You hear a lot of talk these days about the Senate being broken because nothing can get passed with a majority vote.  Everything has to get sixty votes to pass and that’s just un-American.  Is it? 

The House of Representatives

The Founding Fathers were brilliant in designing the government that has survived longer than any other, and it wasn’t an accident.  The House of Representatives was designed to be the branch of government closest to the people.  The members come from districts that are sized based on population.  It is also in the House of Representatives that all revenue bills (i.e., tax increases) must originate.  The Senate cannot create legislation to raise taxes. 

The Senate

 The Senate was designed with a different purpose in mind.  In the form of federalism that they created, the Senate was supposed to represent the individual states.  Originally Senators were appointed by the state legislatures and this continued until the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, which provided for the direct election of Senators by the people.  The Senate was designed to be a check on the tyranny of the majority.  In the House, populous states like New York, California, Texas and Florida, have a lot of representation.  To prevent a handful of states from pushing around everyone else, representation in the Senate is the same for Rhode Island as it is for California, two each.  In the House, California trumps Rhode Island.  In the Senate they do not.  Are you picking up the theme?

 The Dreaded Filibuster

Being able to filibuster in the Senate is another way of allowing cooler heads to prevail.  If legislation before the Senate cannot win over some reasonable number of Senators, then it’s probably not a very good idea for the country.

 As proof that things are more partisan today, pundits point to how the number of filibusters has greatly increased over time. 

 In the entire 19th century, including the struggle against slavery, fewer than two dozen filibusters were mounted. 

 It is reported that things really took off during the Clinton administration.  Hmm, what else was going on then… Hillary Care?  We have also seen the out of control growth of the federal government’s involvement in almost every aspect of our lives, such as, how much we can be paid, how much a bushel of wheat should cost, how schools are funded; none of which is in the Constitution as powers the federal government should have.  Those are all things that, according to the 10^th Amendment, are the purview of the states or the people.

 The Filibuster Fix

So if you don’t like the way the Senate is bogged down, instead of taking the brakes off the car, how about dumping the junk in the trunk?  The less minutia the federal government gets involved in (let’s start with health care), the less reason, reasonable Senators will have to filibuster.

“The Obama administration’s $75 billion program to protect homeowners from foreclosure has been widely pronounced a disappointment, and some economists and real estate experts now contend it has done more harm than good.” – New York Times, January 2, 2010

“The Treasury Department publicly maintains that its program is on track. “The program is meeting its intended goal of providing immediate relief to homeowners across the country,” a department spokeswoman, Meg Reilly, wrote in an e-mail message.” — same article, NYT

Hot on the heels of Janet Napolitano’s performance at the Department of Homeland Security, that things worked just swell and then, er, no it was a catastrophic failure, we have another example of this administration’s ineptitude.  Let’s not let the marketplace work by flushing out the bad loans, have banks face up to the reality of their bad lending decisions, allow housing prices to reach a market level, all in a reasonably short time, no, let’s get another massive, taxpayer funded program in place to gum up the works and drag this out for years. 

A Habit of Ignoring History

In 1929 Hoover mishandled the economy in a similar way bringing in the leaders of major industries and jawboning them to keep up production even in the face of falling demand so that jobs would not be lost.  The businesses went along until that policy hit their financial statements in the form of plunging profitability.  Stock prices fell sharply and more disasterous policies followed, first by Hoover and more by Roosevelt.

In 1920-21 there was a very steep and serious recession.  However, companies cut wages and government didn’t interfere.

“The annual unemployment rate peaked at 11.7 percent in 1921, but it had fallen to 6.7 percent by the following year, and was down to an incredible 2.4 percent by 1923,” Murphy writes. “That is how a market with flexible wages and prices quickly corrects itself after a Fed-induced inflationary boom.”

Roosevelt’s policies followed Hoovers’ with more and more government interference.  Throughout the Great Depression the programs didn’t work, government grew tremendously leaving us saddled with that legacy.  On the other hand Reagan in the 1980s pursued a policy of cutting taxes and shrinking government.  Roosevelt needed World War II to end the Great Depression, Reagan ushered in 25 years of unprecedented economic growth.  Which one does Obama choose to follow?  That’s right, Roosevelt.  Brilliant!

Inexperience on Full Display

President Obama rides into town with no executive experience, but with wondrous rhetorical skills and a hard left agenda.  He jams through a stimulus package that doesn’t stimulate.  His security policy is to undo everything that worked under Bush to keep us safe.  One of the first things Janet Napolitano does is  release a report saying that the real threat is from our returning military that might become right wing zealots,  Meanwhile Islamic terrorists, correct that, isolated extremists, continue to plot to kill us.  Now the New York Times points out that the Emperor’s mortgage program, Making Home Affordable, has no clothes.

“Whatever the merits of its plans, the administration has clearly failed to reverse the foreclosure crisis.” — NYT

When asked by a Congressional Oversight Panel what the administration was going to do in the face of this lasting not a year or two but for many years into the future, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said:

“What to do about it,” he said. “That’s a hard thing.” — NYT

Sounds like the seeds of another government program to fix the other government program.  Just like FDR did all through the 1930s.  Trying to stop the market with government programs is like trying to stop the tides.  You may divert it and you may end up with water in places you didn’t want it, but you are not going to stop it.

Who doesn’t love a freebie?  Who does not get a thrill of good fortune by finding money in the street, no matter how insignificant the amount?  We may not believe in the Tooth Fairy, but many of us believe we have a rich benevolent uncle, Uncle Sam, who is willing to lavish upon us his wealth if only we would ask.  The sad truth is that Uncle Sam is not rich, but penniless and is running a ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff blush.

