Act is used today is when the president wishes to cite it for legal reasons for federalizing the National Guard.

Bottom line: we are in a very different time than what the Founders were in. They had just gotten over throwing out an occupying army and the shackles of tyranny, and that memory was still fresh on their minds. Thus it took nearly ten years for them to create a navy, and our professional army numbered 700 when Washington took office. The manpower to fight the War of 1812 and the Mexican American War was supplied largely by the states. Since every able bodied man was in the militia, they were adequately armed. Every one grew up with guns and knew how to use them.

Switzerland is the only country today that uses that system. And that is why they have an armed citizenry. They really don't have any professional army, and not much of an air force or navy. They rely instead on a well trained, well regulated militia.

In these United States, our "well regulated militia" is voluntary for us to join. Should the Supreme Court decide that the militia is the reason for keeping and bearing arms, the gun lobby wouldn't have a leg to really stand on.

My personal opinion? I live in a family of gun owners, although we don't do much shooting. I enjoy hunting, and would take up arms to defend my family if need be. But I also am in favor of:

1. An assault weapons ban and the five day waiting period. IMO, the average citizen doesn't need a Mini 14 or an Uzi.

2.In light of recent campus shootings, we should also toughen up laws that would make it virtually impossible for mentally imbalanced people to buy guns.

3.We should also require gun manufacturers to place locks on the guns and only send the key to the owner when it is registered. This can help prevent undocumented firearms from being sold out of pickups to persons unknown. I expound on this in an earlier posting. I would like to know if any of you think this could work. I am thinking of drafting a law to this affect and talking to my state senator about it.

Whatever the Supreme Court decides, it won't settle the debate. It will just make it harder for one side to make it's case. Who knows, maybe pro gun justices would be a litmus test for future federal court nominees.

For those who want to read more on this debate, read the report of the US Senate Sub Committee on the Constitution, published in 1982. It covers both sides very well. Here's the link: http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Debate: Expanded Military Powers for Governors

2008-02-24T19:37:00.001-08:00

I ran across this article in one of the websites I frequent. It mentions that since the breakdown in the chain of command in Katrina, there is actually legislation that will allow governors to have authority over all military forces in their state, especially during crises.

It's an interesting idea, although I am not sure about the constitutional issues involved. I know that Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution states that the "president shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States..." Governors have traditionally commanded the militias, and they could only be under federal authority during emergencies and by presidential proclamation.

So, if this idea becomes policy, that would mean Governor Christine Gregoire could use the Stryker Brigade, if it wasn't in Iraq, to help in disasters, like last year's devastating floods. Of course, if the Pentagon decided to send them to Iraq, that would take precedence.

Anyway, here's the story, and please I'd like to here your opinions.

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=279163

Until next time, this is Statesman.

An Abrupt About Face

2008-02-16T20:50:00.000-08:00

Here is an article in today's New York Times which describes presumptive Republican nominee Senator John McCain's vote against a bill which would have curtailed the CIA's use of harsh interrogation tactics.

McCain has been on record in this campaign as opposing torture of POWs, since he had himself been tortured. But, as the article correctly surmises, he voted against the bill to shore up support among his conservative base.

Those of you who are long time readers of this blog know that I am a long time critic of torture. In a previous posting I laid out my position in detail. To summarize it, I believe that acceding to torture makes us yield the moral high ground we have previously held. It also is in clear violation of the Geneva Convention, which we were one of the original signatories.

But the article also states that the bill lays out the correct methods for torture:

The bill, which the Senate passed Wednesday by 51 to 45, would force the C.I.A. to abide by the rules set out in the Army Field Manual on Interrogation, which prohibits physical force and lists approved interrogation methods.

It would seem that the Army can't do any torture at all because they are prohibited by the Army Manual. Not so for the CIA. They have different rules. All the bill sought to do was to make the CIA abide by the guidelines set forth in the Army Manual.

When we passed the Military Commissions Act, we said that the C.I.A. should have the ability to use additional techniques,” Mr. McCain told reporters Friday in Oshkosh, Wis. “None of those techniques would entail violating the Detainee Treatment Act, which said that cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment are prohibited.”

Just what are those "additional techniques?" Even that is open to interpretation. Even though he stated that they wouldn't violate the Detainee Treatment Act, apparently it has been violated. Our CIA has admitted to using waterboarding in the past, and the Bush Administration, to my knowledge, hasn't denounced it.

Here is the name of the article: McCain Draws Criticism on Torture Bill.

In my personal opinion, if we stoop to using the tactics we have long deplored, we are allowing ourselves to become the very people we have condemned. Does it extract information that can save thousands? Perhaps, but there should be a better way in which we could extract information without disgracing people or nearly killing them.

All I am asking for is that we apply the Army Manual across the board. It seemed to have worked in time past, so couldn't it work today?

Until next time, this is Statesman.

An Historic Election

2008-02-10T22:17:00.000-08:00

What an election season! Already we have had much high drama and high interest in the whole process. Record numbers are turning out in to vote in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, and Republicans have had more choices than ever before.

But now we are down to two candidates on both sides, and with McCain and Huckabee, they are the two who last summer no one gave any chance of getting this far. As far back as September, the senator's campaign was going bankrupt, and key aides were jumping ship and heading for the clear winner, Mitt Romney. Yet the senator, true to the fighting instinct which is in him, battled away and put together a string of victories till now he is virtually the only man left standing.

Except he doesn't have the nomination quite sown up yet. He only has a little over half the delegate needed to win, and there is potentially a spoiler in his plans. That man is none other than Mike Huckabee.

Governor Huckabee is the other person who was written off even two months ago as not being able to run a national level campaign on a shoe string budget. He was seen as quaint, well spoken, but perhaps a little out of his depth. But he put his talent for retail politics to good use by focusing his time and money on Iowa, and on nationally televised debates, where nearly everyone has stated that he has shined.

He pulled off a surprise win in Iowa against the frontrunner, Romney, and went on to lose in New Hampshire, Michigan, barely in South Carolina, and then Florida. Many have said that his campaign was on it's last legs, and that he should get out. But then he stunned the pundits yet again when on Super Tuesday he won five Southern states, and came in an excruciatingly close second in Missouri and Oklahoma.

Now, with Mitt Romney having dropped out, it would seem that McCain, who has the most delegates, would be the inevitable frontrunner. But over 20 states have not held their primaries yet, and conservatives are not quite comfortable with the senator's credentials. So Huckabee is staying in to take advantage of that.

And he made good use of it yesterday. He won a landslide in the Kansas caucuses, and edged out McCain in Louisiana. Washington, my home state, was called for McCain with him leading Huckabee by nearly 200 votes and only 87% of the precincts reporting in. I'd still say that is too close to call. But what can I say about my home state? We're the ones who had an extremely close governor's race four years ago, and it took three recounts before Democrat Christine Gregoire won with 129 votes. Something fishy is going on here in the Evergreen State. But then I'm not surprised.

Anyway, though Huckabee made only a little dent into the senator's lead for the nomination, he has proved that he has great appeal in one demographic area that the GOP needs to keep the White House: the Solid South. So far, he has taken nearly every state south of the Mason Dixon line, except Florida. His win in Kansas and his near wins in Oklahoma and Missouri show that he can win in the Midwest. The fact that Washington is too close to call demonstrates that he can have appeal in a very blue state.

The next test will be on Tuesday, when Maryland and Virginia hold the so called "Potomac Primaries." I think with the momentum of winning two caucuses this weekend outright and with a very strong showing in Washington, it gives him credibility as he touts his message as the only true conservative left in the race. We'll see how well it plays in Virginia, where the Huckabee campaign believes they have a real shot at winning.

Can Huckabee win? To those who don't think so, may I remind you that he was supposed to have not gotten this far in the whole process. He should have accepted the inevitable, gone home to Little Rock, and maybe make a run at the Senate. But he has outlasted candidates who had lots more money, more name recognition, and were in tight with the Republican Establishment. And he is the only top tier candidate left standing for those of us who don't necessarily want McCain.

Pundits think that both the Democratic and Republican nominations are going to be decided the old fashioned way: through a brokered convention. That will be the high point in a very dramatic election cycle. One that will be on par with what the 1976 election was, when Ronald Reagan nearly unseated Gerald Ford. I think in the remaining states, Huckabee can win enough to deny McCain the nomination outright, and have a say in who ultimately gets it.
Are the numbers against him? Definitely. But to use the governor's eloquent words, " I didn't major in math, I majored in miracles." It truly is a miracle that he is left standing, the champion of the conservatives, with little resources, and hardly any friends, yet he has exceeded expectations, and "confounded the wisdom of the wise." I am very excited to see how this whole drama ends. It will be the most exciting convention in my generation.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Passionate for Palin

2008-02-03T00:42:00.000-08:00

Well, it's happened: fashion and politics have finally blended. While it may seem like an unlikely mix, it's a good fit for Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Sources around the governor (her ever present fan base) have been able to confirm that the governor will be in the February issue of Vogue. When I heard about it the thought occurred to me that perhaps she was auditioning for a new career should her present one not work out.

I have to say, over the last six months I have become another person who has come down with the 'Palin Passion,' a state of being where you must know what the lovely governor is doing now. It's the same kind of passion that a rock super star evokes. Adoration, with girls (in this case guys) who are dreaming about what if, and an Establishment that should watch out.

I have also joined an effort to help make Governor Palin nationally known. At first it was to promote her for Vice President, but now we decided to not settle for second. Why? Hillary Clinton happened. You see, Gov. Palin is the antithesis of what Senator Clinton is and stands for. The Senator has so many negatives against her, that I can think of only one thing she is doing that's positive for the country. She has made Bill her centerpiece; keep doing that and the Republicans will win in a landslide.

With Sarah Palin, it is almost the exact opposite. You almost can't find any Alaskan that doesn't like her. She is rated the most popular public official in the country, with an approval rating of over 90%. Heck, with it that high, we might as well get it over with and give her a 100% approval rating. That would be history making: a politician whom no one dislikes. Makes you wonder if someone's holding out just to be contrary.

Also, Sarah Palin won election as a crusader against the establishment in her own Republican Party, while Hillary Clinton oozes establishment politics.

There are several more reasons why the governor is so attractive:

a.Sarah vetoed the equivalent to 5% of her state's budget last year. I'd like to see Hillary do that for the federal budget.

b.Palin's husband actually works for a living, instead of living in a penthouse in Long Island. In fact, Todd Palin is a man's man: he is a full time worker in Prudhoe Bay, he does some commercial fishing on the side, and he is the reigning snow mobile champion. If there was a Palin presidency, I'd pay big money to see the press and the Secret Service try to make this guy out, much less follow him around.

c. Sarah's not a lawyer, while Senator Clinton is. Need anymore obfuscation of the facts of the case?

You know, it does seem a bit odd that a sitting governor would pose for a magazine that is not about politics. But in this case the governor was expanding her potential support- she was going for the other half of the country that reads the spring fashions, not the latest political piece. It could pay off in the long run.

I do think that we are ready for a woman president: it's just that we've had a history with Hillary. Sarah Palin, however, might not be quite ready yet for prime time, but I think she might be able to achieve something we haven't seen in politics in quite a while: civility. I'm thinking that there are still gentlemen in the Congress of the United States who wouldn't try to attack her because they would feel that she is a true lady. They wouldn't have the same feeling toward a President Hillary Clinton.

In the near future, we'll start seeing more Republican candidates emerge that, like Sarah Palin, break the mold. It'll be fun to see.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Homeschooling By Another Name?

2008-01-31T23:05:00.001-08:00

Here is an interesting article from the New York Times which talks of recent trends in online learning. I am going to use the article to jump into something that I have personally experienced and what I see as the next great cultural influence in America.

The article seems to indicate that online charter schools are gaining popularity in some states. But another name for it is home education.

It sounds from the article that they are reporting on this as if it were a new phenomenon in education. That for the first time kids can learn at home supervised by a parent by taking a curriculum that is used by public schools.

But you know what? They are a little late to the game. I am one of now millions of former home educated students who learned at home, though perhaps not in such a structured manner as these kids are. When we started, home education was gaining acceptance, but was still a fringe movement that only hippie throwbacks and the far right did.

In recent years though, the movement has matured. We are still given certain stereotypes, such as "not enough socialization" or "only right wing Christians do that," but not anymore. For the movement is in many ways a miniature America, and we have both atheists and Christians teaching at home. Same with liberals and conservatives, tree huggers and Wall Street brokers. But all of us share a common reason why we educate at home: we feel that the public school system is broken, and that it teaches a belief system we might not want our children to bombarded with every single day. It's one thing to learn about existentialism or Marxism as part of a well rounded education, but every day?

Now some of us do partner with school districts for support materials and learning, such as this example in Florida:

"At the Florida Virtual School, the largest Internet public school in the country, more than 50,000 students are taking courses this year. School authorities in Traverse City, Mich., hope to use online courses provided by the Michigan Virtual School next fall to educate several hundred students in their homes, alleviating a classroom shortage."

For another example, my aunt has been homeschooling for some 15 years, yet she is also a surrogate teacher in her rural school district and her two youngest take part in track and football and spend one day a week in a school co-op that has public school teachers tutoring home educated students in history and math.

Now I won't go into comparable statistics comparing how the average home schooled student does academically. But I will say that it is a very adaptable education method that can be tailored to the needs of anyone who would use it. For that reason it fits into my populist political worldview, and in many ways those views were nurtured by it. It is the reason why I love writing about politics. I don't think I would have come to love history so much if I'd have learned it the 'structured' way in school.

It may seem like a new way of schooling, but we homeschoolers like to point out that at least nine of our presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, studied at home. Thomas Edison and Louisa May Alcott were tutored at home as well. I am not saying this to put down those of you who have attended public schools, I am just trying to lay to rest any doubts you might have had about the viability of home education.

But check out the article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/education/01virtual.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

And for more info on home education, here's a wonderful site: hslda.com (Home School Legal Defense Association). It will give you many links to other sites, as well.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

The Economic Stimulus Package? Whaaaat?

2008-01-25T16:26:00.001-08:00

It's all over the news and media outlets: Imagine! The President and Congress working together to provide an "economic stimulus" which will, among other things, give the American people up to $2,100 per family. Our economic woes will be swept away with this magic potion.

I am a bit cynical here (can't tell?). I am no economist, but I have taken and studied some economics courses in the past and I can tell you that such a package is the not the ultimate solution to the problems we face with the mortgage crunch, high energy costs or a an ever increasing unfunded liability in Social Security and our infrastructure. What our elected representatives are hoping is that we will be spending it into our economy and therefore help recharge the weak economic batteries.

But how are they going to pay for this nearly $150 billion package? Well, in the short term we'll probably borrow it from some country that really doesn't like us, but likes our money (like China). Plus, if we do spend it, most of the items we'll buy will come from that country, again China or the Middle East oil fields.

In the long term, and what is a good sign, the president struck a deal. In exchange for the tax rebates, he agreed to not push for his tax cuts to be made permanent, thus allowing us to offset the costs of the rebate. At least the deficit won't be exacerbated any more than it is.

Now, I understand and applaud the idea of giving the money back to ordinary Americans, but to give it back by paying for it with more debt? In a perfect world, rebates happen when their is a surplus.

My Plan for a stimulus

So what would I do to stimulate our economy, not another country's? I like the suggestion that Governor Huckabee gave a the Florida debate last night. You can use the same money to build up the infrastructure of the country, and specifically repair or add to existing roads and bridges that are desperately needing care. How many thousands of jobs and investment would that create?

Even if we did borrow the money from the Chinese, it would build up our economy, not theirs. We'd make sure to build it with American made products, and staffed by American workers. That would go a long way toward stimulating the economy, and then maybe you could give the American people the rebate by cutting spending on needless wars and needless corporate subsidies.

Though the rebate is a good idea, it is merely a Band Aid covering a gaping wound. It might hold it together, by soothing the fears of the average American we might begin to stabilize the unsure economy. But is it doing enough, and have we read between the lines sufficiently before we sign off on it?

