What If...?

What if, eight years ago, President Bush had announced, on one week's notice, that he wanted to give a major speech to Congress on the long-established date of the other party's presidential primary debate?

And what if he hadn't followed protocol and formally asked the House speaker to do so in advance?

And then, when he realized what an idiotic move that was, he asked to reschedule it opposite the kickoff of the opening NFL football game of the year?

Who I'm Voting For, Part 1

Very soon I will be voting, probably for the last time, in a Michigan election. There are several important primary races where I live:

U.S. Representative, 6th District
State Senate, 20th District
State Representative, 80th District
Governor

Here's who I am voting for, and why:

U.S. Representative: Jack Hoogendyk

Hoogendyk is looking to upset incumbent Fred Upton, and I hope he does. Hoogendyk has a record, from his six years in the Michigan House, of sound fiscal and social conservatism. He is a Christian man who has shown that he will vote as he speaks. He is predictable; he does not seek which way the wind blows before deciding how to cast a vote. You know what you are getting...and in his case, I like it. A lot.

Upton, on the other hand, has been a case study in political expediency. He is not reliably conservative. He has voted with the democrats too many times on issues that matter, such as the surge vote several years ago, the TARP bailout, and the Cash for Clunkers bill (a failure of which he was one of the leading cheerleaders).

Republicans have a clear choice, and they need to make the most of it.

State Senate, 20th District: Tonya Schuitmaker

Tonya is another politician who has put her votes where her mouth has been. She is consistently conservative, pro-life, and fiscally sound. She has done a great job, worked hard, and reached out to her constituents (including me) during the past six years she has served in the State House. In short, Michigan needs her and 147 similar people in the Legislature.

I have not been impressed with Lorence Wenke's credentials as a conservative, although he (or Larry DeShazor) both would be vastly superior to the candidate running on the other ticket. DeShazor seems like a good guy but for the most part his record is not as long as Tonya's.

Next post: Thoughts on the other two races

How is Your Congressman Going to Vote?

The Hill, which is more-or-less the newspaper of record covering things in Congress, has published a list of which Democrats could possibly vote "No" on the abominable healthcare legislation currently before the U.S. House. Please take a look at the list, and if you have a Congressman who might vote "No" on this bill, call and demand that he/she do the right thing!

For those of you in Michigan, Reps. Stupak, Schauer, and Kildee are on the list. Pester them if they belong to you!

How Will the Senate Liberals Vote?

Some are drawing attention to the fact that there are those in Congress who—however moronically—do not think the House healthcare bill went far enough in its takeover of the American healthcare system. These folks opine that the government needs to be more involved, private insurers less so, and that a new system of bureaucracies is the way to go.

They are, of course, morons, and enemies of the Republic.

There are some in the media who report that these liberal folk will go so far as to not vote for any bill that does not constitute a full government takeover of the healthcare system.

My thesis: This is a complete lie.

These liberals want nothing less than government power over greater and greater percentages of your life. If given a choice between (a) voting for government control over a much larger part of your life, (b) voting for government control over a part of your life, and (c) not voting for either of the first two choices, I can assure you (c) is not the choice they will make.

The liberals in Congress will take whatever degree of control they can get, and then they will plot for more. Do not get a false sense of hope that they will vote against a "watered down" bill. They will not. Remember this. Call your Congressman. The fight isn't over yet.

Senate Democrats: Abortion = Healthcare

Adding to the growing corpus of evidence that democrats in D.C. want—nay, demand—abortion funding as part of the abominable healthcare bill is a Senate committee vote that occurred this morning. In a 13-10 vote (with pseudo-republican Snowe joining twelve democrats), an amendment offered by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) to "strengthen anti-abortion provisions" was defeated.

It must be remembered that President Obama and most of the key democrats in Congress have already shown clearly that they want to see abortion funding in any final version of the healthcare bill that might pass Congress.

It must also be remembered that abortion is nothing short of the cold-blooded murder of a human being.

And speaking of things to remember...if someone is so cold-blooded as to accept the murder of an innocent life, what will stop their cold heart when it comes to euthanasia? Or "withdrawal of care"?

Is McCotter Nuts?!?

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, a Republican from Michigan, is apparently seeking support in Congress for a bill that would amend the Internal Revenue Code....tell you what: I'll just quote from a letter he sent to his colleagues:

"Dear Colleague," the letter reads.

