Remember These Votes!

The debt bill that our president signed today is not now, nor will be, good for our economy. In about 15 months, most of the people who voted Yea or Nay on this bill will be up for election.

You should know how they voted.

And as a service to all the blog readers, you can click below to find out how your representatives and senators voted. And of course, the president signed it.

How the House of Representatives voted

How the Senate voted

Who Voted for the Budget Bill?

Earlier today, the House and Senate passed a budget for the remainder of the fiscal year. President Obama is expected to sign the bill on Friday, April 15. [Ponder the irony for a moment.]

It did, however, receive bipartisan opposition. In the House, 108 D's opposed it while only 81 supported it; 59 R's opposed it while 179 carried the bill to passage. The Senate saw it passed by a 81-19 vote, with 3 D's and the quasi-democrat Sanders (I-VT) in the "Nay" column.

The bill, if looked upon as a serious attempt to deal with annual federal spending, is actually a joke. Consider this quote from the afore-linked FoxNews article:

Conservatives in particular were disappointed after a Congressional Budget Office report showed the package only saves $352 million from non-war accounts this year -- compared with the $38.5 billion in cuts Boehner had claimed.

The CBO study confirmed the measure trims more than $38 billion in new spending authority relative to current levels, but many of the cuts come in slow-spending accounts like water-and-sewer grants that don't have an immediate deficit impact. Other cuts come in areas where the government was unlikely to spend the money anyway, CBO suggested.

$352 million?? At the rate of the past two years, that's about 2 hours' worth of deficit!! And it's slightly less that 1% of what was "claimed" as a $38.5 billion cut. In short, this is merely a token. It should not be claimed as any sort of serious effort at reducing federal spending.

I am happy to say that my U.S. Representative, Trey Gowdy (R-SC 4th district), and both my U.S. Senators (Jim DeMint and Lindsay Graham) voted against the bill. Had I still lived in MI today, my U.S. Representative, Fred Upton (R-MI 6th district) and one of my U.S. Senators (Debbie Stabenow, D-MI) voted for it. The other senator, Carl Levin (D-MI), voted against it.

Find how your U.S. Representative voted here.

Find how your U.S. Senators voted here.

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

What is a Senate Democrat?

1. A Senate Democrat, first and foremost, is a liar. They tell the voters that they are going to serve the people and represent their interests when, in fact, they serve their own interests and chip away at the freedoms of their constituents.

2. A Senate Democrat is a promise-breaker. Claim to be pro-life? Means nothing on voting day. Claim to promote openness in Congress? Astonishingly quiet on days like today. Claim to cut taxes? Ha!

3. A Senate Democrat is an invertebrate—a living creature without a backbone. Posturing (to send the image that a backbone exists) is generally for the purposes of negotiation or the necessary sound/video bite. When the going gets tough, they simply get in line and vote as they are told.

4. A Senate Democrat is a socialist (or statist, if you prefer that term). Every last one of them voted to foist a horrific socialist healthcare system on our country the other day, and they all seem to prefer government expansion into our lives.

5. A Senate Democrat is not pro-life. From time to time, when the political repercussions are minimal, they may voice some statements that give a different impression. Check the voting records for the truth.

Republicans in the Senate: Fight!

I read this absolutely first-rate article over at the RedState blog today and thought that I must share it with everyone who reads my blog. I will copy part of it here; you can read the rest at this link.

It is absolutely vital that the contemptible healthcare legislation sitting in the Senate be killed (and then bludgeoned) by whatever means necessary. The means are there. This is how it should happen:

The Senate, unlike the House of Representatives, has parliamentary rules and procedures that give the minority the ability to stall legislation. In fact, unlike the House, the minority have the ability to virtually paralyze the Senate. Doing so is not something we would want or expect for every bad bill that comes through Congress, but the proposed healthcare legislation is probably the worst piece of legislation ever considered by the United States Congress. It is the most intrusive, most damaging, most costly, most dangerous bill to the economic and personal freedom and liberty of individual Americans that Congress has ever considered. If there is any bill that deserves being stopped by shutting down the Senate, it is this one.