I am a sucker, so I'll accept the money if they offer it to me, but not with the wholesale enthusiasm others are expressing.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

The Huckabee Momentum

2008-01-18T22:16:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow (or today if you're on the East Coast) is the South Carolina Primary, the kingmaker of Republican presidential nominees. Now, though all the polls seem to indicate a very tight race for McCain and Mike Huckabee, overnight polls are indicating an upward trend for Huckabee. Whew! Now I can breathe easier!

You all have known me as an early Huckabee supporter, and as a result I have been asked to contribute to several Huckabee related sites. One such site you all need to check out is: www.huckabeemomentum.com. I was very impressed by the quality and professional look to their site, and their devotion to telling others about the governor is very evident.

If you aren't a supporter of Governor Huckabee, yet still have questions about him, this is a good place to get them answered. Let's face it: he could become the nominee after Super Tuesday, and the front runner again after tomorrow, so we might as well start educating ourselves on what this man is all about. Again, it's www.huckabeemomentum.com.

Governor Huckabee is also the author of a book "From Hope to Higher Ground: 12 STOPS To Restoring America's Greatness." It is the basis of his presidential platform, and if you want to know who this man is and his leadership ability, then this book will be valuable.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

A Great Political Memoir

2008-01-17T11:29:00.000-08:00

Are you tired of yet another Ronald Reagan bio? Are you tired of the bias the authors have for or against him? Well, let me introduce you to another refreshing alternative: Lou Cannon's "Ronald Reagan: His Rise To Power."

Cannon was a Washington Post reporter who covered Reagan during his governorship and later his presidency. Although not a total Reagan fan (as evidenced by his earlier book "Role of a Lifetime"), Cannon here is fair and balanced as he assesses the appeal and political education of Reagan in the California governor's office. Through never before released minutes of meetings and of recorded conversations, we see a Reagan who was much more engaged and involved than most of his critics cared to admit. We follow him as he makes some of the most controversial decisions of his tenure.

For instance: Reagan's rationale for signing the lax abortion law which he later regretted is worth the reading. His pragmatic approach to raising taxes to make the state solvent is a lesson most politicians today can learn from. He also showed more environmental savvy than he is given credit for. In all, Reagan governed California from a far less strident position than supporters would like to believe.

Cannon sketches his life leading up to Sacramento, and his fateful (and fascinating) decision to challenge Gerald Ford in 1976, and ends at his triumphant election in 1980. But the focus is on the development of Reagan the politician, and his successes and failures while in office.

Each chapter has a one word heading, such as 'Leader', "Communicator", "Pragmatist", etc. Each chapter builds on the other, and is very honest as it shows both Reagan's strengths and weaknesses and perceptions as a leader and communicator.

I am convinced that if Ronald Reagan would be running today, he would be attacked by certain conservative groups for not being 'conservative' enough. The Club for Growth would have torn apart his tax and spending increases in California while ignoring his successes in tax reform. Pro life groups would have disparaged him for even signing an abortion law, even though he renounced the whole idea of abortion.

In fact, many groups didn't take him seriously. Democrats were encouraged to cross over and vote Reagan in the primaries because he was the one Carter wanted to face. The Republican Establishment didn't trust him at all. And his base didn't solidify and canonize him until after he left office.

All in all, I would recommend Cannon's book to any serious Reagan student and as a poli sci work. To get more info, go to Amazon.com.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Death With Dignity- Is It Really?

2008-01-09T20:33:00.000-08:00

I want to ask you all your opinions on a local issue here in Washington. Our news reported this morning that former Governor Booth Gardner ( who suffers from some degenerative disease) is filing an initiative this year that would allow doctors to prescribe lethal doses of drugs for patients who don't want to deal with the pain of their sickness. It's similar to Oregon's doctor assisted suicide law.

I don't think that this is a good idea, for if you take the arguments made to their logical conclusion, you wouldn't like what it ends up at. But I do think that we can make allowances for people who put in their wills that they don't want to be on life support should they suffer from some illness that clearly would kill them if they weren't on life support. Think Terri Schiavo. No matter where you are in the pro life camp, people in her condition should be allowed to choose whether to pull the plug or not. Sad as it is, if they weren't on life support they would die naturally.

Terri Schiavo's case is complicated, and I might explain it further later on, but I now want to stick to this thread: should we allow people to make the decision to terminate their lives through medication? What do you think?

Until next time, this is Statesman.

'Politics of Hope' Prevailing In Iowa

2008-01-03T18:39:00.000-08:00

CNN just reported that now Senator Obama will win the Democratic caucuses in Iowa. That, and with Huckabee winning the GOP nod, two men were chosen in Iowa who personify hope (heck, Huckabee is even from Hope) and have articulated a positive vision for the country.

Iowa voted it's heart tonight. Whether it's an accurate forecast for the rest of the country or not, Iowans I think showed that they are tired of the negativity and the direction this country is heading. We've had nearly eight years of 'your either with us or against us' rhetoric and these and the country is weary of such divisive tactics.

Governor Huckabee pulled off this amazing victory despite being outspent nearly 20-1 by Gov. Romney's organization. A glut of negative ads didn't sink him, nor did his gaffes on Pakistan. He won by concentrating on his "vertical politics" platform and articulating it better than Romney ever could.

And to think that nearly eight weeks ago he was in the middle of the polls and hadn't raised all that much money. Pundits rated him an "also ran" before he even started his meteoric rise. His main exposure was in the numerous debates, where he turned in solid performances and on the ground, where people were wowed by his personality. His ideas caught fire and has made him a national frontrunner.

And Obama? Well, I must admit that I was attracted to his message and his charistmatic personality. I knew that he would be a big player in this nomination process, but I was hoping he could mainly be a spoiler for Senator Clinton's bid for another stint in the White House. That will remain to be seen.

Whatever happens in the other primaries, tonight hope prevailed. Two men who personify change and upending the status quo in their parties and the country, have won our first caucus. We'll see what happens in the next six weeks.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

New Year, New Problems, And A New President

2008-01-02T09:21:00.001-08:00

A Wall Street Journal article this morning stated so succintly the uncertainty voters have in this election cycle. What with the Iowa and New Hampshire polls so close and more voters calling themselves Independents, it is shaping up to be, as the article says, an epochal battle.

Here's the link:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119922215077360537.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news.

This says it better than I could. Any comments?

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Bhutto's Butchered, Pakistan's Passion

2007-12-29T22:37:00.000-08:00

It was truly shocking to hear of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan. Like most, I haven't been following very closely the situation in Pakistan, but this incident has caused me to bone up on my knowledge of Indo-Asia. And I can tell you that her death will be sending out shockwaves that could be felt for years.

Her loss is not just for the people of Pakistan, but for all who hope that freedom and peace will be established in the region. She was a symbol of dissent, and with her prime ministerial rival Nawal Sharif, represented the high hopes of the West for democracy to take a firm foothold in the country. And for two months it looked like democratic sensibilities were on the rise. After eight years of military rule by General/President Musharaff, our ally in the War on Terror, stirrings of discontent with his regime were being felt. In October, she returned from self imposed exile to start the long, dangerous road of regime change. Though she suffered house arrest and martial law, her country was undaunted.

Whether she was killed from the bullets aimed at her or from falling from the impact, the fact is that like all political assassinations, hers is history altering. Consider this: it was an assassin's bullet that killed Kaiser Wilhelm of Austria that helped spark World War 1. JFK's assassination ended the high hopes we might have had for his presidency. And I do wonder what our country would be like if Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy had lived. We'll never know, but we still don't forget the message they gave, calling us to nobler ideals, and giving us a vision that goes beyond war and greed. In her own way, I think Bhutto meant the same thing to her people.

The Pakistani people are in mourning, but they are also angry. That would explain the riots and the burning buildings. But how do we put it in terms we can understand? Simply, it would be like you having a long run of bad luck for years, and right when you think that your luck is about to change, something else goes wrong. It is human to be frustrated by the situation, and nationwide Pakistan is frustrated and angry.

So what next should they do? That's a debate for cooler heads and foreign ministers, but from a layman's viewpoint they need to first of all quell the violence. Then they need to go ahead with the scheduled parliamentary elections, as President Musharaff has pledged to do. And as Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the killing, maybe this will galvanize support among allies to help destroy Al Qaeda in Pakistan. It's clear what their goal was: by getting rid of Bhutto, they could plunge Pakistan into civil war among Islamic factions and tribal leaders, and weaken democratic efforts.

Pakistan has headlined the foreign news for weeks, and will likely dominate our list of foreign problems in the next year. Pakistan is a huge ally in the Middle East for fighting terror, and an unstable Pakistan armed with nuclear weapons, is sure to make anyone nervous. That's why it has already become a campaign issue in the 2008 elections, and will be a focus for the Bush Administration's last year in office.

"...Peace (is) the rational end of rational men." JFK's "Peace Speech."

Until next time, this is Statesman.

The Online Political Revolution

2007-12-19T20:09:00.000-08:00

In one of my earlier postings I mentioned a book called " The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" by author and Howard Dean's campaign manager Joe Trippi. I mentioned how the Internet has the potential to change the landscape not only of how we do business, but also how we conduct political campaigns. I am writing on the same subject six months later because already the World Wide Web and it's potential for political revolution are already upsetting the Establishment's applecart in the 2008 elections.

You all know that I am a Huckabee supporter, but I do think that his current standing in the polls is largely through creating a grassroots effort through political blogs and discussion groups. Most polls in Iowa and South Carolina show him as the clear frontrunner; and in states where he has no organization, such as Florida and Michigan, he is also near the top of the polls, if not leading them.

In pre Internet days, if a candidate had raised as little money as Governor Huckabee has, nothing less than a miracle would save him from obscurity. But because of the nature of the Web, a previously obscure candidate or officeholder can create a movement that can last well beyond his political life. For little or no money, a campaign can join blogs and other online groups to talk up the candidate and engage voters in online discussion of the issues. Although traditional campaigns scoffed at this idea as a waste of time, they sat up and took notice when Howard Dean in 2003 went from last to first in both polls and donations because of his online grassroots efforts. Now 2008 is shaping up to making Dean's efforts look like kid's stuff when it comes to sparking real change.

Congressman Ron Paul's grassroots campaign has already made history by raking in record making amounts of cash. Just last Saturday, December 16, over $6 million was raised online for Ron Paul's campaign in a 24 hour period. Of the people who donated, over 25000 new donors gave to his campaign for the first time. That brings his total war chest for the quarter to $18 million so far, and is set to making him the fundraising leader among the GOP candidates.

Though traditional polls show him near the bottom of the pack of candidates, there is obviously something they are missing in evaluating support. How else can you explain such a groundswell of support for both Huckabee and Ron Paul?

In normal political playbooks, they shouldn't even be an issue. For in times past, the candidates would be anointed by the media and big money interests, and often the little guy would feel that the candidate really had no connection with his life and what he was concerned about. They (Big Money, Big Media) became so accustomed to this level of control that it flummoxed them when a new paradigm in communications (the Internet) came along and gave voice to the masses. Though they still command the airwaves, they don't command the respect or attention of a growing number of disaffected Americans. Many are turning to alternative news outlets such as Drudge or the Daily Kos instead of the daily paper. In turn, this has created a more informed voting populace, and they are dissatisfied with the current state of affairs.

Just like television conquered radio's monopoly on information and entertainment, so the Internet is doing to television. In the past, the masters of television became our political leaders, and in the near future we'll see masters of online information become our presidents and politicians.

Who knows where it'll all take us, but it sure won't be a dull ride.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

NIE, TapeGate, and more...

2007-12-12T21:24:00.000-08:00

The truth is sometimes painful. And in particular, the truth about how this Administration's policy on ironclad secrecy and presidential prerogative is especially painful. Revelations of misguided decisions and ideas come at us almost every day now, as if to make up for nearly seven years of lost time. This week, two very damning opinions and papers came to light.

First it was the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. The first take on it's meaning seemed to indicate that Iran had halted it's nuclear weapons program in 2003. It was quite obvious that the president and his national security advisor were very uncomfortable trying to explain it's meaning and when they knew it even when high ranking members of the administration were beating the drums for war with Iran. The president tried to salvage the argument by saying that an Iran that possesses the "knowledge" of how to build a bomb was just as dangerous to the security of the United States.

But one very clear advantage of the NIE becoming public knowledge is that it takes out the president's main argument that we need to go to war with Iran because they were allegedly building a nuclear weapon. Now it will be next to impossible for the president to go to Congress and ask not only for support, but also for the necessary war funds to support this war.

That would seem the reason why the document was leaked. In fact, former UN Ambassador John Bolton implied as much. He charged that there are some people in the intelligence community who disagree with going after Iran, and threatened the president with blackmail if he didn't make the report public. This seems farfetched to me. But then, Ambassador Bolton always made me nervous.

Can you imagine what a similar estimate on Iraq would have done for the hawks charging Saddam's complicity in helping the Taliban in 9/11? Would Congress have voted on the resolution that gave the president the power to go to war? I think Tony Blair, the UN Security Council, and the "coalition of the willing" would have had second thoughts about going headlong into war.

No doubt Iran is still a very dangerous power to reckon with, but this NIE has perhaps allowed us to step back and reassess our policy toward Iran. We shouldn't take military options off the table, but we need to show that we are looking for a diplomatic solution in which both sides will be satisfied. We can work with our allies effectively to quarantine nuclear materials being sent into Iran, and use UN inspectors to periodically inspect their nuclear program. If we go to war, it should be based on credible intelligence that can be proven and that can present a clear and present danger to the security of the United States.

To add insult to injury, another revelation came to light a few days ago. It now seems that the CIA has destroyed tapes that filmed detainees being tortured by US agents. At first the administration tried to minimize the issue, but Congress has opened a full investigation into this illegal action. And now General Hayden, the Director of Central Intelligence, has admitted that egregious "errors were made."

That sound you hear is me pulling out my hair in frustration. I am beginning to wonder: how many such things are we going to be subjected to in the months and yes years ahead? I would be very surprised if the next president didn't spend at least part of his time unraveling the mess that this current administration has made.

What you hear is a person who started out with high hopes for the Bush presidency, but will likely end it in disappointment at the missed opportunities for statesmanship and the chance to unite America decisively to secure our country and fix our runaway spending and leaky borders. I do not think that all is lost, however. He pushed forward thinking policies in Trade Promotion Authority, No Child Left Behind, and the Clear Skies Initiative. Very productive policies, but all in all, he will be leaving us with some real heavy problems that could take years to undo.

Perhaps it is good to debate these things going into an election year. Every so often we need to have these debates on what freedom and limited government and our Constitution really are about. If it's true that "every generation must decide for itself the fate of liberty," then this posting and this blog are part of the process.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

National Review: the GOP Base Is Way Off

2007-11-30T10:32:00.000-08:00

I read an interesting article from the National Review Online a few days ago, the title is the one in the blog post. It is a very revealing read because it shows how even the evangelical base of the GOP is way out of the mainstream of American politics. It also shows how most of the current field of Republican presidential candidates don't seem to get it when we voice our concerns about the current economic conditions.

Take this excerpt for instance:

Take the economy. Republicans are much happier with their economic circumstances than Democrats: 81 percent of the former, and only 54 percent of the latter, express satisfaction. Independents are exactly where the Democrats are. At their recent economic debate, however, most of the Republican candidates essentially advised dissatisfied Americans to look up some economic statistics to see how well things are going. The ones who acknowledged public gloom proffered protectionism as a remedy.

Remember when Fred Thompson was asked in one of the last few debates about the condition of the economy he went into his brain and coughed up something about how the economy is doing great and we had x amount of quarters of economic growth and... he just wasn't getting it? But he was talking about the economy in the macro sense, and yes, the economy as a whole is doing better. But in the micro sense, in the lives of ordinary workers and homeowners, they see the mortgage crunch and rising gas prices and worry about their lives and want to know if their politicians at least get that there are real concerns about the economy. So needless to say Thompson, in my mind, wouldn't make a good president because he doesn't understand what I and millions of Americans are going through.

Or take global warming. The public thinks it is real and worrisome, but is not ready to embrace liberal policies that would drastically reduce economic growth. Republicans would have an opening here, if so many of them had not persuaded themselves that global warming is a hoax.