"According to the 2007-2008 National Pet Owners Survey, 63% of United States households own a pet. Indeed, the human-animal bond has been shown to have a positive effect upon people's emotional and physical well being. In families with children, pets help to create a nurturing environment and provide ample educational opportunities. For people in later stages of life, pets offer important companionship. No matter the age of the owner, pets have been shown to reduce stress, safeguard against depression, improve social skills, and even ease loss.

"In light of this, please join me in becoming a cosponsor to H.R. 3501, the Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (HAPPY) Act. If enacted, H.R. 3501 would amend the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) to allow an annual tax deduction of up to $3500 for qualified pet care expenses. Specifically, "qualified pet care expenses" would be defined as funds spent in connection with providing care (including veterinary care) for a legally owned, domesticated animal."

I first heard this on the radio driving home from work today (and in God's providence, I was stopped at a red light at that very moment, preventing me from driving my car off the road).

Sadly, liberals are having a field day with this—just as we Republicans often do with their loony ideas. Except this idea truly is loony! See examples here and here, if you care to do so.

Our tax code has more than its share of problems and certainly more than its share of illogical tax breaks for special-interest-related reasons. I'd rather see McCotter offer some sort of tax relief related to what I spend caring for the health care of the humans in my household. That would truly be a "HAPPY" day.

Tax breaks for pet care. Think about that.

Michiganders (and certain others) About To Be Denied Proper Representation in Census

According to this wsj.com article, the upcoming 2010 Census will, like the three preceding it, be using a count of all persons physically present in the country to determine apportionment in Congress for the upcoming decade—including persons here illegally. The result of this will be to give disproportionately higher numbers of representatives to those states which have disproportionately higher numbers of illegal aliens.

Who wins and who loses under this scenario?

Winners: California is projected to have nine additional representatives in Congress, compared to the results if a count of only legal, permanent residents was done. Texas would get four additional representatives. Depending on the actual counts, several other states could pick up an additional seat, including Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New York, and New Jersey.

Losers: Several states right now are looking at the possibility of losing a Congressional seat regardless of this issue, but states at risk include Michigan, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Ohio could lose a second seat if illegal immigrants are counted. New York and New Jersey stand to lose a seat under a proper count, but could gain it back if illegal immigrants are counted.

What should we do?

For Michiganders, this is very much a bi-partisan issue. Our entire congressional delegation in D.C. should demand that the census only count legal, permanent residents of the country; legislation should be introduced to make this happen. Furthermore, co-sponsors should sprout up like weeds from such places as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and other states which either stand to lose a seat(s) or which will likely be unaffected regardless of the specific count.

We need to contact our representatives, regardless of their party, and demand action on this front. As Cameron Brown said in a MIRS interview recently, "If people can't have confidence in our election process, in our election system, they will not have confidence in government, period."

We have the greatest governmental system on the planet, and it is in the interests of all citizens to keep it healthy and honest. Eternal vigilance is required.

Time to Apply the Pressure!

Congress is embarking upon its summer recess. When your Congressman or Senator comes to your area, you need to introduce yourself and politely make a few things known to him or her. For your convenience, here are some talking points:

• Under no circumstances whatsoever is a government takeover of heathcare acceptable. None. No compromises are acceptable, either. Government simply needs to get out of the way.
• Government spending is ridiculously out-of-control and must be severely curtailed. Pork projects, bailouts, "stimuli," and presidential date nights to far-off locales need to stop (OK, maybe your congressman can't do much about that last one).
• Taxes must not go up. Welfare, including such forms as the EIC, needs to shrink.

[Commentary on that last point: Given the ludicrous complexity of the U.S. Tax Code, it has become nearly impossible to change it in any way without affecting someone with higher taxes. I really don't have a problem with people who pay no taxes now, due to the EIC or other similar targeted tax credits, paying something more equitable if those tax credits are removed.]

If your Congressman hasn't extricated himself from the discussion by this point, select your favorites from this list below:

• Illegal immigration, since it is illegal, needs to be stopped. With vigor.
• Guantanamo is the ideal place for terrorist enemies of our country.
• The Second Amendment is every bit as much a part of our Constitution as the First Amendment.
• Abortion is murder, and since murder is illegal, it needs to be stopped. With vigor. The Supreme Court was supremely wrong on that one.
• Car manufacturing should be in the hands of the private sector.

The point here is to impress upon your Congressman that there are many voters who have strong feelings on these issues, and that these people will vote in the next election. We want them to return to Washington next month with the strong feeling that many voters are watching and taking notes, and that if they support the Obama/socialist agenda, they do so at their own electoral peril.