There are a whole series of parliamentary maneuvers that could be used by Republican senators to stop this bill. There is a hard backstop to the current process (Christmas). The Republicans’ goal should be to prevent Reid from passing the bill before that time. If he goes past Christmas and is forced to adjourn or recess, the momentum will shift in favor of those opposing the bill.

How could this be done?

Keep reading here.

And If That Last Post Doesn't Make You Mad Enough....!

The title of the foxnews.com article says it all:

Senate Bill Would Fine People More Than $1,000 for Refusing Health Care Coverage

Yes, that's right: The proposed legislation says that if you choose—for nearly any reason, it appears—not to purchase health care for yourself (and your family if you have one), you will be forced to pay a fine.

"Called "shared responsibility payments," the fines would be set at least half the cost of basic medical coverage, according to the legislation."

On top of that, the fines will be collected through the income tax system...people are going to really love April 15 if that enters their tax picture.

This is a new low for the Democrats in the Senate (and White House), and represents a huge step toward a socialist/communist economic system in our country. And, yes, it gets worse; here's the final paragraph from the article:

"At their heart, all the bills would require insurance companies to sell coverage to any applicant, without charging higher premiums for pre-existing medical conditions. The poor and some middle-class families would qualify for government subsidies to help with the cost of coverage. The government's costs would be covered by a combination of higher taxes and cuts in projected Medicare and Medicaid spending."

The poor's health care will be paid by everyone else. Those of us who live clean lives and are blessed with good health will be underwriting the smokers, the obese, the sexually promiscuous—and I suspect the abortion seekers, too.

And then I'll really be mad.

Q&A with Sen. Tom George (R-20th District)

Sen. Tom George is currently serving his second term in the Michigan Senate and is a candidate for governor in next year's election. He is a medical doctor and a history buff. He recently and graciously agreed to answer some questions related to his campaign to become Michigan's next Republican governor.

1. Would you, during the campaign, be willing to sign a pledge indicating that you would not raise taxes? If not, are there specific taxes you would be willing to raise, under certain circumstances?

No, I will not sign a pledge to not raise taxes as I have always made it a policy and practice to not sign any kind of pledge. I believe it would be imprudent of a gubernatorial candidate to take such a pledge.

2. Being a doctor certainly gives you more insight into the healthcare industry than most of us have, and being a senator gives you more insight into the workings of government than most of us have. What other qualities do you think you have that prepare you to become Michigan's next governor?

Having maintained an active career outside of the legislature is an advantage that no other candidate can claim. I continue to work at the hospital, including some nights and weekends when the legislature is not in session. This puts me in touch with the many challenges that people are facing on a regular basis. It also gives me special insight into the strengths and weaknesses of our health care system.

Fixing health care is one of the keys to fixing Michigan’s economy and turning our state around. One of the lessons my medical practice has taught me is that the health of a population and subsequent health care costs largely reflect health behaviors. With health care costs now the single largest expense in the state budget, the state’s ability to lure jobs, fix its infrastructure, and provide tax cuts will in part depend on the next governor’s ability to improve the health behavior of our citizens.

Having legislative experience is also important as fixing Michigan will require using the legislative process. Governor Engler was a skilled legislator and this helped make him an effective governor. In contrast, Governor Granholm’s lack of legislative experience has at times been apparent.

Outside of the legislature, I have provided volunteer service to several organizations. These experiences enhance my credentials. For example, in 2008, I co-chaired MI-Cause, the statewide coalition which formed to oppose last fall’s embryo research ballot proposal. I have served as president of the Historical Society of Michigan, a statewide non-profit group founded in 1828 to promote and preserve the history of our state. In 1998 I chaired the Kalamazoo Coalition for Appropriate and Compassionate Care, a group which formed to oppose the assisted-suicide ballot proposal.

As a physician, I served as a medical volunteer in Tanzania, Africa, and on the Caribbean Island of St. Lucia. For 24 years, I have been a member of Michigan State University’s College of Human Medicine’s volunteer faculty. I have also published articles in both medical journals and history magazines.