Now, I do think that some Republican officials are starting to get it, one of whom is Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. Pawlenty says that his views on global warming have changed since he was visited by some eminent scientists who showed him disturbing pictures and statistics. He also said that this spring he'll be going on an expedition to the North Pole to see all this for himself.

Most Republican office holders, I am sure, are not as strident as are some members of Congress. We who are concerned about it must get the message out and proffer solutions of our own. But it will be an uphill battle, because we have allowed ourselves to be on the wrong side of the global warming debate. As the excerpt above states: the voters are seeing that the liberal establishment seems to be the only ones who are offering solutions to the global warming challenge, while the Republicans are trying a strategy of denial. If we as responsible members of the GOP offer more common sense policies that effectively combat the effects of global warming, and actually talk about it, it would go a long way to not letting the Democrats own the issue.

Yet as the next excerpt states so appropriately, the "base" is not asking for creative solutions to economic and environmental problems. They mean the traditional evangelical base. So the public is not being engaged by the issues that are being raised because frontrunners Giuliani and Romney are fighting for the spot of who is has the most conservative record.

If the public debate is confined to a choice between people who brush off public concerns and those who offer bad solutions, the latter group will win. Conservatives, right now, are not offering better solutions. And because the Republican base is not demanding those solutions, the competitive dynamic of the primary is not producing them. For most of the year, the Republican presidential debates have featured barely a word about health care, the public’s most pressing domestic concern. The leading GOP candidates have belatedly put out plans (except for Thompson, who still hasn’t) — to the seeming indifference of rank-and-file conservative voters.

Instead, the competition is taking Republicans farther and farther away from a connection with the public. Giuliani has broken with the base of the party, but only in ways that will not help with the larger electorate. And to make up for those deviations on social issues, he is projecting a bring-it-on bellicosity that conservatives like but that most voters simply do not feel. Romney and Thompson, meanwhile, are fighting over who is the most conventional, paint-by-numbers conservative circa 1987. Creative domestic policy is off the table.

My question to you is: if we allow the presidential election to fall to Hillary or Obama, will we retreat to our old mantras of a base that is out of step with a majority of America? We need to have fresh ideas and fresh faces to help expand the party's appeal and put forth creative solutions, as the article says.

Chew on that awhile, and until next time, this is Statesman.

Read This Article

2007-11-26T21:31:00.000-08:00

I came across this article in the Washington Post this evening that I wish to share with you all. It is called " Fixing Social Security the FDR Way." It is the most straightforward article on how we can fix the imbalance in the Social Security Trust Fund. The answer? Make it the way FDR meant it to be, as a supplement to your income, and to help you back on your feet, not as a pension or a sole income for millions of retirees.

Here's the link. Hope to hear your comments.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/25/AR2007112501545.html

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Huckabee Rising...And Ideas On Taxpayer's Bill of Rights

2007-11-16T14:00:00.001-08:00

These past few weeks have been very good for Republican presidential hopeful (former) Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Last month, coming off a strong performance in the Values Voters Debate, he raised nearly $1 million in the month of October, most of which was raised after the debate. And within the past few days polls in Iowa show him in a virtual dead heat with Mitt Romney. But today the big news is that the noted polling group Rasmussen has the governor tied for second place nationally.

How can you explain such an improbable coup? It was only even one month ago that many pundits and analysts said that Huckabee was the most likable and articulate of the GOP candidates, but... he doesn't have the money to launch a nationwide challenge. This has been repeated so much it's sickening.

But Huckabee's campaign is shaping up to be a true insurgency. It's breaking all the established textbook criteria for what makes a person a viable candidate.
For example, Huckabee has so far reported raising nearly two million dollars in the previous three quarters, and is on track to raise another two million this month just online. Contrast that with the tens of millions that the Romney establishment has taken in and raised.

Romney's strategy seems to be focused on relying on ads and staying in the faces of the voters constantly and thus coopt the voters through name recognition. Huckabee hasn't spent a dime on ads, but is relying on building a strong grassroots organization, which matters more in the Iowa caucuses.

So how can we explain how Huckabee, who was only considered comic relief or a fringe candidate only a few months ago now is taken so seriously as to be exposed to constant attacks? Huckabee has one thing that no one else is putting forward: a vision. He has clear ideas on where he wants to take this country, and some of those ideas are conventionally Republican, others are notably not. He famously states that he wants to be the president from Main Street America,
and average Americans are starting to notice the difference. Many are attracted to his talk of vertical politics and don't seem to care whether he talks like a Democrat or has some so called "liberal" sensibilities, just so they work.

So I am very excited about his prospects, and looking forward to supporting him here in Washington state.

Some ideas for my proposed Property Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.

As I mentioned in the last posting, I was very disappointed in the decision of my state's Supreme Court to invalidate my state's initiative to limit annual property tax increases to 1%. That happened not two days after the voters passed other fiscal and tax limitation measures on Election Day.

The argument that one of the justices cited for overturning the initiative was that the 'voters didn't know what they were voting for.' That's the kind of arrogance that allows our Establishment to overturn the clear will of the people.

This action is prodding me to really formulate an idea that has been knocking around in my head for some time: a Property Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. Now this not an idea that originated with me; several states have similar legislation. But this one I hope to tailor to the needs of my state and it's political climate.

1. I am planning to add the 1% tax cap, only I might propose making it 2%. If local tax districts wish to raise taxes, they will have to seek the approval of the voters.

2. Voters are entitled to know exactly what and where their tax dollars go. Thus, full disclosure and Freedom of Information would apply to fiscal and tax policy.

3. If a taxpayer/homeowner faces economic hardtimes and can not pay his tax bill, the taxing authority will temporarily "forgive" his tax bill until he gets back up on his feet. The principle here is that it is in the best interest of the county or state that that person stay in their home, as it would make it easier to get back on their feet instead of getting evicted.

Here's some things the taxpayer must do:

a. He must make a good faith effort to pay the tax, even if he chooses the monthly payment option like many homeowners do. He also must make an effort to get back on his feet financially in about six months time.

b. If he has investment property, then he can sell it to pay his tax, and what may be left over can help him financially.

Now, when he is able to pay his taxes, the county can't charge him for back taxes, as it could aggravate his precarious financial position.

My purpose in this provision is based on the idea that it causes great upheavals in families for them to be upended from their homes because, through no fault of their own, they couldn't meet their tax obligations. I have personally known people who have had to sell their long time homes because their taxes went up dramatically, and they couldn't pay them. I want to eliminate that injustice.

Do any of you have ideas on what should be included in the Property Taxpayer's Bill of Rights? I'd love to hear them.

"Vox populi, vox Dei." (The voice of the people is the voice of God).

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Who's Running My State?

2007-11-08T22:20:00.000-08:00

I heard a piece of news today that just about sent me over the top. It was one more piece of news how our elitest state government is so out of touch with the concerns of those they are supposed to represent.

First, let me give you some background. Washington State is considered one of the most heavily taxed states in the country, though we don't have a personal income tax or use toll roads. And because we don't, our state and local authorities rely on state sales taxes and gasoline taxes to fund general services. As a result, we have one of the highest sales tax rates in the nation, and almost three years ago our Democratic governor and Legislature voted in a near 10 cent increase in the gasoline tax, making it the third highest in the nation. And that is nothing compared to our property taxes, and that is the subject of what I am going to share with you today.

Six years ago, the voters approved Initiative 747, which set property tax increases at 1% per year. Now, we heard that it was going to hurt essential services, how we would have to cut police and emergency services, and that schools wouldn't be built. Their dire predictions didn't come true (of course).

But 747 was one of many initiatives that tried to impose fiscal responsibility on our government. And most, if not all, we opposed by the Establishment that runs the government. But though they are passed into law by the voters, it didn't stop them from ignoring the wishes of the voters. Consider some examples:

I-601, passed in 1992, imposed spending limits on the state government that they have tried ever since to get around. They have done it, too. Our latest governor, Christine Gregoire, has been able to increase state spending by 32% in three years. Far above and beyond what I-601 had in mind.

I-695, passed by a 2/3 majority in 1999, was originally a revolt against excessive car tab fees. It followed the Oregon model, a flat base fee of $30, with counties allowed to add small amounts to it up to a certain point. It also repealed the car excise tax, and it was declared unconstitutional because the state constitution says that an initiative can only deal in one subject. But the Legislature kept the $30 car tabs, because they knew that the voters liked it.

I already mentioned I-747, passed in 2001.

And just this week, a whole slough of tax and spending measures were on the ballot statewide. One of the most touted was Proposition 1, a roads and transit package that would have raised up to $38 billion in 40 years in and around Seattle to fund a much needed highway and transit system. It went down to defeat in liberal Seattle. We passed Initiative 960, which required that all future general tax increases were to pass by a 2/3 vote in the Legislature, and/or get signed off by the voters. Who knows when that'll get nullified. We passed a constitutional amendment which required the legislature to form an emergency fund and to set aside 10% of state revenues into the fund to pay for unexpected emergencies. They will be allowed to spend money from this fund on roads and schools.

Now, here is what makes me angry. Just this morning I heard that our state Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision, invalidated Initiative 747, saying it violated the constitution. Now, word is out that county assessors offices are being flooded with requests to increase taxes to the point that they collect "back" taxes we didn't pay under Initiative 747. One estimate put it at a 20% property tax increase.

That opened up Pandora's box. I was listening to my favorite local talk show, who's host is famously libertarian, and he devoted his whole 3 hour show today to answering calls about this idiotic decision. No one stood up for the state. All were madder than hornets. One fellow even said that though he never voted Republican in his life, he says that the GOP's gubernatorial candidate, Dino Rossi, has his vote.

Doesn't the state get a clue? Obviously not, for the day after the election, Proposition 1 supporters appeared in shock and blamed the failure of the package on the fact that it was opposed by the Sierra Club; it didn't address global warming enough. Huh?!?

It didn't pass in very liberal Seattle because even there the people don't trust the state to spend their money wisely. Even though the state has very disparate political views which range from Neo Nazi to the Far Left, we all are united on this one subject: that government is not spending our money wisely, so why should we give any more to them?

If Dino Rossi really wanted to win big this time (he lost the '04 election to Gregoire by 129 votes and 3 recounts, refer to Wikipedia to learn more) he should capitalize on voter discontent in this. In fact, that is why he got so close last time. He focused on restraining spending and keeping taxes equitable, and played down his opposition to abortion (he said he was Catholic) and ran as a moderate and to this day many in my state can't forget how the election was stolen from him. It was finally settled in court, but we haven't forgotten the whole episode. We haven't had a Republican governor elected since 1980, get the hint?

This whole affair has now culminated to today's action and has gotten my creative juices flowing. You all know that I eventually want to run for office someday, and I know what a powerful issue taxes and spending is in my state, considering what I have just described to you. Now, I have taken an idea that was backed by Governor Huckabee in Arkansas, and will try and make it my own to fit this state. It will be called the "Property Taxpayer's Bill of Rights." I will elaborate on it more in the very near future. I haven't fleshed out the details yet so I can't really say what will be in it. I honestly think that I could run on this issue alone and get elected to statewide office because of voter support for it.

Does any of this sound familiar to you? I'm sure that many other states have similar problems. Let me know of yours.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Torture and Liberty and the War On Terror.

2007-11-02T13:24:00.000-07:00

I was heartened today when I heard that Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says he won't support the president's nominee for Attorney General. The senator cited Judge Mukasey's non committal attitude concerning waterboarding as a disqualifier for his support.

I think that it is about time that the Congress of the United States stood up to the President and his high handed conduct of the war. Those of you who follow this blog know that I am against how the war is being conducted, despite the good intentions we had going in. But what is more concerning to me is the war at home defending the methods of how we fight the War on Terror. In particular I am not in favor of domestic surveillance or private courts or "Star Chambers."

But in this posting I will stick to torture.

Our leaders are defending the use of torture to help us obtain information that will help us in fighting the War on Terror. Just yesterday Vice President Cheney claimed that using the waterboarding technique has helped us foil terrorist plans. And the president himself has now weighed in now that it seems that Mr. Mukasey's candidacy is in jeopardy.

In the past few years we have been bombarded with propaganda from our government that in order to equip our intelligence services with better means to spy on terror groups, it is necessary to abandon (in Thomas Jefferson's words) 'inconvenient subtleties.' What we have held dear when it came to freedom and what we expected our leaders to protect is now being eroded in the name of national security.

America for the longest time was looked upon as a humane conqueror, it's military treated foreign prisoners with dignity and according to the rules of war. It was largely a gentleman's agreement, but one of it's cardinal rules was you did not make war on civilians; also known as total war. Nations who violated this agreement were condemned and considered uncivilized in their conduct. After centuries of understood rules of warfare, nations of the world gathered in Geneva, Switzerland in 1863 to codify these rules of international law. One of the signatories was the United States.

Now, one of the provisions of the treaties dictated how to treat prisoners of war. Torture was condemned as a practice of obtaining information. The Third Reich was was condemned for how it treated POWs and political prisoners in the Holocaust. It was well known that they had no compunction in using all manner of torture to force information out of the Allies. After the war was over many Nazi officers and officials were tried and condemned to death for "crimes against humanity."

Though not formally tried, the war crimes committed on GIs by Imperial Japan were just as grievous. Watch movies like 'To End All Wars' and "The Great Raid" to understand what our soldiers went through. Yet when we occupied Japan there was no revenge or mistreatment of the people. Instead, we encouraged missionaries and Bibles to be distributed to the masses and General MacArthur's humane governing allowed Japan to keep it's dignity while making the adjustment to the democratic and economic powerhouse it is today.

In fighting this war, have we forgotten history or the traditions of the past? Why do our so called 'national security interests' allow us to torture prisoners and to allow such atrocities as the scandals at Guantanamo Bay?

My personal view on the War on Terror has, like most Americans, evolved as it went along. I have stated that I was supportive of the war in Iraq, but doubted that it had anything to do with the larger War. Despite growing doubts and mounting casualties, I still gave our president the benefit of the doubt. But my uneasiness was growing as I saw the liberties we hold most dear become marginalized in the name of homeland security. I saw a president who believes that his powers as Commander in Chief allow him to do anything that will, in his view, make America more secure, even if it dashed all laws and traditions.

We were all taught in American Government 101 that the President is subject to the Constitution and our system of checks and balances. President Bush and his lawyers seem to have forgotten that.

I know that I sound like a rabid anti-war liberal, and that no self respecting Republican would hold such views. But actually this viewpoint is one that the Republican party has subscribed to for years. They were all for checks and balances, a non interventionist foreign policy, and preserving our American liberties. Yet the Republican party I see today is not the party I have known.
Many commentators in such publications as the American Conservative note the changed Republican party as opposed to the Republican party even 20 years ago. I agree with their statement that a neo-conservative foreign policy has taken over the GOP, and has subsequently wrecked our relations with our allies.

However, I do believe in the threat of Islamofascists who want to kill us, so we need to fight back. I just disagree that Iraq was harboring al Quaida, whereas we knew that the Taliban was. I have no doubts that Iraq is better off without Saddam, but I still think we could have ousted him earlier without sending in 166,000 of our troops to do it. We wouldn't have been embroiled in a civil war that we can' t easily extract ourselves from.

Some of the mistakes made early in this war are staggering and have helped prolong the conflict. In November 2001 we had credible intelligence that bin Laden was hiding in the caves of Tora Bora, and that we could have sent in a commando team to take him out. Instead, the president wanted local militias to do the job, and in the firefight America's Most Wanted Man escaped. The movement wouldn't have collapsed, but his death would have removed one of earth's most lethal killers.

So, how do I suggest that we fight the War on Terror effectively while preserving our most cherished rights? That will have to come at another time, since it will take probably more than one posting. Suffice it to say, grievous mistakes were made, and we are jousting over something that should be settled in our consciences and labeled unacceptable. But then, maybe debating these issues is good, that way it is not an archane legal argument,but it makes the values that our fathers held our own. It helps keep our appreciation of liberty fresh and new and precious to us.