Congress and Michael Jackson

Perhaps this is supposed to be some sort of comic relief from a Congress that has more important work to do fighting the Obama/socialist agenda....

On the one side, we have Rep. Peter King (R-NY) in a YouTube video pointing out that Michael Jackson was a pedophile and a pervert whom you would most likely not want around your children. [Despite some media coverage, this was not the ranting of a crazy man, but rather the frank opinion of someone making a clear point.]

On the other side, we have Rep. Shiela Jackson-Lee (D-TX), who has offered a resolution in Congress to recognize Michael Jackson for his humanitarian work and his contributions to the music world.

I have to agree with Rep. King on this one. Michael Jackson's death, while sad and tragic, is no more worthy of special recognition than any other artist who has committed perverse acts with children.

Oh My, the Hypocrisy!

Do you remember not that very long ago, when congressmen and congresswomen berated the car company executives for flying private jets to Washington D.C. (so that those same congresspeople could berate them for other things)?

Do you remember that even more recently, large banking companies' executives were blasted by the congresspeople for their lavish lifestyles on the company dime?

Then this article might make your blood boil when you read about the outrageous and expensive trips taken by many of our members of Congress. Some facts and statistics from the article:

The spending on overseas travel is up almost tenfold since 1995, and has nearly tripled since 2001, according to the Journal analysis of 60,000 travel records. Hundreds of lawmakers traveled overseas in 2008 at a cost of about $13 million. That's a 50% jump since Democrats took control of Congress two years ago.

The article also states that expenses are up 70% since 2005, when it became illegal for lobbyists to fund such travel. Who's paying for all this travel?

The congressional trips are possible thanks in part to an unlimited fund created by a three-decade old law. Nearly two dozen government officials work full-time organizing the trips. Much of the costs are not made public, including the cost of flying on government jets. The Air Force maintains a fleet of 16 passenger planes for use by lawmakers.

Documents obtained by the Journal show that the cost of flying a small group of lawmakers to the Middle East is about $150,000. Larger trips on the Air Force's version of the Boeing 757 cost about $12,000 an hour. Two federal agencies pay for most of the travel -- the Defense Department and the State Department.

Yep, that would be us, the taxpayers. That's at least $13 million, plus the undisclosed flight costs. I didn't highlight those numbers above just because statistics amuse me, either.

Where are your Congresspeople going? I'm glad you asked. Here are some examples.

• "In mid-June, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D., Hawaii) led a group of a half-dozen senators and their spouses on a four-day trip to France for the biennial Paris Air Show. An itinerary for the event shows that lawmakers flew on the Air Force's version of the Boeing 737, which costs $5,700 an hour to operate. They stayed at the Intercontinental Paris Le Grand Hotel, which advertises rooms from $460 a night." They also met with some presumably important people and declined to comment for the WSJ article.
• "In February, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a delegation of Democratic lawmakers to visit U.S. troops in Afghanistan for a day. Before landing in Kabul, the eight lawmakers and their entourage of spouses and aides spent eight days in Italy, spending $57,697 on hotels and meals." Her spokesperson added that she also visited the pope while in Italy.

A number of the trips have been to Iraq and Afghanistan, which seems a bit more in line with their official duties, and where the hotels don't cost much (VIP's rarely stay in those countries overnight). But this one has to be the worst example of pork-filled travel in the article:

Last summer, Rep. Brian Baird (D., Wash.) took a four-day trip to the Galápagos Islands with his wife, four other lawmakers and their family members. The lawmakers spent $22,000 on meals and hotels, records show. Mr. Baird, a member of the House Science Committee, said the trip was to learn about global warming.

On the first day, lawmakers toured a breeding center for giant tortoise and land iguanas before dining with scientists, according to an itinerary for the trip. The next morning, lawmakers headed to the Galápagos National Park while their family members had the option of hiking, swimming or shopping. That afternoon, the group boarded a boat to visit a sea-lion colony and search for white-tip sharks.

Ridiculous!

Taking Names....Then What?

The U.S. House voted 219-212 to approve the contemptible "American Clean Energy and Security Act" (a.k.a. "The Job-Killing Act" or the "Plow our Economy Into the Ground Act").

It was widely reported that Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI 3rd District) was considering voting in favor of the bill. He did not vote in favor of the bill.

In the end, eight (8) Republicans voted in favor of the bill. Forty-four (44) Democrats voted against it. You can find the complete Congressional roll call for the vote here. The eight Republicans who voted for the bill should be losers in the 2010 primary elections, as they clearly do not stand for conservative principles or for the principles of the Republican party.