On a personal note, I have been married to my wife, Sandy for almost 30 years and we have three children.

Continuing to hold a part-time job while serving in the legislature, demonstrating leadership, serving as a volunteer, and maintaining one’s marriage vows are all important indicators of character which may be important to voters in the gubernatorial race.

3. You will no doubt be reminded during the campaign about your vote on the early morning of 10/1/07 to raise taxes. In retrospect, do you regret that vote, or do you feel that it was necessary? Why?

I do not regret my 2007 vote to raise the state income tax.

It should be noted that in 2007, I voted for a billion dollars in spending cuts as well as voting to raise the state income tax from 3.9 to 4.35%. Together this combination would have been sufficient to balance the budget. Unlike many of my colleagues, I actually voted for a package of bills that taken together would have produced a balanced budget without the need for the adoption of Governor Granholm’s service tax, which I opposed, and which was later converted, to the business tax surcharge.

My vote helped end a government shutdown, and create a balanced budget, which is one of my constitutional duties. Given the circumstances, it was the prudent action to take. (It also should be noted that during nine of the twelve years that Governor Engler was in office, the income tax was greater than its current rate of 4.35%.)

4. You are known to be a history buff. Can you think of any historical parallels in U.S. History to the current state of affairs in Michigan?

There have been several instances of economic crises in Michigan’s past. Boom and bust cycles have been caused by land speculation, canal building boondoggles, timber industry cycles, war, and the great depression. On more than one occasion economic turmoil has contributed to a call for a constitutional convention. The Constitutional Convention of 1961-2, in part, stemmed from state budget problems in the late 1950’s.

Applying the lessons of the past to today would suggest that though Republicans may not support the call for a constitutional convention which will appear on the 2010 ballot, we should be prepared in the event it is adopted.

5. Looking back over your time in the legislature, of what achievements are you the most pleased?

I represent a senate district that, like Michigan as a whole, is about 53% Democratic. My district has voted for Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama and Jennifer Granholm. Yet, I am a conservative, pro-life Republican and have managed to win elections repeatedly there. I am now serving in my ninth year in the legislature. I believe I have been able to represent my district ably because I am a good listener, and because I have found a way to apply Republican principles to the problems of the day in a constructive manner. In a similar fashion, for a Republican to win the governor’s race in 2010, we must have a candidate with the right temperament and skills -- a candidate who knows how to win; a candidate who knows how to use Republican solutions to fix our state.

Thank you, Senator George!

New York Senate Flips to GOP!

In a stunning procedural move, two democratic NY senators flipped sides and gave the GOP a 32-30 majority in the state's upper chamber. [Graphic below from the New York Post website]

The move came as the most surprising of surprises to the Senate democrats (and governor, and pretty much everyone else). The democrats refuse to recognize what happened, even after their abrupt adjournment without counting the votes.

This will be extremely interesting to watch today.

Q&A with Sen. Cameron Brown (R-16th District)

Sen. Cameron Brown is currently a candidate to replace Sec. of State Terry Lynn Land, who cannot run for the office again due to term limits. Sen. Brown represents the 16th District in southcentral Michigan. He graciously took the time to answer some questions about his candidacy.

1) What unique strengths do you feel you would bring to the office of Secretary of State?

Ken, I think my greatest strength as a candidate for Secretary of State is my dedication to my conservative values through thick and thin. I've passed a long list of bills during my time in the legislature - everything from a ban on partial birth abortions to tax credits that will attract logistical and warehousing facilities to our state. But my greatest accomplishment has been earning a reputation in the legislature as a defender of Republican principles whether politically popular or not.

For example, when Gov. Granholm tried to reward big campaign donors with a no-bid contract to build an ill-equipped, $90 million State Police headquarters, I was one of only a few Republicans willing to stand up and oppose this gross waste of taxpayer dollars. There was intense pressure to compromise our core conservative principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility, but I refused to do so. Now, 100 State Police troopers are on the verge of being laid off while a lavish new headquarters is being completed in Lansing for those who remain on the job. This is simply irresponsible.