I will close by quoting some of my favorite political sayings.

"Every generation must decide for itself the fate of liberty." Anonymous

' They that would give up essential liberty to achieve a little temporary security deserve neither liberty or security." Benjamin Franklin

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Tax Policy and the Estate Tax

2007-10-23T20:57:00.000-07:00

For the past two weeks, I have been thinking and researching on the subject of taxes and how it benefits or hurts average Americans. It all started with an e-mail exchange I had with one of my contributors. We had some disagreements on how taxes affect the rich and the poor, and I do acknowledge that he fielded some pretty convincing statistics.

But it's a funny thing with statistics. You can quote any reputable scholar and any scholarly study that will back up your beliefs. Like Baskin and Robbins, there can be 31 flavors to the facts, depending on the leanings of the author. What I am going to do is field a "flavor" of my own and tell you why I believe the current unbending tax policies of my party are actually breaking the finances of the country.

After broadly discussing taxes in general, I am going to focus on the Republicans' singleminded focus to eliminate the Estate Tax, also called the Death Tax.

We all learned in basic American History that the War for Independence started as a tax revolt, because the colonists refused taxation without representation in Parliament. And until 1913 when the Sixteenth Amendment allowed the income tax to be constitutional, our government mainly survived on import duties and a few excise taxes. Even then, Americans were hostile to high tax rates and many of the political battles fought in Congress were over high tariffs. Back then, the Democrats were the party of low taxes and freer trade, and the Republicans favored a high protective tariff to encourage American industry.

America's first foray into high taxation began in the Civil War. The Lincoln Administration was in desperate need of funds, as the cost of waging the war made it the most expensive war in history up to that time. They funded it partially through debt, but they also levied new taxes on the American people that had doubtful constitutionality. They levied an income tax on incomes over $5000 (the affluent at the time) and also levied the original Estate Tax. If it was a poor man's war, the rich did their part by helping fund the effort. After the war, the income tax was declared unconstitutional, and it would take the Sixteenth Amendment to make it legal.

When Congress levied the first of many income tax statutes in 1913, only those who made $2000 and over paid a 3% rate. You paid a higher rate if you made $20,ooo, up to 7%. President Wilson and members of Congress stilled the fears of Americans by saying that "only" the rich would pay it. But only a few years later, America entered World War 1, and Congress lowered the minimum income requirement, and raised the top rate to 77%. There is a fit saying for this example " A politician's brain is like Swiss Cheese; it's full of holes." This is not the first, and certainly isn't the last example of our representatives forgetting their promises for political expediency.

But let's be clear, not until the War On Terror has an adminstration tried to finance a war with tax cuts and unsustainable funding. All major wars saw an increase in taxation, as well as borrowing, but we are trying to focus on funding this war with tax cuts and deficits. Since 2003, the total cost of the war has been $650 billion, if you factor in the president's latest funding request. Until recently, we have had deficits that topped $400 billion, while the president cut $1.6 trillion in taxes. To help stimulate a flagging economy, and while it was fighting a war, the president proposed in 2003 further tax cuts on capital gains and to make the excise tax repeal permanent.

Like a mantra, all Republicans seem to state that lowering taxes will stimulate the economy. And if one were to raise taxes, the economy would tank. But until Ronald Reagan made a broad based tax cut the centerpiece of his economic plan in 1980, the Republican party didn't generally run on giving a tax cut to the American people. They were the moderates, the ones who stood for fiscal responsibility. They didn't roll back the Great Society and seemed to make peace with the New Deal. But they wanted to make sure we could pay for it. Eisenhower and later Rockefeller Republicans stood for balanced budgets and fiscal conservatism.

Ironically, Ronald Reagan got his inspiration for cutting the income tax from John Kennedy. JFK proposed a small cut in 1962, and the Republicans, including Barry Goldwater, attacked it as fiscally irresponsible. Yet even as Reagan was waging a high profile tax cut battle, he raised taxes in other areas. In 1983, part of his and Tip O'Neill's effort to save Social Security included raising the payroll tax, which is what wage earners like me pay. In 1986, Reagan simplified the tax code by making only three rates that one would pay in taxes. To do that he allowed the Democratic Congress to close loopholes that were used by corporations to evade taxes. The IRS started collecting those taxes due them. My point here is that a lot of my fellow Republicans conveniently forget the Reagan who compromised on taxes to make Social Security solvent and to bring in more revenue when needed.

Now it seems that if you don't pledge to not raise taxes, you are not a true Republican. There is a lot of peer pressure in politics, and despite what some Republican congressmen doubted about the wisdom of the Bush tax cuts, they didn't want to be branded as a 'tax and spender.' So everyone says they will cut taxes, and no one has called the president on his judgment to cut taxes in a time of war except the Democrats.

I am a strong fiscal conservative, and find myself agreeing more with the Eisenhower Republicans. The old general said, " I am conservative when it comes to money, and liberal when it comes to people." Indeed, until Reagan came along, no Republican president or Congress significantly lowered tax rates, even Calvin Coolidge didn't cut taxes to 28%. Republicans thought it good public policy to have a government pay for programs as it enacted them. The brilliant justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concurred, saying " Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society." If Republicans objected to high spending, it was because of the waste of the taxpayers money that happened too often in government, or because it would place an undue burden on American society.

Now for the Estate Tax. President Bush is a believer in "supply side economics," the belief that if you cut taxes sufficiently, it would stimulate investment and broaden the tax base which would therefore increase government revenues. While I think eliminating the Marriage Penalty is a very good idea, as well as the Alternative Minimum Tax, I have some serious disagreements about eliminating the estate tax.

1. The Citizens for Tax Justice organization estimates that as this generation of Baby Boomers retire and die, hundreds of billions of dollars will be collected through the estate and gift taxes. If the estate tax is repealed, more revenue that can be used to pay down the deficit will go down the toilet.

2. A lot of people seem to think that the estate tax applies to anyone who bequeathes any money to family members. But the facts show a different story. Again, Citizens for Tax Justice reported that 3,600 taxable estates over $5 million paid 72.6% of estate taxes, and those who left an estate between $1.5-$2.5 million were subjected to a 7.2% tax rate. Only those who left an estate worth more than $20 million paid an effective rate of 36.7% in 2005. But if you gave bequests to charity or other worthwhile causes, often the $20 million estate would pay less, since there is less in the estate.

Part of the reason why I wish to keep the estate tax after 2011 is because of what I have seen of wealth in my family and in other wealthy families. My parents are personally poor, but my mother grew up in an aristocratic, upper middle class to rich family. Her grandmother has her deceased husband's millions in a trust, but most of her kids are trying to curb her philanthropic habits for fear that there won't be much left for them to inherit. They are already fighting over other personal affects and are acting as if grandma is spending their money. It's owed to them.

And from all I have read, this is something that other ultra rich families go through. Some, such as Warren Buffet, are stating that their kids will get a certain amount, somewhere in the six figure range, and he has already dedicated at least half his fortune to Bill Gate's Foundation. Both him and Bill Gates aren't in favor of eliminating the estate tax.

I've made this column extra long tonight. If you take anything out of this polemic, I hope that you would remember that in our grandparents' generation, it was believed that if you benefited from the free enterprise system, you had a duty to pay back into that system so that others may have the same opportunity you had, and to pay for the government that helped stimulate that system. That was what both of my wealthy grandparents and great grandparents believed.

I think that if Conrad Hilton, a wonderful man, who built the famous Hilton chain, knew what his granddaughter Paris would turn into he might have reconsidered leaving such a big fortune to her. It would have been better if she had lived in the real world and worked among real people before getting the money. Perhaps she wouldn't have ended up learning life's lessons in jail if she had done so (obviously she didn't as she faked a reason to be released from jail). Why perpetuate more unproductive members of society by not having them share the same burden of taxes the poor and middle class shoulder? Why have more Paris Hiltons?

Think about it.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Don't Put Christians In A (Political) Box

2007-10-10T23:39:00.000-07:00

Those who have read this blog know that I am not a politically correct Republican. I have demonstrated many ideas in this blog that could truly be workable and am trying to put forth a political philosophy that is somewhat apolitical, but one that any Christian can truly support without compromising their values.

We hear much of the Christian Right, and how they voted for President Bush overwhelmingly in 2004. Many of these voters thought that the president understood our value system better than Senator Kerry (who I hear is a very religious man himself) did. From the beginning, the Republicans tried to paint the picture that if the senator got in the Oval Office, gays would be forced upon us, pornography would be everywhere, and that abortion on demand would go unchecked in this country.

As in the rest of the country, there was much uneasiness of how the president was handling the War on Terror, as well as his domestic policies. But because of their concern for moral permissiveness, they swallowed their doubts and helped re-elect the president. I was one of those people.

But in 2006, those same Christians, including the Religious Left, abandoned the Republican party because it no longer spoke about the issues that most Christians care about. In widely publicized articles in Time and Newsweek, conservative Christians who were polled said that they were more likely to vote Democratic than ever before. They stated that they were dissatisfied with the war in Iraq, corruption in Congress, and with Republicans who forgot what they were sent there to do.

But you have to give the Democrats credit for the unified message they ran on. Also, many of the candidates that they fielded for governorships or for Congress were usually evangelical Christians themselves. Pennsylvania rejected it's most stridently conservative senator, Rick Santorum, and elected what Santorum called a liberal Democrat, Bill Casey, Jr. But Senator Casey, like his father former Gov. Casey, is strongly pro-life. Ohio elected a conservative Christian pastor, Ted Strickland, as their governor. And Governor Strickland is a Democrat!

Now why am I recounting old news? Because I believe that the Christian conservative movement has changed from what it was even recently. Years ago, Christian were herded into the Republican Party because it promised to check the move toward secularism in America. Christian leaders such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and even James Dobson commanded huge followings of evangelicals, and they delivered the evangelical vote to the Republicans who promised to abolish abortion on demand and put prayer back in public schools, among other things.

But I think that my generation of Christians are uncomfortable with the way the Republican party is headed. We see the economic disparities between rich and poor, with the government helping the rich get richer, while the poor get less and less than they used to. We saw corruption in high places, where PACs have full control over the GOP to the point that they didn't seem to be listening to us.

The issues that concerned our evangelical fathers aren't what we are concerned about anymore. Young Christians were surveyed as to what things they were most concerned about in world politics. The answers were broad and dealt with social justice. They wanted to stop human trafficking, the genocide in the Sudan, and wanted more help to AIDS victims in Africa. They were generally opposed to abortion, but not as much toward gay rights. Such were the findings of Michael Gerson, who was President Bush's chief speechwriter. Look up his article, "God's Politics" to read more of this fascinating development.

As Christians, we bring a little different perspectives on the issues before us. We were concerned, yes, about the moral laxity that is being promoted in our classrooms and seemingly promoted by our government. But we also consider it immoral to forget the helpless and the poor. We see corporate executives drive their companies into bankruptcy, forcing out thousands of workers who lose their life savings, and these CEOs get huge bonuses for the job they did. That, too is immoral and something that God condemns.

As Christians, we believe in responsible stewardship of the earth's resources. God put us in charge of the earth, to tend it and to fill it up. That means keep the air, the water, and the land as clean as possible. We shouldn't stand for arsenic levels being raised; for pollution controls being relaxed, all in the name of free enterprise.

As Christians, we take perhaps a different view on immigration than some other Americans do. We do recognize that a country must protect it's borders, but we also feel the obligation to welcome the stranger among us and to feed him and help him find a new life. If we are a Christian nation, then shouldn't we do as much for those who come to this country? We should have border security, but we shouldn't round up all the illegals and ship them all back south of the border because we're paranoid.

As Christians, our political influence is evolving. We have grown beyond the narrow topics of social policy and are now beginning to become advocates of social justice. We are not the sole property of any political party, but we will support the one that most reflects our values. Last year it was the Democrats.

Here's an interesting side note. Christians were always leaders in the reform movements in this country. They backed the Progressive movement, and fought for women's rights, and for pure food and drug laws, and for conservation of our natural resources under Republican President Theodore Roosevelt. They produced William Jennings Bryan, Democrat, and his "Cross of Gold" speech. Bryan was a noted pacifist and believer in the literal six day Creation week.

So, do not put us Christians into some neat and tidy political box. And to my fellow believers, it is time to open our eyes and look beyond the issues of abortion or school prayer, and work for more peace on earth and justice for all mankind.

"Here on earth God's work must surely be our own"-JFK.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

The Death of Outrage

2007-10-05T22:59:00.000-07:00

Does Congress ever wonder about why it's approval ratings are gutter level? In particular, are GOP members of Congress so thick headed that they haven't learned the lessons of 2006? The voters clearly voiced their disapproval for the corruption that so many members participated in or considered the cost of doing business.

Yet it seems as if they have not learned the lesson. One of the scandals that ultimately finished the Republicans last year was the Congressional Page scandal involving Rep. Tom Foley. Too late, the Republicans condemned his action as it appeared that House leaders knew what he was doing and didn't try and put an end to his career. As it was, the Democrats were running on a unified message, one of which was against corruption. They say that timing is everything in politics. He became the perfect example that the Democrats capitalized on.

Now, we have a Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho saying he will stay in office even after he said he would resign should his overturning his guilty plea be denied. In this interesting yet sickening saga, I'm getting a dose of deza vous. Here, the good senator pled guilty to trying to solicit sex in a man's bathroom, and then say in early September that he will "most likely" resign, to saying he'll resign if his guilty plea isn't overturned, and now that his guilty plea was sustained in court, the senator says he won't resign.

And what is the Republican response? Some members are outraged at him, and think that (rightly) he's lost all credibility. Sen. Ensign of Nevada gets it right when he said "for the good of the country, for the good of the party he should resign." But I don't hear a universal condemnation and censure of the senator. I don't yet see a vote in the Senate to censure or remove him from office. At a time when the Republican party needs to rebuild it's trust with the voters, this doesn't help them at all. It only solidifies the opinion that they are a party of old, white, corrupt men reminiscent of Mr. Potter in It's A Wonderful Life.

Am I outraged? Absolutely. I am also disappointed that the party I most closely agree with has allowed itself to continue supporting people who are clearly lacking in common decency: men like Tom DeLay and Tom Foley, Jack Abramoff and now Senator Craig.

How can the Republican party revive itself? By pumping some new, fresh blood into it's leadership. There are several stars in the making that could help the Republicans go a long way in finding their soul again. A few are women like Gov. Sarah Palin, the corruption watch dog of Alaska who is turning turning a few heads for her eye popping poll numbers and good looks. Also, Diana Irey, a county commissioner in Pittsburgh, is another that can play nationally.

If you look at the contrast between the lineup of Republican presidential candidates vs. the Democrats, you notice that all the GOP hopefuls are the same: old, white men. It's as if the Republicans have no imagination. Dont' get me wrong, I like several of these candidates: in particular Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani. It's just that it can create the wrong impression.

In conclusion, our friends in the Republican party are fighting battles on all fronts to stay viable and try to repair the party before next year. It just seems to me that they need to demonstrate their sincerity by unanimously condemning corruption in their midst. This is not a time to circle the wagons.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Practical Conservatism

2007-09-29T20:46:00.000-07:00

Those of you who have followed this blog faithfully know that it was started out of the desire to truly bring reason and civility back into American political dialogue. In many instances, my views on certain subjects are at best results oriented; I don't care much if an idea came from a liberal or a conservative, if it works, let's use it.

Now it's true I haven't lived long enough to become truly disillusioned, but I have added some mix of practicality to my ideals. It makes no sense to me to fight all out for a controversial policy that will please some minor yet very visible sliver of the electorate. It makes no sense at all to have a Congress that doesn't do anything significant or isn't willing to consider new ideas if they can't get credit for them.

Plus, while I consider myself a conservative on a lot of issues, I have come to deplore some of the tactics and issues that conservative leaders tout. The conservative platform that is being preached today would make Russel Kirk, the founder of modern conservatism, roll over in his grave. He taught that conservatism meant you wished to conserve that which is best in society, such as family, community, and the environment. I hardly think he would recognize what passes for conservatism today bears any resemblance to what he believed.