Taking Names? Here are some to consider:

All seven Michigan Republicans in Congress voted "No" on the bill.

All eight Michigan Democrats in Congress voted "Yes" on the bill.

The eight GOP traitors on this vote were:

• Mary Bono Mack (CA 45th District)
• Michael Castle (DE)
• Mark Kirk (IL 10th District)
• Leonard Lance (NJ 7th District)
• Frank LoBiondo (NJ 2nd District)
• John McHugh (NY 23rd District)
• David Reichert (WA 8th District)
• Chris Smith (NJ 4th District)

I hope the Republicans in New Jersey, in particular, are mad.

There is a lesson here: Keep your memory. Remember who voted to raise your taxes (regardless of whatever misnomer they may invent for it), usurp more power, and drive a stake into the heart of the American economy. And when you enter that polling place next year, vote them out.

Prioritizing the News of the Day

Here are some headlines that you may or may not learn about in today's news:

• Approximately 3,000 children murdered in their mothers' wombs today.
• Congress soon to vote on one of the largest tax increases in American history, under the poor disguise of something called "cap and trade."
• American soldiers involved in conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• Some calling for the resignation of a governor of a state containing 4.5 million people.
• An over-the-hill rock star who has been in trouble for doing unspeakable, perverse things with children and whose music grates on the ears of millions of Americans died yesterday.

The first four are significant things going on today that will affect (or even end!) the lives of Americans for some time to come. The fifth item, though sad, is not going to affect most of us, and certainly not in a life-changing way.

We are going to be better citizens if we deal with those first four matters properly...so let's get to work.

Can I Have Chuck Schumer's Pay?

I find it deeply troubling that Congress is seriously discussing what amounts to the illegal confiscation of legally-obtained compensation of AIG employees.

The fact that the compensation is undeserved is beside the point—it was agreed upon in a legal fashion.

The fact that the public is outraged is also beside the point—the contracts were signed, to my knowledge, following our laws.

The Democrats in Congress, though foolish, are not so bluntly stupid as to merely declare the contracts invalid; they know they can't do that. The courts would surely rule (if perhaps on appeal) in favor of the recipients of the money. They also realize, though will not admit, that they passed legislation that allowed this money to go to these employees.

Furthermore, the AIG recipients are smart enough to realize that the Democrats are grandstanding; after some months go by, and some meddlesome lawsuits, they will almost certainly get to keep the money, as they would have kept it in 2008, 2007, or 1975. They are also probably smart enough to realize that this won't happen again, and will find new employment—rendering the idea of "retention bonuses" laughable.

So where does Chuck Schumer come in? Consider this quote from yesterday:

"If (AIG CEO Edward) Liddy does nothing, we will act and will take this money back and return it to its rightful owners, the American taxpayers. We will take this money back by taxing virtually all of it.

"So let the recipients of these large and unseemly bonuses be warned. If you don't return it on your own, we will do it for you."

Did you catch that? We will take this money back. Take. As in, Steal. Confiscate. And why should it be taken from them? Because, in short, they did a lousy job at their workplace yet get compensated far above their value.

So in a similar vein, can I have Sen. Schumer's pay? After all, he does a horrid job and has a popularity level only slightly above smallpox. His pay comes straight from my tax dollars, and I am outraged that he does such a lousy job at his workplace and is compensated very well anyway. He and his kind, more than anyone (including AIG), are running this country into the ground. And this country is a lot more important than AIG is.

Can I take his paycheck, please, and return it to the Treasury?

Math, Budgets, and the Stimulus Bill

Big news today (and I mean BIG literally, in a sumo wrestler sort of way): According to foxnews.com, today the President will be unveiling a 2010 budget that is more bloated than ever, at $3.55 trillion (with a $1.2 trillion deficit)...while at the same time contending that he is beginning to restore fiscal discipline to the nation's finances.

That last part is, of course, a bunch of baloney.

Oh, and by the way—there were statistics on this year's budget changes. More below.

Let's take a look at the numbers.

If we assume that there are 300,000,000 people (legally) in this country, a $3.55 trillion budget works out to $11,833 per person—or for my family of six, that's $71,000! Our household income, in total, is well shy of $71,000!

The deficit of $1.2 trillion itself comes to $4000 per person—or for my family of six, $24,000!

A little subtraction shows that the government is projecting income of $2.35 trillion for the next fiscal year. This means that the government intends to budget expenses of about 51% more than it takes in. Can you imagine the consequences if your household tried that for any extended period of time....If you spent $151 for every $100 of earned income?