I've taken tough stands on tough issues like this throughout my career. My conservative values aren't just bullet points on a campaign brochure - they're my guiding principles, and they will continue to guide me as Secretary of State.

2) What are the one or two most important issues facing the Secretary of State over the next five years?

For many Michigan residents, their interaction with the Secretary of State is limited to renewing their driver's or boat license at their local branch office. Certainly, continuing the outstanding efforts of Candice Miller and Terri Lynn Land to improve customer service and capitalize on new technologies will be among my top priorities. However, the greatest challenge facing the next Secretary of State will be the tremendous responsibility of protecting one of our most sacred rights - the right to vote.

We only need to look back to the elections of 2008 for a reminder that this right is constantly at risk from groups like A.C.O.R.N. who would bend, if not break, election law if not for strong, vigilant secretaries of state. Protecting our state and nation's principle of "one person, one vote" will be my top priority as Secretary of State.

3) You are generally considered a pretty conservative member of the legislature, while the Secretary of State's office is viewed by some as "almost" non-partisan. Why should we look at whether a person is conservative or not, when voting on a Secretary of State candidate?

Last year's election is a reminder of the vital role secretaries of state play in our democracy. Some secretaries looked the other way when groups like A.C.O.R.N. attempted to compromise election law. Others, such as Terri Lynn Land, defended the sanctity of our ballot box.

A conservative secretary of state is one that will strictly enforce the letter of state and federal election law, and who will defend our right to vote at all costs. I believe my record of defending conservative values no matter the circumstances has prepared me for this important role.

4) Terry Lynn Land has overseen a number of changes during her time as Secretary of State. Do you expect to retain most of these changes? Are there some you would like to undo? Are there any you would like to take further?

Terri Lynn Land and Candice Miller have done a tremendous job capitalizing on advancements in technology during their time in office. The Secretary of State customer experience is substantially better today than it was decades ago. I will build on their accomplishments and continue to explore ways to make your interaction with the Secretary of State as simple and efficient as possible. I'm eager to explore improvements in internet transactions, as well as bringing branch offices to places you frequent on a regular basis - such as grocery stores or shopping malls.

5) Is there any personal tidbit about yourself that you would want people to know?

When I meet with young people, I often share with them the fact that I attended T.C. Williams High School, depicted in the popular Disney movie "Remember the Titans" starring Denzel Washington. It was a time of great challenges, but entrenched differences were set aside for the common good. Exceptional teamwork led to incredible accomplishments.

The story of my high school's football team is a reminder to young and old alike that to be an American is to be a team player. Citizenship requires participation - it is not a spectator sport. Now, more than ever, we must pull together - like the T.C. Williams Titans did - to meet the challenge of a common goal. This goes for Republicans and for our state as a whole. You can read much more about my background, my wife Helen, and my campaign on my website, at: www.cameronsbrown.com.

Q&A with Sen. Ron Jelinek (R-Three Oaks, 21st District)

State Senator Ron Jelinek has represented the 21st District in the Michigan Senate for the past six years. He is the current chairman of the Appropriations Committee and therefore is in the middle of the budget cut discussions of recent days. He graciously consented to answer some questions I posed to him about his work in the Senate.

1) As chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, you currently have the uneviable task of helping to determine what areas of the state budget will see cuts. What areas of the budget do you think should be first in line for cuts? Why? What areas of the budget, if any, should not be cut, and why?

Sen. Jelinek: As I write this, we are in the process of coming to agreement in our caucus of what our budget priorities are. That does not mean they won’t be cut, but the reduction may be less at the expense of other programs that feel larger reductions or total elimination. We have agreed that health, safety and education need to be preserved as much as possible. We do need to look at specific program spending however, and not just general categories. For example: We should try to preserve the basic foundation per-pupil grant, but individual programs such as bus inspections or some early childhood programs may need to be eliminated or reduced.

2) Why did you choose to give up six days of your Senate pay?

Sen. Jelinek: I gave up 6 days pay because we required it of all state employees as a budget balancing tool. I am no different, I should participate. My 6 days alone will not make very much of a difference, but added to the other state employees and legislators, it does make a difference. I would much rather give up some days than see layoffs.