At times it would be easier to stand by and ignore what is happening in our political life, and I do wonder if it is better to have my identity as a conservative dictated to me by some party wise men who say "if you believe all this then you are one of us." But that is not in my nature. I grew up listening to National Public Radio, and reading such "alternative" historians such as Howard Zinns, and loving "The West Wing" and "The American President." My family is very antiestablishment. But if we are prime fodder for the Left, we are not. I happen to feel that being exposed to differing opinions has tempered my conservative attitudes.

I know that most Americans in general don't favor extremes. And that is why they haven't generally supported bans on gay rights, or come out for total abolition of abortion. Neither do they feel comfortable with the extreme Left. Yet both sides try to press a narrow, constrictive agenda on Americans that we aren't at all comfortable with. And no one is willing to consider a good idea if it doesn't fit inside their comfortable model of political correctness. That's gridlock.

In 2004, Karl Rove referred to the last several elections that were unqualified Republican successes as 'building a permanent conservative majority.' Now that majority, if there ever was one, is in tatters. The people became disillusioned by the brand of conservatism that Karl Rove and Tom DeLay and many others preached. It was narrow, intolerant to new ideas, and tolerant to corruption in their midst. The same can be said for the Far Left.

Because of the tremendous upheavals of the 2006 elections, which shattered the much touted conservative majority that re-elected the president two years prior, much work needs to be done to rebuild the party. It needs to broaden it's base if it wishes to be a majority party again. To truly live up to being the party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, it will have to be temper it's conservative ideals with the realities of governing America.

And that's what I am attempting to do with this blog. I am trying to help forge a results oriented conservatism, one that seeks to change America without making everyone our enemies. In it's ideal state, it would respect the right of others to voice the views and live their lives the way they wish. It would recognize the conservatives don't have all wisdom, yet have a few core beliefs that define us as Republicans and conservatives yet are not mutually exclusive.

A few of these ideas are what Republicans traditionally have stood for:

1. Fiscal responsibility. The government must pay for the programs that citizens expect it to provide. Hence, we either must reduce these programs or raise taxes to fund them. No more can Republicans accuse the Democrats of being irresponsible.
2. Personal liberty. Several years before he died, Senator Barry Goldwater, "Mr. Conservative" himself, was branded a liberal because he didn't believe that the government had a right to legislate what people did in their own bedrooms. He consistently railed against the Religious Right hijacking the conservative movement he helped build. Where did we go wrong?

Many Americans do believe in fiscal responsibility, personal freedom and limited but active government. It was inclusive, it offered a reasonable alternative that was non threatening. It was an agenda that crossed racial and religious divides.

To be clear, I am not advocating that we just roll over and ignore the evils we see around us. We should seek to change it, but without the threatening rhetoric. If you are a leader of men, and you have the moral assurance that an attitude or a practice is wrong for the nation, then you have the right to speak out. But then you realize that just passing a law or outlawing a behavior won't cure the problem, but it's easier to do than trying to change people's opinions. Some things just go too deep.

As a case in point: we have been trying to make abortion illegal in the wrong ways. We have pitted one against another, one state against another, and yet still abortion is legal and is considered a fundamental right. There are many parallels to be drawn here with slavery. Some people considered it a right to own another person. Others, known as abolitionists, condemned the practice and with moral certainty use sometimes violent means to exact God's justice on sinners. Does that sound familiar? And yet President Lincoln, while being against slavery, was condemned for not going fast enough to abolish the practice. But Lincoln understood something: he knew the people were not ready to accept total emancipation. In order to truly abolish something, you need to change hearts and minds. As a leader you must reflect public opinion while doing what you can to change it. While he largely left slavery alone during the Civil War, he slowly nudged the nation toward total emancipation. Once Lincoln knew that a majority of Americans would accept Black equality, he then went all out and pushed for the Thirteenth Amendment. Now I know why he is considered one of our greatest presidents.

Changing hearts and minds while seeking practical solutions to problems is what "Practical Conservatism" is all about. It reflects what is good in America and advocates an all inclusive platform. It recognizes that we are all free, but fallible, people under God.

In the coming months I hope to flesh out the concepts I have stated above. I'd like your comments if you have been thinking along the same lines.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Gun Control for Criminals

2007-09-23T17:53:00.000-07:00

OK, let's take a shot at this very tough issue. I think all of us can agree that guns should stay out of the hands of criminals. But like anything man made, there are loopholes and somebody always falls through the cracks. Virginia Tech is an example of this. Police investigators have said that the killer had bought the weapons on the black market, and as a result no paperwork was filed that would have thrown up a red flag to the authorities.

Even in gun stores, where selling firearms is highly regulated, their is a possibility that some criminal will fall through the cracks without being checked out. But I've noticed that guns sold in stores are sold with the gun locks on the trigger guards. Now, I never bought a gun through my local Wal-Mart, so I don't know if they give you the key to the gun lock at point of purchase. And also, I don't know if the gun manufacturers place the lock on the gun.

But let's consider this: suppose the gun lock was placed on the trigger as the last thing Marlin or Winchester did to the gun before shipping it out. They would keep the key to the lock in a special place with the serial number to the gun attached to it. When a person buys the gun at a licensed dealer and the federal paperwork goes through, then the manufacturer will send the key to the new owner. Those who buy any new guns on the black market will have nearly useless firearms if they want to keep their identities hidden.

Now I realize this won't prevent someone from committing a crime after they receive the key and have access to the firearm. We already have tough laws against crimes committed with a firearm. But my intention is to help stop more Virginia Techs or Columbine High School shootings in the future. What do you think?

NOTE: It just occurred to me that I heard the Virginia Tech shooter bought the guns on the open market, he just slipped through the cracks of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Your Ideas

2007-09-22T19:57:00.000-07:00

Those of you who are fellow gun owners: can you tell me if you bought a gun with a trigger lock on it and do you know if the manufacturer puts it on or the retailer? Also, do they give you the key to the lock immediately?

I'm gathering information for my "gun" posting and I'd like to have your comments on this.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

More HillaryCare? A Second Look.

2007-09-18T21:09:00.000-07:00

It is fourteen months until the presidential election, and already I am tired of the media's proclivity of reporting in real time of what Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John Edwards said that was witty, timely, and statesmanlike. Well, this morning half of the news cycle was taken up with the newest proposal from the Lady MacBeth (I'm sorry, it's Senator). The subject: compulsory health coverage.

If it sounds familiar coming from this lady, then you're in what Yogi Berra said was "de ja vous all over again." It sounds more palatable and moderate than her 1993 proposal, but don't be easily persuaded. She has learned from her resounding defeat of 'HillaryCare' in Congress, and is more canny and subtle a politician now.

It is not the ideas and the problems she outlined that I have a problem with per se, but who is presenting them. I hardly think that she has given up on her grand scheme for government controlled health care, not at all. She is just not so blunt, so in your face about it as she was in the past. I think she is hoping that others forget the Hillary who was the alter ego of the "first" Clinton presidency is nothing like who we see today.

Now, aside from the Senator herself, here's where I become the heretic. If CNN (yes, I do watch it) reported it correctly, I do find myself agreeing with some of the proposals. I do think that either the American people should be covered with Congress' health plan, or Congress should be covered by what most Americans have. It'll give them a dose of reality.

Second, the states, not the federal government, can require people to hold health insurance like they require compulsory auto insurance. You are responsible to find the best coverage for your money, but get it, for you'll be glad you did. As a parallel example, I always didn't like paying for my high auto insurance premiums, but three months ago someone pulled out in front of me and totaled my car. I never saw a medical bill and received good money back for my car. Now, I pay the premiums gladly.

In state compulsory health insurance, you can choose from a variety of different options. You may want your employer's health plan, an HSA ( Health Savings Account) or you may like my idea of a Health Care Mutual Fund. And to look at another parallel: since there are so many auto insurance companies out there, they are all vying for our business so they offer great coverage plans. It could do the same thing in the medical world.

In insurance we know that if you are considered a higher risk client, you pay a higher premium or they don't cover you at all. That's how life insurance works. You pay less if you are younger and healthier. You also pay less if you don't smoke or harm your body in ways that can be prevented.

One thing the insurance companies can do is require all who they cover to get a physical exam every two years to reassess their health risk status, and they will pay for it. So, do any of you readers already have that requirement on your health plan?

Now, I probably disappointed you all for not coming out and slamming the senator's proposals, for some of them do have great merit. But the one thing I would ask the senator is this: since when is it an inalienable right for Americans to have health insurance? I am one of those millions who at present isn't covered, and while it is great to have, it isn't my right to have it. Like any other American, I do have access to medical facilities, but the difference between me and them is how we pay for it. For years my parents didn't have health insurance, and they raised a healthy batch of kids who had good nutrition, visited the dentist twice a year, and paid medical bills in installments. Because it was more expensive, it made us appreciate our health and body more.

Health care coverage only tells half the story of how to contain medical costs. I mentioned in a previous posting that if we walked more, allowed doctor's more freedom to use alternative medicines, and aggressively tackled obesity in this country by banning soft drinks in schools nationwide, that in itself would help stall the rising costs of health care. We need to look at the whole picture of a very complicated subject, and be practical.

So Senator Clinton, while I like a good part of your ideas, I do remember you before the makeover. I will let you know that your program is an improvement, but I had hoped that someone other than you had proposed it. We do need to fix the health care costs in this country and I believe your plan adds good dialogue to the national discourse. I just can't see you in 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. again and trying to administer it. You and the American people have had a past together, and we can't forget it.

So until next time, this is Statesman.

P.S. In a few days I am going to float an idea that can really work in keeping illegally sold firearms out of the hands of criminals. It's something the firearms companies can do before point of sale. So stay tuned...

How We Can Honor Our Veterans

2007-09-11T17:31:00.000-07:00

Today is 9/11, a day that is etched in our minds like a dream that won't go away. The reality of a capable enemy which attacked us, the death of friends and family on those flights and in World Trade Center and Pentagon has changed this country like Pearl Harbor or JFK's assassination did to a previous generation.

Since then, we have waged a global war on terror with the resolve that such enemies of humankind would not have a place in the civilized world. Our more public battles are in Iraq and Afghanistan, where our soldiers fight valiantly on the front lines of freedom.

Now, I have stated more or less that I am an open skeptic of the Iraq War, but I make a distinction between it and the broader War on Terror. For all our mistakes going into and occupying Iraq, our soldiers still deserve all the support and resolve we on the home front can give them.

One traditional way is extending veteran's benefits. Since the War for Independence, the national government has given special benefits to war veterans and more recently, we passed the original GI Bill for WW2 vets. Among other things, it guaranteed that the federal government would underwrite the college tuitions should they decide to go to college. Now I am generally not a big proponent of big government programs, but in this case the legislation clearly helped set the stage for the prosperity of the 1950's, as it helped create a highly educated workforce.

As I understand it, the GI Bill is still in effect, and is the basis of modern day veteran programs. But sometimes those programs don't get funded fully since they are usually first to go in budget cuts. The veterans returning home don't have the benefits or the support they need to put their lives back together. Some states have their own version of the GI Bill, others do not.

I think that if we are truly serious about supporting the vets and their families, we need to do so by funding the current programs fully. We also need to correct the real abuses that happen to the system, such as what happened in the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

You veterans reading this: what do you think we can do to honor your contribution and those of your comrades?

Until next time, this is Statesman.

What "The American President" Can Teach Us

2007-09-10T22:24:00.000-07:00

Over a year ago I saw a movie that has become a personal favorite ( as well as a favorite of my very conservative parents). It is called "The American President." Although most people, like my parents, gush over the love story between a widowed Chief Executive (Michael Douglas) who falls for a smart, pretty lobbyist (Annette Bening), I like it personally because of the message it does create.

The political issues discussed in the movie are, as expected, coming from a liberal viewpoint. But what impresses me is the high level of logic and intelligence they use to discuss such issues as flag burning, and gun control.

In my mind, what makes it worth seeing again and again is the speech the president makes at the end of the film. He makes an eloquent explanation of American freedoms that will make even the most jaded conservative or liberal stop and think. He challenges Americans to live up to what they stand for. Quote: "You want freedom of speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man who's standing center stage and shouting at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." In the rough and tumble of politics and almost violent disagreements, it is hard to remember to show civility to those with whom we disagree.

We all talk about how great our country is and how thankful we are for the freedoms we cherish. But we can, at times, forget that there are others in this country called America who might choose a worldview or lifestyle which we would find unacceptable. We are intimidated by their seemingly political and cultural clout and we feel that our way of life is being threatened. So we seek to put up walls to protect ourselves from it.

I am speaking of traditional vs. gay marriage. Those of us who hold to traditional marriage see the crumbling of the social fabric and instead of looking to see where we went wrong we looked for a scapegoat. So we blame the gays and lesbians for killing the 'Leave It To Beaver' culture in America, when in reality it just draws attention from where the problem really is, human nature. But we blame our problems on them and create a wedge in our nation to 'rally the base' to win elections, not unify the country. Again, a quote from " The American President" is so appropo: speaking of his opponent, he says, "He is interested in two thing only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections." So true! Human nature doesn't want to face it's problems because it'll cause us to look inside ourselves and see what we did wrong.

I have a big problem with the Evangelical base that I'm a part of. We are falling into the same trap that this fictional president warned about. We are so afraid of what man, in this case gays, can do to us and traditional marriage. So we act sinfully and treat them with contempt. Now, we can still believe that their lifestyle is a sin, but we are also commanded by the Lord Jesus to love all people, not just the ones we are comfortable with. It takes out of our comfort zone to love a lesbian relative as Jesus did. But that is what true love is all about.

I hope that the next generation of activist evangelicals grows up and realizes that same sex couples are still Americans and they are still entitled to our respect and their civil rights like you and I are.

Any way, watch the movie, I think you'll find yourself agreeing with him and hope it'll put a burn in your heart to change American politics.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Is There A Right Way?

2007-09-05T21:43:00.000-07:00

I missed watching the whole GOP debate tonight, but saw and read some clips afterward. I thought the exchange that Governor Huckabee and Rep. Ron Paul got into was great. Giuliani seemed to be more on the ball. One thing I did take from this debate, however, is that there are no easy answers to our problems. All the candidates aired their views and posited their solutions, and it was a wonderful way to clear the air.

I know it sounds as if I'm playing to both sides here, but both Huckabee's and Paul's statements ring true. It's just that Ron Paul believes that since our foreign policy was hijacked, and we subsequently "broke" Iraq, we need to stop breaking it by getting out. Huckabee asserted that we need to fix what we broke before we get out. Similar ends, just disagreeing about the means to that end.

One thing is for sure, such disagreements on national TV mirror the discussions average Americans have of the war. In many ways, all of us can agree that it hasn't turned out quite like we thought it would. I'd venture to guess that even the most hawkish American would say we need to change our Iraq policy and fast, but what to do now that we know we 'broke' it is where the disagreement lies.

As for myself, I will say that I had some misgivings about going to war in the beginning, as I was surrounded by family members who fit into the Ron Paul club (and I don't hold that against them). As the war progressed and we got mired down in the morass that is Iraq, I seriously questioned the president's judgment on this. But I voted for him in '04 because of other issues. But now, I find myself agreeing with Ron Paul that the neo-conservatives have hijacked our foreign policy. It means we will have to start redefining American foreign policy so we won't have to fight terror in such places as Iraq.

One lesson we can take away is that the rules of warfare have changed. Because of technology and advanced weaponry, large armies are obsolete. Al Quaeda is more mobile, as it is scattered and not as large in one place, and so to adequately fight them, our focus should be on small, compact commando forces that can do surgical strikes against terror cells.

One other thought: this assumption that the troops will still be fighting with no exit plan will most likely be a moot point by this time next year. I am not an expert on President Bush and I don't care to be, but he is more canny and smart than we give him credit for. He could be about to pull an ace out of his sleeve. I do think that he knows that if his policies on fighting Al- Quada are to continue, it will stand a better chance if he can turn the reins of power over to a Republican successor. He has hinted in recent days that a modest drawdown of troop levels could be possible starting this fall. I think that if General Petraeus gives an optimistic picture of the situation in Iraq, then the president will go on the offensive and start drawing down troops. Of course, then the question will be is he getting them out fast enough? But for all intents and purposes the issue will be moot. And it puts the Democrats without a huge whipping post and it allows the Republicans to solidify. Then with the presidential campaigns in full swing and the drawdown underway, we can turn to the next stage of the war on terror and to start taking back our foreign policy from the neo-cons.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Allies Against Terror.