Keep in mind also, these statistics are for just one single year...and this president has three more to go. Does anyone see the importance of electing Republicans—fiscally conservative ones, as opposed to certain others I could name—to Congress next year?

Now let's look at the disaster that is this year's budget. In the words of the article,

In addition to next year's spending, Obama proposed more immediate changes that would push spending to $3.94 trillion in the current year. That would result in a record deficit Obama projects will hit $1.75 trillion, reflecting the massive spending being undertaken to battle a severe recession and the worst financial crisis in seven decades.

The cost of the stimulus bill and the increased bailout support would push the deficit for this year to $1.75 trillion, nearly four times last year's record $455 billion and a percentage of the economy -- just over 12 percent -- not seen since World War II. The deficit would remain near $1 trillion over the next two years before dropping to $581 billion in 2012 and $533 billion in 2013, the year that Obama has pledged to cut the deficit he inherited in half.

So for this year, that's a budget spending $13,133 for every man, woman, and child in this country, with a deficit coming to $5833 for every man, woman, and child in this country THIS YEAR.

Totals for 2008-2010 fiscal years:

• The government will spend about $24,966 for every person in this country;
• The deficit will increase by about $9833 for every person in this country.
  

For my family of six, that's two-year spending of $149,800 and two-year deficit of $59,000. Just for my family, mind you....

Constitutional Ignorance, the Electoral College, and the Popular Vote

Every four years, and sporadically in between, many educated people (as well as many less-schooled people) will suggest, "We need to do away with the electoral college and elect our president by popular vote." They speak this as if it were a mere matter of Congress passing a law and making it so, and imply that our government is kind of stupid for not having already done so.

Let me make this abundantly clear: THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

There are two facts, both related to the Constitution, that should make this obvious:

• Article 2, Section 1, later superseded by the 12th Amendment, dictates how the electoral college will function, and how the electors are delegated to the states.
• Article 5 of the Constitution demands that any amendment to the Constitution be ratified by 3/4 of the states (currently, that would mean 38) before it becomes the law of the land. A change in the electoral college system would require such an amendment.
  

And then there is the mathematics of the situation:

• Let's take Wyoming as an illustration. In the 2008 presidential election, approximately 125 million votes were cast. Wyoming cast a little less than 250,000 of those, which is almost 0.2 percent of the national total. However, Wyoming gets 3 electoral votes, which is about 0.56 percent of the national electoral vote total. To summarize: Wyoming's electoral vote percentage is roughly triple the percentage of the national vote which they cast; in essence, 1 Wyoming voter carries the voting influence of 3 voters in a larger state. Consequently, the smaller population states, like Wyoming, will NEVER support such a constitutional amendment.
• In order to pass such a constitutional amendment, the legislatures of 38 states would need to ratify it. While the largest states would likely be amenable to the idea, the 13 smallest states would never agree to it—and they don't have to. There are seventeen states which have 5 or fewer electoral votes, and they know their influence in presidential elections would substantially diminish.

I also think that a national popular vote would keep presidential candidates focused on the cities and more likely to therefore ignore (or pay token homage to) the concerns of those of us who don't live in major metropolitan areas. The electoral college keeps presidential candidates looking in fifty directions—and that's a good thing.

The Abomination of 2009 Draws Nigh...

I am going to refer to the stimulus bill, working its way toward passage and the president's signature, as an abomination. The word "abomination" refers to something vile, shameful, detestable; and is usually something hated or despised, or which generates disgust.

If you have been paying attention to the contents of this enormous bill, and you have any understanding of American history, you will recognize that this bill does two things in a grand way:

1. It spends nearly a trillion dollars of money that we don't have, thus generating enormous additional debt.
2. It generates dozens of new government programs, contributes to the bloating of others, and will make it harder to kill off programs which were never part of the umbrella of governmental responsibilities.

It will almost certainly pass, given the makeup of Congress and the current state of politics. Any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who votes for it should be exposed as a traitor to his party's values and be drummed out of office at the next available opportunity. It is an abomination. It should be treated that way.

There is precedent for this. The tariff bill passed in 1828 was called the "Tariff of Abominations" by southerners who had contempt for the impact it would have on their antebellum economy. Their predictions were generally on target (the economics lesson involved is both worthwhile and simple). President John Quincy Adams signed it and then lost his re-election bid six months later.

Perhaps that last thought is a glimmer of hope...