3) After your term ends in 2010, how do you anticipate remaining involved in Michigan politics?

Sen. Jelinek: I am not sure of my future; I will try to make myself available to my party and its candidates in anyway I can serve them best.

4) Looking back over your time in the legislature, of what achievements are you the most pleased?

Sen. Jelinek: No one can say that they accomplished things alone – it takes an entire legislature. I have tried to personally speak for education and its funding to the best levels possible. I have also tried to maintain a balanced budget with common sense and recognize the wishes and needs of the people of this state. Also, everyday I am contacted by a constituent who has a personal dilemma that is of great importance to them. If I can help solve their problem satisfactorily, I consider that to be my greatest achievement.

The "Americans With No Abilities Act"

My brother sent me the following via e-mail; it is both funny and realistic-sounding. My commendations to the anonymous author.

The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA)

Washington , DC - (Dateline May 11, 2009)

President Barack Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress are considering sweeping legislation that will provide new benefits for many Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition.

"Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society," said California Senator Barbara Boxer - Democrat. "We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability (POI) to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they work hard and have some idea of what they are doing."

In a Capitol Hill press conference, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi – Democrat, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid – Democrat - pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack any job skills, making this agency the single largest U.S. employer of Persons of Inability. At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has an excellent record of hiring Persons of Inability (63%). Labor unions are another great example of getting Persons of Inability into the work force.

Under AWNAA, more than 25 million mid-level positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance and improving their self-esteem. Mandatory non-performance-based raises, promotions and awards will be given so as to guarantee upward mobility and recognition for even the most unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability into middle-management positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.

Finally, the AWNAA contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as, "Do you have any skills or experience that relate to this job?" "As a Non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them," said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, Michigan, due to her inability to remember rightey-tightey, lefty-loosey. "This new law should be real good for people like me," Gertz added. With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Said Senator Dick Durbin (Democrat-IL), "As one of many senators with no abilities, I believe the same privileges that many elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her inadequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation and a good salary for doing so."

New Democrat Specter Loses Committee Seniority

New Democrat Specter Loses Committee Seniority - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis

So in addition to investigating that "Share This" tool on Foxnews.com, I wanted to mention that Arlen Specter made a mistake at yet another level: Assuming that his friends the Democrats would let him retain his committee seniority. They did not!

Moral of the story: Never, ever trust the Democrats in Congress. They don't even treat their own very well.

Specter Shows His True Colors

Sen. Arlen Specter, former Republican of PA, has finally decided to come out and identify himself for what he is: A Democrat. He is not a conservative; he is not principled. He sided with the president on the stimulus bill in February, which was the final straw for many of us (and I don't even live in PA anymore).

Specter has claimed to be independent. In a statement today, he said, "My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans."

Specter is an unprincipled liberal who has stood against conservative principles for years. Good riddance. I look forward to blogging about Sen. Toomey in 2011.

Sen. Arlen Specter is...

There are several ways to complete that sentence, after I heard Sen. Specter interviewed on Sean Hannity's radio show on my way home yesterday. I was appalled at the senator's incoherent and bumbling remarks at times. Perhaps he may have had difficulty with his phone reception, but even so, I have come to expect better answers to questions from my 9-year-old.

Here are some adjectives streaming from my brain in the aftermath of the interview. Sen. Specter is...

...incoherent. Anyone who follows politics knows that politicians frequently evade direct answers to tough questions—but there's a difference between smooth evasion and disjointed wandering away from a question. The unkind would accuse him of senility.

...foolish. Does he really believe what he's saying? Does he really think this bill will help the economy? He did not even do a good job of faking wisdom.

...wrong. Flat out wrong. History will judge him harshly for this; contemporaries will not be favorable, either.

...embarassing. To the great state of Pennsylvania, that is. And to the GOP, for that matter.

If Sen. Specter casts his vote for this so-called stimulus bill, he should be expelled from the Republican Party. (The same goes for the two ladies from Maine. These three were RINO, anyway.) This would send the kind of message the GOP needs to send to America—We Are No Longer The Party of Huge and Wasteful Spending.