2007-08-29T12:35:00.000-07:00

Sorry, everyone for not writing in the past three weeks. I've been busy with my businesses and plus I've been giving my topic today a lot of thought.

We have been fighting in the global war on terror for the last six years. But the emphasis we put on terror nowadays doesn't mean we haven't focused on the problem in the past. We just focused our attention on a greater enemy, Marxism-Leninism, and tried to do our best to maintain detente and contain the spread of Soviet domination. Our attention on terror networks in the 70's and 80's were limited to when American interests were threatened.

But now, with no other major enemies to vanquish, our war on terror has become front and center in U.S. foreign policy. The issues of the past six years since 9/11 are too numerous to discuss in this posting, so I want to submit an idea on how we can engage our allies in this global threat.

It has been American tradition since WW2 that we build an maintain global alliances because we understood that we are all in this together. The world was too small for us to hide behind the two oceans that shielded us from the problems of Europe and Asia. War materiel had become so advanced that it could deliver large destructive payloads on their targets in a matter of hours and now minutes.

In the years immediately following the war, the United States stood as the only major power to emerge unscathed from the war. Nations such as Germany and France and England were in shambles and faced the threat of Soviet domination. So we instituted economic aid with the Marshall Plan that brought those nations back on to their feet and laid the foundation for their prosperity. But we also needed to pool our resources in intelligence and military to counter the Soviet states and their threat of world conquest.

So we formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to answer that problem. The nation that anchored it was the U.S. It's basic premise is that if one member state was attacked, it would be looked at as an attack on all the others. It served as a major deterent and no member nation was attacked from 1949 to when the Berlin Wall fell 40 years later.

But now, what is the purpose for NATO in this post Communist world? It seems that NATO needs to adapt to remain relevant in this vastly different world.

I want to suggest that we use NATO to fight terror networks in the member states. It already has the military resources and organization to get started. But we can amend the original North Atlantic Charter to help re-focus on this threat.

One thing it could add is emergency response services and member nations would help pool their emergency medical services and, if needed, law enforcement agencies to help track down the terrorists. The Department of Homeland Security is already sharing information with other countries on known terrorists, and we could expand it to other agencies in our government.

I had thought up a different name for it since it's focus would be different now. It could be either the Anti-Terror Treaty Organization or the the name of the title, Alliance Against Terror.

This is the first time I'd written down the idea comprehensively, and the idea is still percolating in my mind. But I wanted to throw out the idea into the void to get input.

One more thing. It's not good our attitude of 'going it alone' and 'your either with us or against us' and alienating our allies in this war. We can not afford to go it alone in this global economy. Our president needs to better communicate with our allies that their security is entwined with ours. We can't maintain this unilateral foreign policy long term without it causing major damage to our foreign relations, as it already has. It's time to put John F. Kennedy's famous words into action, "Ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Infrastructure Problems

2007-08-08T08:11:00.000-07:00

As I stated in an earlier posting, our politics and problem solving is often reactive. Instead of fixing the problem before it becomes bigger and more costly, we drag our feet and act as if it isn't a problem. Perhaps our leaders are afraid that if they highlight the problems we face, it will disturb the status quo and will put them in an uncomfortable position.

Last week's bridge disaster in Minneapolis is a case in point. Before it's sudden collapse we hardly ever heard of a bridge or a highway as being unsafe to travel on. It just couldn't happen in America. Now, along with the investigation into the disaster, every state is now inspecting their bridges and revealing problems that will make it unsafe to travel on.

Here in America, we have the largest system of interstate highways and bridges in the world, and we are proud of it. But to maintain such a network costs tens of billions of dollars. Roads often don't get the funding they need because it is sometimes put into a large bill filled with pork barrel spending (like Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere) and the president or Congress takes the money and spends it somewhere else. And the states don't have enough money to fix all the projects that need to be fixed.

But life's lessons are too often learned through mistakes, and a bridge collapse of a major arterial into the Twin Cities brought it into sharp focus. For us motorists, it's very emotional. We want to know we are safe when we are driving over a bridge or through a tunnel, or stuck in traffic on a bridge like they were in Minneapolis.

But in a sense, it has created new dynamics and a new issue for the 2008 elections. For the last several years, my state has been trying to raise funding to fix it's roads and bridges, some of whom had to be closed because they are dangerous. In 2005, our new governor raised our gas tax 9.5 cents, but even now it seems that it won't be near enough. Residents in nearby Seattle face a road and bridge levy on the ballot this fall, and before the bridge collapse it was certain to go down into defeat. But the Seattle Times last week reported that it now has a fair chance of passing. It became an emotional issue for voters.

We are now hearing some presidential candidates state that we must raise taxes to fund the repairs needed. But that shouldn't be the only option. We spend billions of dollars every year to build up the infrastructure of other countries, and we woefully neglect our own. Some of these countries don't even like us, but they take our money. Why couldn't we bring at least half of that money home to spend on domestic infrastructure problems? We have spent tens of billions of dollars in Pakistan and Afghanistan to prop up non terrorist regimes. I understand the strategic importance of these countries, but who comes first, them or us?

Highway bills in Congress are prime way for members to "bring home the bacon" to their districts. And if we had all that money staying home, it will be spent on such things, because that's how Congressmen get reelected. But to counteract such things as the Bridge to Nowhere, it might be a good idea to find a way to make Presidential line item veto or similar authority constitutional.

I would consider highway safety to be an issue of national security. It is one of the paramount responsibilities of state government. Therefore we can't play politics on this issue an longer. American lives are at stake, not to mention the reputation of our legendary interstate highway system. Plus people expect more from the world's richest country.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Support For Fair Tax (and Mike Huckabee) Growing

2007-08-07T08:49:00.000-07:00

On Sunday morning's debate in Iowa, ABC news (the host of the debate) recognized that the FairTax now can no longer be ignored. They asked the candidates if they would support it. Five out of the eight said they would. Notably, Gov. Romney and Mayor Giuliani weren't among the supporters of it.
But the only one who gave unqualified support to it was (of course) Mike Huckabee.

We are less than a week to the Iowa straw poll, and both the governor and the Fair Tax organization will be there in force. A new poll shows the governor tied for third place with John McCain among announced candidates. But since neither McCain nor Giuliani will be participating in the straw poll, Huckabee has a great chance to pull off a surprise second place finish. If he can do that, I think that the news won't be that Governor Romney won, but that Mike Huckabee, the dark horse, demonstrated a surprise show of support.

I think that the fortunes of the Fair Tax and that of Gov. Huckabee are intertwined. I frankly think that most of the support that the governor is getting is because he supports the FairTax so strongly. Grassroots support for the measure is growing so much that I think more than any other idea he espouses, this one can elevate him to the White House. And to have a president use the full powers of his office to pass a bill will give it a higher profile than it has even now.

It is every successful candidate's dream: to be in the right place at exactly the right time. To find your moment, and your cause. I don't know if the governor realized that this is a winning issue, but I think he might be starting to think that now.

So I'll definitely be checking the news on Saturday for news about the straw poll.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Crunchy Conservatism

2007-07-29T18:43:00.000-07:00

About a year ago, I ran across a book that gave me an 'Aha!' moment. The book is called "Crunchy Cons" by Rod Dreher, who at the time was a columnist for the National Review. It's one of those books I love, because it shows alternatives to what the mainstream would have us believe exists.

When you hear the term 'conservative', what does it conjure up? Greedy capitalists run amok over the environment and working classes? Who preach one thing and do the exact opposite?

What if I were to tell you that there exists a fairly large minority that is conservative in their outlook, but disagrees with the modern conservative movement in several important tenets? That grow and eat organic vegetables, wear Birkenstocks, and bemoan development and destruction of the environment? You wouldn't believe me?

Rod is one of them. His book started out as an article in the National Review, and he got thousands of emails from across the country saying, "Me, too!" In the book he chronicles a vegetarian Buddhist who is a member of the NRA. You also meet a guy who is a prominent environmentalist who used to be a hippie protester. You wouldn't guess the guy is an Orthodox Catholic and considers himself a conservative. All are off the wall and unorthodox, not in the traditional conservative box.

They don't agree with the materialism that free market conservatives encourage, yet they disagree with the Left on their moral permissiveness. But each movement has elements that are attractive to them. They largely homeschool their kids, live in older homes in older neighborhoods or out in the country, eat closer to nature, and seek those things that will foster the strength of the family unit and community. They are as countercultural as the hippies were in the '60s. But they read Russel Kirk and Edmund Burke, believe in limited government, low taxes and generally support the military, and they tote their guns like everyone else. They aren't opposed to using government at all, especially if it promotes the environment.

Rod also found that this belief system is not limited to just Christians. His wife met atheists who espoused these same beliefs. What he documents is a latent political movement, a strong but silent minority. People who feel like they are not truly represented by either political party. People who feel like they are being taken for granted and boxed in because they say they are conservative and they homeschool. Yet they add confusion to the mix when they mention about organic vegetables, or how much they like their Birkenstocks. As Rod's editor said, 'That's so lefty!' They just can't fit into these neat little boxes that society puts us into.

At least once a decade, at least one book comes out that truly stands out. Crunchy Cons is one of them. It has the potential of shaking the status quo and breaking barriers. I would definitely read it and ponder it.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

A Constitutional Question

2007-07-15T18:29:00.000-07:00

One of the many issues that has enlivened the Christian Right is the issue of redefining marriage and providing the same marital rights to gays and lesbians that are accorded and recognized to heterosexual couples. Up until the 2004 presidential election, it was one of many side issues that concerned evangelicals. In fact, for years abortion and school prayer took more of a precedence over abstinence education and traditional marriage as far as priorities go.

But exit polls in 2004 show that at least 20% of voters said that "moral values" determined who they would vote for. You could argue that it was their vote that re-elected President Bush. Earlier in the year, he made what could be called an election year bow to his evangelical base by backing the Federal Marriage Amendment. I do not know what the proposed amendment says, but I have heard bits and pieces. It recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman, and that federal policy must reflect that.

Now, just so you know where I'm coming from, I am a believer in the way God created marriage. One man, one woman for life. Nothing can change God's definition, since He was the one who created it. No law or statute can eliminate that. Therefore I am not threatened if the state recognizes civil unions, because the state created that definition. They can say what that constitutes all day long, if they wish to. They are the creators. So, also, God created the institution of holy matrimony, and only He can say what constitutes it.

That said, I have some serious constitutional doubts about the amendment. In my study of history, the amendment process was for regulating the government's relations with the people. It's intent was to limit or define the express powers of government and the rights we hold as Americans. It is not about social values.

The 18th Amendment, which mandated prohibition, was the only instance where a moral judgment was made, and where morality was codified into law. But Prohibition was a colossal failure, because the framers didn't realize, or they chose to ignore, that you can't force sinful man to be good by a system of morality. To overcome an addiction, in that case booze, it take's Jesus Christ, not a law. Consequently, the amendment only lasted thirteen years.

Also, the amendment sets a dangerous precedent. It allows the federal government to regulate an area that has been recognized as a responsibility of the states. Marriage and divorce have traditionally been regulated by the states and local authorities. And the states are fulfilling that responsibility. Some 20 of them, including the so called "blue states," have passed constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. Others, such as Massachusetts and Vermont, allow it. Our battle is in courthouses and statehouses, not in the halls of Congress.

What I'm asking for is consistency. If we revere the Constitution as much as we declare, then let's be faithful to it and the Tenth Amendment, the "state's rights clause." We say we believe in lesser government, but only if it applies to our lives. But being free means we must extend that same courtesy to others. When our men and women in uniform protect our freedoms abroad, they understand that they are defending the concept of freedom- the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They protect the freedoms of all, even if you are an atheist or a Christian, gay or straight, homeschooled or not. No matter what their personal beliefs are, they are fighting for a concept and a lifestyle. Let's keep that idea in mind as we fight the battles on the homefront.

The Founders left us many clues as to what they understood was the proper role of government. Thomas Jefferson stated in his Inaugural Address: "The government... should restrain men from injuring one another." Morality was to be taught in everyday life and in the churches, and in turn that would influence the men who held political office. They understood that regulating personal lives was a step toward tyranny.

Freedom is scary, folks. It opens us up to risks we aren't comfortable with. It forces us to acknowledge the right of another person to live their life in a way we wouldn't even consider. The conclusion it leads us to makes us uncomfortable, for it will force your to conclude that if you claim the right to choose your own destiny and lifestyle, you must allow that it also grants that right to others. Even our Lord Himself gave us that choice.

Now, we can stand up for traditional marriage and for the relevance of Christianity in our culture, and we can fight for public policy to reflect that. But in our debates and discussions we must acknowledge that just as you have the right to say and live the way you wish (as long as you don't break any laws), you must at least allow that same right to others, even if you would spend a lifetime opposing it.

Such is the way of being an American. Vive la Liberte!

Until next time, this is Statesman

A Health Care Idea

2007-07-06T19:37:00.002-07:00

When it comes to health care, America is so out dated. We have numerous rules and regulations that prevent doctors from doing things that would better help their patients. Our system is set up so that we are willing to pay thousands of $$$ for amputating a leg, when it could have been better served to spend it on the right footwear that might have forestalled the problem.

But the one healthcare problem I want to focus on here is how our methods of keeping medical records are so antiquated. Think of it this way: we can go the world over and get money from an ATM, and we can have our education and employment records transferred when and where we want to, but not medical records. You can't go in to see a new doctor and have his office receive your full medical history within minutes. You instead fill out numerous papers and release forms that can take quite a while to figure out.

What can we do to update the system? Well, I think that we can institute some form of "smart" cards that act similar to a debit card. Medical records are stored on an encrypted computer file, and it would take a PIN number to release it. This would eliminate tons of paperwork, and Health Care Providers will know within minutes your health record, and nurses wouldn't have to ask if you are sick with anything, and if something they prescribe for you will be compatible for you.

But who would maintain the records and issue the cards for you to carry? That would be an issue for us to decide if the issue ever becomes drafted into legislation.

The only downside I see to this is that hackers could hack the system and have access to your records as they do to financial records. So we will need to make it as inaccessible as the gold in Fort Knox.

Health care and government often go hand and hand, and both are operating on technologies of the 1970's. I mean by still using antiquated methods of record keeping. Both are slowing making changes, but it is time to demand that they make the transition faster if America is to lower health care costs.

I think this is a viable option for us to pursue. So until next time, this is Statesman.

2007-07-06T19:37:00.001-07:00

Direct (Online) Democracy

2007-07-03T12:20:00.000-07:00

In one of my first postings I mentioned that political candidates are starting to use the power of the Internet to discuss the issues and to get their names out there. I also mentioned that it is a continually evolving process and will continue to be perfected even as this election cycle goes on.

Well, this morning my local paper, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (P-I), had an article mentioning local members of Congress who were the most wired to the constituents. It mentioned Jim McDermott, a Democrat who represents Seattle in the U.S. Congress, as being one of the most wired congressmen. The power of the Internet is allowing him to hold conference calls with constituents and 'town hall meetings' online. But he is getting a larger response rate through this medium than he did when he first started out in Congress. People are starting to get more involved and making their views known than they ever have before.

Political blogs (like this one) are becoming more popular, and several presidential candidates like Gov. Huckabee are using MySpace and YouTube to reach a broader audience. They are building a true grassroots campaign, taking their case to the people and getting real support for their campaigns.

It might be some years to come before we fully realize the impact the Internt has on our public affairs. But I predict that it will be nothing less than a total revolution in our political system. You could have a person with very little money and no name recognition get elected to statewide or national office because he took the time to build the campaign through using the Internet.
Miracles could happen; we may get good men in office who actually care about average Americans.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Immigration Reform, Part One

2007-06-27T12:26:00.000-07:00

The big news this week from the other Washington is that the Democratic controlled Congress will pass the president's proposal for immigration reform. Now, many groups on both sides of the aisle don't like certain provisions of the bill. But that is what happens when you get a compromise.