Is Caroline Kennedy "Qualified" to be a Senator?

Let us get to the point: What, exactly, are the qualifications to be a United States Senator?

According to the U.S. Constitution, a senator must be at least 30 years old, a citizen for at least nine years, and live in the state the senator represents. So, according to that august document, she is qualified to serve in the United States Senate.

There are other important factors, however, that speak to the qualifications of an individual for government/legislative service. Let us consider some of these:

• Integrity. A legislator should be an honest person both in personal and public dealings.
• Understanding of place. A legislator should recognize the parameters and limitations of the office. He or she should strive to work within those parameters while...
• A spirit of service. A legislator must realize that he/she serves the people whom he/she represents. A legislator must not treat the position as one with which to benefit self (See: Blagojevich, Rod). Within the parameters of the office, service to constituents should be strong and prompt.
  
• Philosophy and worldview. A legislator should demonstrate a philosophy and worldview that is compatible with the United States Constitution and the legislator's state constitution. In general, a legislator should view government as a necessary evil, to be kept minimal in size while able to perform its essential duties.
  
• Knowledge of government. A legislator must educate himself concerning the mechanisms, history, and current affairs of government.
• Ability to cooperate. A legislator is one of many; it behooves each to learn to deal with both allies and opponents.

Then there are other so-called "qualifications" which are not necessarily consistent with the above:

• Ability to raise money, or the ability and desire to spend one's own money.
• Political connections.
• Name recognition.
• Favor from people in high places.

Caroline Kennedy therefore stacks up as follows:

• She meets the Constitutional requirements.
• She meets the list of other so-called qualifications.
• I have my questions, though, about the first list. Is she truly dedicated to the service of the people of New York (this would be a good question to ask re: the resigning N.Y. senator)? Will she strive to stay within the parameters of constitutional government, or seek to continue its expansion into areas never intended by the Constitution? As a democrat, is her philosophy and worldview consistent with the Constitution? How well will she work with members of both parties to do constructive political work?

I am not a New Yorker anymore, but if I were, I would want to know the answers to these questions. And quite frankly, if Caroline Kennedy demonstrates a commitment to small, constitutional government that maximizes the freedoms of the people (in other words, what republicans are supposed to be doing), and is willing to work with other senators and the president to that end, I have no problem with her becoming the next senator from N.Y. I would say the same thing about any other candidate who will be chosen.

And just for the record, Gov. Paterson, if you want to nominate me to take Hillary's place, I will move to N.Y. in a heartbeat.

Kudos for Hoogendyk!

Evidently I went on vacation in time to miss this story.

Jack Hoogendyk is a Republican state representative from the district just to the east of mine. I have met him and like him. He and I share highly similar political viewpoints. We also apparently share a tendency to "tell it like it is." The story copied below is from the Kalamazoo Gazette of December 21 (click here), although I first read it on The Western Right (WMU College Republicans blog—click here).

And if he runs, as I hope he does, he can expect my vote...and it won't cost him a penny.

If Jack runs for Senate, it will be on the cheap (by Charlotte Channing, 12/21/07)

Dick DeVos spent millions of dollars of his own money, outspent his opponent, Gov. Jennifer Granholm, and still lost the governor's race in a landslide last year.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been far outspending opponent Mike Huckabee in advance of the Iowa caucuses, and guess what: Huckabee is leading Romney.

None of this is lost on Jack Hoogendyk, the Republican state representative who is considering seeking the GOP nomination to run against U.S. Sen. Carl Levin next year.

So when a conservative political consulting firm, Maurice Bonamigo and Associates, earlier this week made a pitch to Hoogendyk, offering its services to his campaign, it explained via e-mail how he would need to go out of state to raise enough money to challenge Levin, get on the top national political programs and gather a "strong management team that will be capable of handling ALL aspects necessary for a successful campaign.''

Hoogendyk, true to his direct nature, responded in an e-mail: "I have NO interest in a bunch of high-paid consultants who are going to drain me of valuable and limited resources. I don't want a bunch of 'experts' telling me what to say, how to say it, or when to say it. ... I will not be 'handled.' ... I am Dutch, cheap, and my wife is even cheaper. I cannot stand wasting money, especially on high-priced out-of-towners who think they can snow me into thinking they are going to make me a winner by throwing my money away.''

You'd think Bonamigo -- who is listed as having a home in Portage and told the Kalamazoo Gazette that he is a constituent of Hoogendyk's -- would be aware of the state rep's blunt nature, but apparently he was a little taken aback by Hoogendyk's response.

Bonamigo senior political consultant Darrel Zeck blasted off this response to Hoogendyk via e-mail: "Since it would take about $20 million for you to have a CHANCE at unseating Levin, I would step away before you waste people's hard-earned money. Based on your lack of understanding of this process, and your complete inability to professionally respond to an e-mail, you may want to consider not running (again) for public office at all.''

Hoogendyk is undeterred by this welcome into statewide campaigning.

And he's adamant he won't go into debt for this campaign.

"It's a reflection on the candidate,'' he said. "If a candidate goes into debt on his campaign, what is he going to do'' with taxpayers' money once in office?

More on the very, very bad immigration bill...

The Senate apparently killed the immigration bill, once and for all, today. In so doing, they have evidently observed that the will of the American people was against it. And this time, most American people were right.

Each of us would be wise to observe how our own senators voted on the bill. I have included a link here, so that you can quickly determine how your own two senators voted. Feel free to thank them or rebuke them for their votes.

A detailed look at the roster will note that 12 Republicans left wisdom behind and voted Yea, while 15 Democrats found some and voted Nay. The two independents (i.e., closet Democrats) in Congress split their votes (Lieberman of CT voting Yea; Sanders of VT voting Nay), and Sen. Johnson (D-SD) remains away for health reasons.

The very, very bad immigration bill before the Senate

This week the United States Senate continues to debate an immigration bill that is very contrary to the wishes of most ordinary, law-abiding Americans. In part, it will either explicitly or practically give amnesty to a very large number of illegal immigrants—people whose very arrival here constituted a violation of our laws. The consequences of such a law are very troubling, especially where social welfare and voting issues are concerned...not to mention terrorism. Has it occurred to any of the bill's supporters in the Senate that they may be granting amnesty to people who could potentially want to murder large numbers of us?

I am especially annoyed by the fact that our national government, in the over 5½ years since 9/11, has essentially failed to make any decent attempt to control who enters our country legally, except perhaps via airports. And we all know that the terrorists will try to enter the country via airports (probably even using their real names). Then there are the budgetary reasons: Do illegal immigrants contribute more financially to our states, counties, and cities then they sap financially from them? I very much doubt it.

But the fact is still the fact: Illegal immigration is illegal, and the federal government needs to deal with it—wisely, not foolishly. I read a good article (read the full text here) on the subject from Newt Gingrich; here is a summary of some of what he wrote (with my commentary blended in, too):

• Control the border! Build fences, hire more Border Patrol (and give them authority to do their jobs aggressively), use technology—whatever! Just do it!
• Get serious! Go after the companies that continue to "hire" illegal immigrants, and punish them to the fullest extent of the law...and then toughen the law.
• If an illegal immigrant commits a crime, immediately deport him. Period.
• Make English the official language. Legal immigrants should have some sort of way to learn the language, of course; but in order to get to vote, immigrants must pass a test in U.S. History in English.
• Improve the temporary guest worker and visa programs that we have, and check on those whose visas expire.
• Yes, some of the illegals who are here are working and obeying our laws and taking care of their families. And, yes, they should be allowed on the path of citizenship. But in order to properly obey and respect our laws, they should have to return to their country and file their paperwork—as we would want their countrymen to do.

I would also add that America needs to be extremely careful about immigration from Muslim countries. Islam is not a religion that is compatible with American ideals, and despite the politically correct drumbeat of multiculturalism, the truth is that more Islam here does not make our country a better place. And, of course, most of the potential terrorists in our country are Islamic. (When was the last time a Canadian tried to blow us up?)