Even I don't like certain provisions of the bill. Particularly the amnesty section that would allow illegal immigrants to stay in the country if they meet certain criteria. I think that that section will have to be clarified or changed in the future.

And another provision is simply impractical. It would require illegals to return to Mexico and file a request to work in the U.S. And how is that supposed to be enforced? Are you going to require employers to name the aliens they are employing? I don't think that is going to work. There are some 12 million estimated aliens in the country and they help bolster rural economies. Now, if they are all going to be sent back and register for re-admission to the country, will that days or weeks, or will it take months or possibly years?

I have heard the argument that illegals are taking jobs away from Americans, but the truth is they are doing jobs that the average American won't do. They work in the fields for minimum wage picking the crops that feed us. Anyone who has harvested crops will tell you how hard it is. They also work as your lawn maintenance guy with simple tools and a pickup truck.

It used to be that our youth would fill such jobs during summer break. I don't see many of my peers doing that. They need to be filled by someone. The illegals are willing to fill them.

I do agree that we need a safer border and the people coming in must be documented, but the ones already here should be treated as if they are here with a green card. They will be responsible if they break a traffic law, but if they commit a serious crime like murder, they would be extradited to Mexico and stand trial in a Mexican court.

Along the way, they would be required to get some form or ID, such as a Driver's License. They would be required to pay taxes, and abide by the laws.

One of the things I think is wrong with the bill is it separates families who are all living here. The kids who are born here are automatically American citizens, but their parents would be forced to go back to Mexico for who knows how long. What's going to happen to the kids while they are gone?

I don't know the exact number of people crossing our borders every year, but I have heard that some of those people aren't first time border crossers. They cross multiple times. They are known to go to work in some place and when they have enough money, they go back to Mexico. When they need work again, they cross again. That drives up the numbers.

This is thorny problem that will take a long time to solve or come to some agreement on. It will require statesmanship and compromise. But, let's not forget our history while we are doing it. America was built by people who came to this country seeking a better life. Now, we didn't have methods to stop so called "illegal" aliens from crossing the border and living in the United States. But everyone brought their own customs and their desire to better themselves in this nation. Usually with just the clothes on their backs and hope in their hearts they came and settled our country and became Americans. Given the chance, these illegals will, too.

I am glad that this is a country that people are wanting to get in, not trying to leave.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

World History Through Taxes

2007-06-18T11:12:00.000-07:00

Several years ago I read a history book that changed my outlook on world history. The book was entitled "For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes On the Course of Civilization." The author was an internationally known tax attorney named Charles Adams. The book is nearly 300 pages long, and takes a broad sweep through world history. It makes a fascinating case for how taxation has impacted world history and culture.

For those of you who are history buffs, you know what the Rosetta Stone is. It is the stone that first allowed us to "crack" Egyptian hieroglyphics. What history doesn't tell you is what the document was about. It was a tax document, and telling the story of oppression under Egyptian tax gatherers.

Let me give you a few more examples:

1. You know how Cortez defeated Montezuma? He offered lower taxes to the peasants than the Aztecs were willing to give. It inspired a tax revolt and Montezuma losing his head.

2.The Roman Republic rose to dominate the ancient world because of low taxes and tax justice. Ironically, it fell because it debased the currency and oppressed the poor through taxes.

3. Did you know that one of history's great secrets is that the American Civil War was started because of the tariff? Adams cites historical sources that shows even the British understood that the war was a tax revolt, not over slavery. Emancipation was later made a war goal.

4. He proves that "trickle down" economics that President Reagan championed was actually a great success in ancient China, and created unprecedented prosperity.

5. My favorite chapter is the one about the reign of Britain's first Queen Elizabeth. She was one of the few rulers who was wise in the ways of taxation and spending. She was known to have said "To tax and to be loved are not given to man." She chose to be loved by her subjects. When she started her reign, Britain was a middle power. When she died, it was on it's way to becoming a superpower.

Now, in later sections of the book he brings together the lessons of history and puts together a comprehensive "program" for tax justice. He shows that as taxes become more oppressive, then the black market grows bigger. Tax evasion becomes rampant. And people aren't given the incentive to produce goods and services.

He shows from history what an accepted tax was and that the countries that prospered were the ones that didn't criminalize tax evasion. America rose to the most powerful nation on earth because until the mid 20th century, we were a relatively low taxed nation. He reminds us of how our government started freely spending and it was because of graduated tax rates and witholding.

Need I say more? This is a book that any person who wishes to be well informed needs to read. Every politician should be required to read it. I would venture to guess that most members of Congress have no idea of the impact of taxes on history.

But be prepared to be challenged in what you were taught about history. Some of it will make you uncomfortable. And some will make you mad. All in all, you will never see history in the same way again. I know I did.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Health Care "Mutual Funds"

2007-06-11T13:41:00.003-07:00

We have heard many ideas for lowering health costs, and some of them suggest using the free market to help pay for health care. The president and many conservatives are for Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) which resemble IRAs. The argument is, if you deposit your money in an HSA, it can be invested and can only be used for health bills.

Now since we are on the subject, why couldn't workers opt out of company paid insurance and go for a health insurance policy that goes with them from one job to the next? Even if they are unemployed, it would still be there for when they need it. It would be like holding a car insurance policy. It changes slightly with circumstances, but essentially remains the same.

I am coming at this from the perspective of a person who has never had 'real' health insurance, either through my employer or an independent provider. I realize that there are providers that already provide insurance to people and it remains the same regardless of employment status. But that is pure insurance.

Now, with HSAs you only have the power of investing if you contribute. And you have a maximum coverage amount from your independent coverage. But let's combine both with a new twist: Health Care Mutual Funds. It combines the buying power of a large group and allows people to invest and have a potential high return on the investment. It allows the people to go the fund that gives them the best rate, thus driving down health costs.

What the funds can do is use 50% of the investors' money to buy "pure" insurance, and the rest for actual investing and for growing the account for future health costs. The bond and stock funds they invest your money in can go toward the building and maintenance of hospitals and clinics. Local governments issue municipal bonds for the construction of hospitals, and in a way you are helping yourself when you your health care dollars for health facilities. And in return, you get a good return on your investment.

In a Health Savings Account, you save and invest until you need to pay for the health bills. But if you have a health emergency that leaves you with large medical bills, your account could be devastated and you would have to start all over again. The "mutual funds", however, will invest in insurance and also invest your money for medical bills over and above the coverage of your policy.

I heard a variation of this idea some months ago, but the actual details I described to you were thought up just a few minutes ago. Hence the lack of clarity on the idea. This is how I formulate my thinking; I write it down.

Now, let's be fair. There is nothing wrong with HSAs, nor with employee health plans, or plans provided by independent companies. This is another idea to give people more choices in the marketplace, and helps to make good ideas even better.

There are a lot of angles that we/I haven't thought of, but I'm sure they will come up in the months ahead. Given time, this Health Mutual Funds (HMF) idea will, I have no doubt, become a very comprehensive plan and a viable alternative.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Ideas for Immigration Reform

2007-06-04T16:05:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago I came up with a brilliant idea for how we can help stop the hemorrhaging at our border. This idea is two part, and it can also help redirect where companies outsource.

What if we used tax incentives to induce companies to go and set up shop in Mexico instead of India or China? And we target high tech industries to go south of the border. That would mean cooperation on the part of Mexico to diversify it's economy and provide living wage jobs to induce their people to stay.

If you think about it, we can't stop companies to go where cheap labor is. And yes, many companies are going and setting up shop in Mexico. Yet their economy and society are so structured that it makes significant reforms hard to make.

In India and China, they are quickly developing their economies and are becoming powers to be reckoned with. They have gotten an influx of American companies going to their countries because of easier regulations and taxation. Yet not too many years ago, those countries were poor and their infrastructure was non existent. They wisely developed their resources, and with foresight, became economic wonders. With understanding and vision, Mexico can become the same thing.

Does this idea make any sense? Why just send them back to nothing when they came here originally for the opportunities? What we need is a Marshall Plan like idea to use in countries such as Mexico and South America.

So until next time, this is Statesman.

Health Care: A Different View

2007-05-27T21:46:00.000-07:00

Last year the United States spent almost $1.2 trillion dollars on health care services and providers. That isn't just doctors and hospitals, that is drugs and therapy and fitness trainers and time off, too. And it is the fastest growing industry in America at this time. Yet more and more Americans are getting sicker. 30 percent of kids in this country are described as obese. More drugs enter the market than there are weeks in a year, and the access to junk foods and legal addictive stimulants are becoming easier to obtain.

People are dieting and exercising and recognizing the need to maintain fitness into their old age. But it seems as if we are fighting a losing battle. For our health care system is geared to having our doctors treat sickness, not helping prevent it. They are so tightly regulated they often can't do what is in the best interest of the patient.

And even in our schools and workplaces we inadvertantly reward those who live an unhealthy lifestyle. We allow smoking breaks on the clock, yet if a person would spend time at the gym we tell them to do it on their own time. We don't provide incentives to make employees and students want to take better care of themselves. Our schools have vending machines and trans-fatty foods within easy access of our young teenagers. It's all a mixed up world.

There are many more examples I could cite, but let's focus on how we can solve these few problems. Perhaps these can be small steps toward sanity in health care.

Here's some ideas:

1. We give our employees discounts in their health premiums if they start exercising more, and we will give them paid time off to go to the gym or fitness facility.

2. We strictly regulate what foods and beverages shall be served in the school cafeteria. Since the states regulate education anyway they should also regulate what goes into the bodies of the pupils. They do their part to keep the kids healthy, even if they don't have authority to make the parents do the same.

3. We should allow doctors to have some decision making ability without having some insurance agency or government bureau breathing down their necks. They may then be open to new ideas on how to keep patients healthy. And we could also give them incentives for keeping them well.

These are pro-active solutions. They are solutions that provide a mix of government policy and personal responsibility. Our government can adopt policies that encourage people to live healthier lives, and de-regulate the health care industry. If done right, it can help slow, or even lower, the cost it takes to get teeth cleaned or for a physical examination.

While a complicated subject, and with problems that are going to be around a while, we can take a few positive steps in the right direction to stop the further spread of disease and chronic obesity in this country.

And in keeping with our great freedom tradition, no one need ever be forced to become healthy. It is just my desire to correct some inequities in our world, and that includes making it easier for folks to remain healthy.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Pro-Active Politics

2007-05-20T21:06:00.000-07:00

I want to submit something to you that can be both revolutionary and a silver bullet for the conservative movement. In fact, it could be a saving factor for American political thought. And that is a proactive approach to policies and problems.

Often, we approach problems in a reactive manner. We see things in our own little context and make judgments based on our own prejudices. This can cloud our judgment and not make us open to bigger, and often better solutions to the problem. A proactive solution.

Let me give an example. In America we incarcerate more people than any nation on earth. Many are there that should be, but some are there that could have been better served by doing time in community service and paying a fine. Some states even jail people that don't carry a driver license. And in many ways, if they are in the clinker, we prefer to forget about them.

I think that a proactive solution to the problem would be that we can rehabilitate the non violent criminals and help to make them into responsible citizens again. We can treat alcohol and drug victims through programs, and help them learn a trade that could make them a good living outside prison walls. We can change the criminal laws that state what we jail a person for. The goal should be to get away from our 'revenge system' of justice.

Now, I don't think that education is a cure all, that is the solution to all the world's problems. Only Jesus Christ can do that. But my Christian belief tells me that we should be reluctant to execute anyone; that we should do that only with incontrovertible evidence and with a heavy heart. We should show charity to those who are in prison for the crimes they have committed. And rehabbing druggies can be a proactive solution. I mean, what did debtors' prison serve except to make it harder for the debtor to get out of debt? How could they find a solution to the problem if they are in prison? So we should ask ourselves: what are our "debtors' prisons"?

My point is that we should be seeking a better way in our public affairs. Conservatism must be proactive if we are to remain viable to the voters. And conservatives have always touted themselves as crime fighters. In the past, this meant building more prisons and putting more police officers on the streets. But it does not help solve a lifelong habit of crime. We must help seek out better solutions to the problem.

Experts say that the more educated you are, the more money you make, and the happier your life is, the less likely you are to commit a violent crime. Like I said this isn't a cure all. But if we can help fight crime by better educating the next generation, and training and rehabbing the prisoners, and making sure they can have productive lives in the world, then maybe it is a step in the right direction.

This view is still not crystal clear, but it can be a very important way to help solve pressing problems in our society. Instead of being judgmental and narrow, we search out the best solution that leaves everyone satisfied and their opinions heard. It is how I understand what Christ would have me do.

So until next time, this is Statesman.

The Fair Tax

2007-05-14T13:44:00.000-07:00

There is a tax bill in Congress that is gaining momentum and is a replacement to the current system. It has 64 signatures so far, nearly ten times what the flat tax proposal gathered. It is progressive and revenue neutral ( two technical terms) and calls for the repeal of the 16th Amendment, which established the income tax. This bill is known as the Fair Tax.

The Fair Tax will abolish all income related taxes, including the capital gains taxes and dividend tax, and replace them with a 23% national sales tax to be collected at the state level. Now your jaw is probably dropping in disbelief; you'd never support that. But don't shut down without considering this: many of our taxes on goods and services and income are automatically built in to the price of the items sold. The authors of the bill are able to prove that under the Fair Tax, prices will actually be lower than if we had kept the other taxes.

Foods and medicines will be exempt; and they have a provision that people who live beneath the poverty level will receive a monthly rebate on their taxes. And capital for business building will be exempt to encourage building the infrastructure. Services, such as legal and/or secretarial services, will be taxed.

The tax will be easy to collect, as there will be no IRS and the tax will be collected by the states when they collect their sales tax, i.e. at point of purchase.

It is broad based, and will provide sufficient revenue to continue funding the federal government at near current levels. This is not intended for cutting spending: that will have to come through a different act of Congress.

Now, we know that even if people lose their jobs, they will continue to spend money. The government, in this case the state, will still get revenue. The federal government gets nothing, they rely on income and payroll taxes.

And with the Fair Tax, you have more money to spend because you don't have witholding like we do currently. You will get your gross income on your paychecks, and lower prices because of the absence of all these taxes and compliance costs. It effectively gives you a pay raise.

This is worth checking out. It is the largest single piece of legislation that can, in the stroke of a pen, abolish our regressive tax system, remove nearly $36 billion in compliance costs, erase thousands of pages of regulations, and will provide the biggest stimulus to our economy in our history. It is the only tax that has a good chance of passing, and it is gaining support across the country.

So, go to their website: www.fairtax.org.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Getting Beyond Reagan

2007-05-07T22:07:00.000-07:00

Now that title probably has got your attention! How can a decidedly conservative blog even fathom the idea of moving on without conservatism's godfather?

I've been doing some thinking since the debate a few days ago. I noticed that almost all the candidates invoked the name of Reagan and praised his presidency. All fine and good. But it almost seemed as if they are looking for a Reagan like persona to come and rescue America, and with it the Republican Party from sure doom next year.

Now I was born in the middle of the Reagan years (hint: it was the same month as the Grenada invasion) and frankly don't remember anything about him nor hardly anything about his successor. I was shaped by the Clinton impeachment trial, 9/11, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the issues surrounding them. But being a political junkie, I do admire Reagan for his exceptional communication skills and what his policies did for the country. His philosophy still guides his party, and everyone has tried to be the 'next Reagan.'

But may I submit to you that we need to move on from the Reagan era. We can be grateful for what he taught us: govern from optimism, be sincere about what you believe in, and his pride in this country. It was a different country in 1980 than it is today, almost 30 years later. His policies have helped influence our surging economy and we don't have the threat of communism anymore. But today we face our own set of problems and they require a different set of solutions. There is the fear of terrorism, an unseen enemy we have to guard against. Global warming is a concern, and Social Security will be bankrupt by 2017.

My question for you is this: can a conservative be pro growth and yet put a caveat on the actions of growth and capitalism? I think they can. You can require that CEOs be accountable for the actions they undertake. You can make sure that what we are consuming doesn't pollute the planet. And providing a living wage is the right thing to do.

In my view of what a conservative is, these things help enhance it, not go against it. It helps preserve the most important things we say we are for: strong families, government and institutional accountability, and a good earth for next generation of strong families to live and work in.

The next step for the Republican Party is to get with the times. That does not mean to compromise on the principles it stands for, but rather understanding that the nature of conservatism has changed.

In some ways, if we say we are conservative, stereotypes crop up. We are for unrestricted growth, we want to impose our right wing agenda on all Americans, and we are the party and philosophy that shies away from the evils in the world, and are more comfortable in our own little fairy tales of the greatness of this country. True or not, this is how we have been labeled for years and it takes sometimes decades for labels to come off.

The conservative right is slowly coming around to this way of thinking. More leaders are starting to embrace the idea that we need to look out for the poor and the environment. Michael Gerson, former speechwriter to President Bush, is among them. You might call him a "Progressive Christian Conservative." He has highlighted about the concerns more politically active Christians have with such 'liberal' causes as human trafficking, genocide in Sudan, AIDS, and global warming. In his view, the Religious Right is coming of age. Maybe it is.

So whoever becomes the GOP candidate in 2008, I hope you start reflecting this current trend. This is where the conservative movement is going, and we can't just spout off old mantras. They may make political hay, but they just don't satisfy anymore. Tell us how you're against corporate fatcats and give a workable and consensus building solution to education and health care, and we will sit up and take notice.

Hint: Mike Huckabee is already doing this. (Just so you know, this blog is not affiliated with the Huckabee for President campaign).

Until next time, this is Statesman.

First GOP Debate

2007-05-04T18:42:00.000-07:00

Last night the GOP held their first debate of the presidential election season at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA. All ten candidates had to respond to questions in ninety minutes. As a result, it seemed that moderator Chris Matthews focused mainly on the trumped up frontrunners: McCain, Giuliani, and Romney.

It was clear that Romney helped himself and Giuliani was off his game. McCain talked like a man trying desperately to get the attention of the conservative base. But the man who really stood out was Mike Huckabee. He only received some four questions and withstood a false accusation by the moderator. Most covering the debate admitted that he acquitted himself well, and was the most eloquent and believable after Romney. In fact, Time.com rated the winners of the debate, and Huckabee came in second to Romney and before Giuliani. Here's one that's expecting his public profile to rise in the next eight months.

Maybe he won't just debate in the shadow of Air Force One on display at the library, but will actually fly on the real one for four (eight?) years.

So 'til the next time, this is Statesman.

What Is A Conservative?

2007-04-28T15:11:00.000-07:00

A few days ago, former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore added to the mudslinging when he called fellow Republican Mitt Romney 'not a true conservative.' Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, but now it seems the trashing is starting earlier than it has before.

You know, when Ronald Reagan built the modern conservative movement, he personally followed the rule 'Never speak ill of a fellow Republican.' He called it the "Eleventh Commandment." Now, we are seeing candidates jockeying for the attention of key conservative voters and trying to prove that they are the real McCoy. And they tear others down in the process.

But that leads to a question: what makes a person conservative? How do we judge that? I am a conservative because I believe that we must protect the most important institutions in our society: community, family, and religion ( or lack thereof). That doesn't mean I agree with everything that conservatives label as such.

I don't agree that we should be in Iraq: that doesn't make me unpatriotic or anti military. I do think that we should drill for oil here in America, but that we seriously need to develop hydrogen fuels. I too am leery of roving wiretaps; and I believe that we should beef up security at our most vulnerable entry points: our borders and our ports ( I live near a major one). I also believe in limited government and the freedom of the individual, but I am not opposed to government action to protect those rights when they are violated, whether it be by criminals or Enron. I am not opposed to a minimum wage or the Second Amendment.

In short, I hold to a hodge podge of ideas and some might say I am not a true conservative. So what. To me, if it is about conserving institutions and the stability of our social order, then it is necessary at times to have government help preserve it. And it takes responsible citizens to keep our government in check.

In the future I will define this idea better, as it would take a volume to fully explain the ideas presented here.

So Governor Gilmore, is a person not conservative when they don't fully adhere to the "conservative" platform? You can put most, if not all, Americans in that category. And let us decide if we want Romney as our Republican nominee ( or VP to Huckabee).

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Huckabee: the True Conservative for '08.

2007-04-24T15:18:00.000-07:00

When you all get the chance, you need to check out Republican presidential hopeful and former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee. Although he is low on the national polls, and doesn't have near the money that Romney or Giuliani has, he has the message.

A Baptist minister and television producer in Arkansas, he combines a Christian approach to public policy and can express it in simple yet articulate ways. He has Reagan like charisma, and has a compelling personal story. In his last term as governor, he was diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes and given maybe ten years to live. As a result, he lost 110 pounds and has made health and fitness his personal crusade.

He has true conservative bonafides, but he calls himself a 'paradoxical Republican.' His focus on health and the environment are seen as strange for a conservative. He says he is pro-life, but to him it also means that kids have a good education, adequate health care, and safe streets to play on. He signed bills that banned soft drinks from public schools and also a bill to ban indoor smoking at public places, which my state (Washington) and several others copied. His first accomplishment as governor was establishing ARKids First, a health insurance program for kids who can't get on Medicaid. And he got leadership kudos for how he handled the flood of refugees from hurricane Katrina.

Any candidate, Democrat or Republican, would be making a mistake if they were to underestimate him. He has already climbed to second in the straw polls in South Carolina and is making deep inroads in Iowa and New Hampshire. His focus is on the early primary states, and hoping to get enough momentum from them to win Super Tuesday on Feb. 5. Democrats have admitted to being afraid of him, and their prospects of winning the White House next year, if he is the Republican Party candidate.

So check him out at his website at: www.explorehuckabee.com. He needs all the help he can get at this time, so tell your friends and family about him.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

The Second Amendment debate.

2007-04-17T08:21:00.000-07:00

Last night I was just as shocked as everyone else when I read the news of the massacre at Virginia Tech. The scope of the killings and the implications it leaves are mind blowing. Franklin Roosevelt called the attack on Pearl Harbor 'a date that will live in infamy.' Well, yesterday will be a day that will live in infamy.

Federal investigators are saying the killings are the worst in modern American history. As more and more of the story leaks out, we begin to see the horrific work of a killer. I can not imagine what drove the young student to do such a thing. But I can tell you that it forces us to face some issues we would rather not face.

In many ways we saw a depraved mind kill indiscriminately, and perhaps it shows us a greater problem of moral depravity in my generation. I know that many religious leaders have talked concerning the moral decay of this country,and blame it on the permissiveness of our time. They are better than I am at describing this problem, so I want to shift focus a little bit, to something that compared to this is a non issue.

Some of our friends and neighbors will use the incident to discuss the need for stiffer gun control laws in our country. They will point out that as of 2000, there were over 10,000 gun related deaths in the US, while there were less than 1000 in all of Europe. And the Australian Prime Minister decried the so called 'gun culture.' To any person concerned about crime, this should be disturbing. And we would wonder: how can we help fight this culture constitutionally?

Our "gun culture" is legally protected by the Second Amendment. The gun lobby would have us believe that every American has a right to carry a handgun or an assault weapon. I know that it seems like we are flogging a dead horse here, but let's look at the history behind the Second Amendment and the provisions it makes.

I am a student of history and of constitutional law. While I am not an expert on the Bill of Rights, I have made some observations that I would like to share with you.

Let's look at the background of the Bill of Rights itself. Today we think of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as one and the same, and in a real sense they are. But when the constitution was ratified, there were some real concerns that there was no affirmation of rights that could protect the people from their government. So the first Congress passed the first 10 amendments, and they were ratified by the states. All of them limit the incursion of the government in the lives of Americans. This was a result of what the colonists went through with England, and they were fearful that the federal government could trample over their freedoms if not kept in check.

Now the 2nd amendment talks about the right to keep and bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia. I do believe that we face now, as well as then, the fears that our government could become tyrannical, and that we need a well regulated militia. But let me ask a larger question: is the constitution a literal document, or rather a guideline for our experiment in democracy? As conservatives, we want judges who will interpret the constitution literally, as the Founders intended. But are we really qualified to judge what the Founders wanted?

Look at the culture of their time. We had just won independence from Great Britain and their was a weak central authority running the country. Commerce was in tatters, public finance was a joke, and not one country respected the United States. While the founders agreed that something had to be done, they were suspicious of a strong central government that would threaten their interests. But they wished for order to help keep abuses of liberty from happening. And they formed a republic that has stood for over 200 years.

Part of what has kept us together is the Bill of Rights and the constitution. It has been re interpreted as time went on, and added to with amendments. You see, even the Founders realized that they did not form a perfect government, so they allowed for processes to alter or change the constitution. They admitted that the constitution could only work if there was a moral and religious people who followed it. People who had a respect for God's law and order.

The constitution, as it was originally written, was formed to answer some very pressing problems of their time. It reflected the fears and beliefs of the delegates, which now are not our fears. And they understood that. We have the amendment process and judicial review. It is changeable and fluid, but the principles in the document are still our guiding light.

So with this in mind, can we have a civil debate about the role of guns in our society? Is the Second Amendment rigid, or have we been mis interpreting it? Personally, I think that we do need some safeguard against those who would harm our persons and property, including an abusive government. But we have abused our liberty. A three day waiting period or trigger locks will not kill our freedom to own guns, it is to make it harder to allow criminals to get their hands on them. A ban on assault weapons limits guns whose sole purpose is to kill, and don't tell me that you use an Uzi or an M1 for hunting.

My purpose here is to raise the level of debate about guns and gun laws. I know what I have said here will get many people mad at me, but remember in this blog we are not afraid to tackle the tough issues. There may be no solutions for some time to come, but let us start talking about it.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Freedom of Speech Changing

2007-04-09T14:08:00.000-07:00

I recently finished reading "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" by Joe Trippi. Now if you're like me and love the idea of what the Internet is becoming, you will love this book. It's premise is how the web and the many blogs and forums are starting to dramatically change the political dialogue in this country. Before, average citizens had to resort to writing letters to their congressman or the newspaper and generally they felt that they were being ignored. They didn't have any money or position, and therefore they did not have the voice or control over the political debate.

Trippi uses the presidential campaign of Howard Dean ( which he chaired) as an example of the power of the internet. When Gov. Dean started his campaign, he had very little money and was virtually unknown outside Vermont. Six months later, he had an estimated $40 million dollars and 400,000 dedicated supporters in all the states. How did he do it? At Trippi's urging, he went online and started putting up their website and blog on many political forums, and the enthusiastic emails were often sent with donations.

Dean, as we know it, was the only one questioning President Bush's decision to invade Iraq. And it struck a chord with enough Americans who felt that their voices weren't being heard. Although he lost the primaries to Senator Kerry, his legacy was he changed the nature of fundraising and grassroots support.

Now, we are gearing up for the 2008 elections, and already every candidate is online in a big way. Several have their own blogs which they personally contribute to, and some even have their own pages on MySpace. And the big guys are even using the Internet to raise their campaign donations. We are seeing ordinary citizens who before didn't actively participate in the political process now are enthusiastic supporters. Last year, Senate candidate John Tester of Montana used the Internet to launch and build momentum for his ultimate Senate victory.

What are the ultimate ramifications of this "revolution?" In recent presidential history, most of the people who donated funds to presidential and congressional campaigns were the ones who could give at least $1000 at a fundraising dinner. And they were the ones that the candidates listened to. The rest of us took what was given to us for presidential candidates. But that time is disappearing fast, and what could fill it's place is a true dialogue, where no one can feel that they have a way to get their views listened to. Unknown candidates could win statewide and national office without feeling like they "owe" anything to the party special interests.

In some ways, we could be on the verge of a true representative democracy. Already we are seeing companies and stores become more consumer driven through surveys of what consumers like or want in merchandise. It's trickling down to online education, and to day trading. The average person is now becoming empowered in ways they haven't been before.

This brings with it the responsibility to be an informed consumer and voter. You need to know the issues and be able to hold our elected officials accountable for the actions they do in office.

I've made this posting extra long but this is quite a trend that is happening before our eyes and has enormous implications on our republic and the world. In many ways it is a 'Second American Revolution' and it will be very exciting to see how it plays out.

I would recommend anyone to read Trippi's work, and though you may disagree with his political ideas, you will be impressed with what he says.

So until next time, this is Statesman.

Where I'm coming from

2007-04-03T12:55:00.000-07:00

I thought it would be helpful to describe some of who I am and what were some of the things that caused me to start this blog.

I was born and raised in a conservative Christian home, and naturally we lean conservative in social issues. However, my parents are not really political, and we downplayed the significance of the issues as it applied to Christians. But one thing I learned from them is to never accept anything anyone says as fact. Do your own research, and make the best decision for yourself with the best info you have. As a result, I still am conservative in many issues, but lean moderate on others, such as the environment. And I am open minded, and am willing to be persuaded. But you have to give me facts and numbers, not just state something as fact.

I do believe in capitalism, and think it is a great system, but I don't think it is a perfect system because of my Christian belief that fallible and selfish men can twist it to their own devices. Thus, like government, it needs to be reined in at times. We saw what happened to Enron and WorldCom. Capitalism run amok. CEOs who don't have accountability.

The Founding Fathers believed in liberty as much as they believed that government must be contained. But, if they believed that industry and commerce were to trade without excessive regs, they did not mean to allow them special concessions to oil and steel companies and anti-environment policies. Early constitutional questions in the early congresses questioned this very thing. Not all of it is bad, but there should be a balance to determine when allowing a corporation certain concessions would help or hurt the average consumer.

This belief is fluid, and subject to change, but this is where I am leaning at the time.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Beginning Post

2007-04-01T20:23:00.000-07:00

Hello to all. This is Statesman, and welcome to the first posting of Sense In Politics. Now, why have this blog, and what do we wish to accomplish here?

Well, I assume that there are some political junkies, who, like me, love our country and our system of government, but not the way that politics is being played. We hear all the time of the divisions in this country, red states vs. blue, right against left, and so on. No one can seem to do anything constructive in Congress or even some state governments without condemning the opposition. Good ideas that would make excellent policies are not enacted because one party doesn't want the other party to have the credit for passing it.

And we can't seem to have an honest discussion on the most divisive issues confronting us: illegal immigration, same sex marriage, stem cells, or even taxes and the war in Iraq. We are told that if we don't agree with the president or the stated party line, we are "unpatriotic." And when we vote, there may be some things we agree with that the other party stands for. In other words, we may be conservative in some things and liberal in others.

My goal with this blog is to discuss the current issues and news of our time in an honest and open manner. We will discuss politics as you do with friends around a barbecue or having a beer. But let's set some ground rules.

1. We will discuss issues in an open and honest manner, no one will be excluded.

2. No slander or condemning a position or person will be allowed. You can disagree civilly, but be able to explain your views and keep and open mind toward the other's views.

3. Our goal would be to reach some mutual understanding on some issue. Even if we don't agree, we can all come away satisfied that the other side heard us and we can find common ground to work on.

If freedom of speech means we have the right to say what we think, then does it not also mean we need to respect that right for others we don't agree with? If we truly are the land of the free, then don't we have the right, as promised in the Constitution, to protest the policies of our government? In this country, true patriots are people who are loyal to the principles of liberty and the Constitution of the United States, not to a political party or ideology. We vote on the issues, not because one candidate has a 'D' or 'R' after their name. You can be a member of the two parties, but don't think that all the answers lie in that party.

As Americans, our greatest strength has been our love of liberty. Maybe in this blog we can set an example to our elected officials on how we can resolve the pressing issues we face.

So I ask you, if you agree with me on this, and you want to help change this country's political dialogue, then you are welcome to join and be an active member. Even if you just read it, I think that it will be a rich experience for you.

So, until next time, this is Statesman.