Health Care for $20

One of the major reasons that health care costs are rising out of control is that no one is minding the store.  While Washington twists itself in knots to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic of health care, we have little to no say in how our health care dollars are spent.  Our health care “insurance” system is not really insurance.  Insurance is meant to protect us from a financial catastrophe.  Going to the doctor for a checkup is not a catastrophe.  Paying a $20 co-pay for that checkup is like finding money on the street.  There is no way anyone can get a physical exam, except by a hooker, for $20.  It is a good idea to get a physical checkup every year?  Yes, then pay the bill and ask what you are paying for and make sure you need it.  You take your car in for service don’t you?  Do you file an insurance claim when you do?  Can you get it done for $20.  Let’s get real.  What we have is called third party payer and when someone else is picking up the tab, do we care what it costs?  Really?  But someone is picking up the tab.  Look in your other pocket, because you are.  If you are generally healthy and you get your annual checkup, your insurance premium (here in New York at least) will probably run around $10,000 per year.  But, hey, you only paid $20 for that physical!  What if you paid the full amount for the physical, say, $500.  What if your insurance premium was cut to $5,000 because you would pay most routine medical costs out of your pocket and what if you could put the $4,500 left over ($10,000 original premium, minus $5,000 current premium, minus $500 cost of checkup), into a tax free account that can be used for future medical expenses or retirement if you don’t use it?  If you are a young person and stay healthy into your mid-40s, you would have accumulated over $90,000 in your medical savings account and you still have catastrophic insurance coverage and the government stays out of the picture.

Retirement for Free

Like many well intentioned Government programs, Social Security, enacted during the Great Depression, seemed like a good idea at the time.  When enacted there was about 15 workers paying in for each recipient drawing out.  Today there are about a little over 3 workers paying in for each beneficiary.  Bernie Madoff would blush at the audacity of it.  On top of that the money that is paid into Social Security can only be “invested” in Treasury Securities so the return is lousy, but safe.  People reacted to Social Security by saving less because the government safety net was there.  Had people been encouraged to save for their own retirement, they would not be leaving their children this legacy of a ticking time bomb.  So today, many young people feel the government’s hand in their pocket when they look at the FICA line on their pay stub, but don’t believe they will ever get a penny back.  Nice concept.

Bring Home the Bacon!

What’s the measure of a good Congressman or Senator?  Bringing home pork for the district, no?  If you are like me, you get flyers every year or several times per year, touting how Congresswoman Jones obtained federal funding for that pier at the amusement park.  With 435 Congressmen you can count on this, for each $1 that your Representative brings home $434 leaves the Treasury for each of the other Congressional districts and probably more, depending on the power and seniority of your Representative.  Guess who’s paying for that Turtle Crossing in Florida?  that bridge to nowhere in Alaska? that airport in Johnstown, PA that no one uses?  That’s right, you are.  What if we decided locally if we really needed a pier at the amusement park, and if we did, pay for it ourselves?  Then we could let the people of Florida decide if they want to build a turtle crossing, the people of Alaska decide if they wanted a bridge to nowhere and the people of Pennsylvania decide if they wanted an airport that no one used.  Then we could cut federal taxes by an equal amount to keep them out of mischief and help us pay for these projects if we really wanted them.

Let’s Get Organized

There was a time in our history where labor unions performed a valuable service.  In those times when many industrial jobs were unskilled or semi-skilled, employers could dismiss someone on a whim and replace them within the hour.  Unions gave those workers some counterbalancing power and fairer treatment.  Today, we have a much more sophisticated economy and workers have more skills and mobility.  Union membership has declined accordingly, in the private sector at least.  Why is union membership still growing in the public sector?  What is different about workers in the public sector that they still need unions?  Are we suggesting that all government workers are unskilled?  Why do teachers need a union?  Are they not skilled such that they could sell their services to the highest bidder?  Why do unions fight merit pay for teachers?  Why are school principals, the de facto CEO of the school and who in New York easily make six figures, unionized?  Do you get an idea why our K-12 public school system is trailing the world in performance?

In Michigan, privately owned small businesses that provided day-care services suddenly discovered that they were part of a union and union dues were being withheld from their government contractual payments.

Ms. Berry owns her own business—yet the Michigan Department of Human Services claims she is a government employee and union member. The agency thus withholds union dues from the child-care subsidies it sends to her on behalf of her low-income clients. Those dues are funneled to a public-employee union that claims to represent her. The situation is crazy—and it’s happening elsewhere in the country.

Ms. Berry, runs “The Berry Patch” a private day care center she operates from her home catering to low income clients.  The money that was once paid to her, now goes to a union that does little for her.  She is “self employed and wants nothing to do with the union.”  Don’t you think we need more of these tactics in America?  Card Check anyone?

Going Postal

And let’s not forget the Postal Service.  As postal rates are again scheduled to increase on January 4, let’s look at this paragon of efficiency, that is actually authorized by the Constitution.  In 2008, the Postal Service lost $3 billion, and the Postmaster General John Potter pulled down $800,000 in compensation including $135,000 in incentive bonuses.  What do we have to pay this guy if he actually breaks even?  Also, let us not forget this is also a very heavily unionized operation.

Don’t Worry, You Won’t Feel a Thing

During World War II, FDR needed to raise more revenue to pay for the war.  Fearing a backlash, his team hit upon the idea of payroll withholding.  Knowing the potential backlash that would result when taxpayers had to write that big check on April 15th, he rightly figured that if he took a little bit each week, he could take a lot more in total.  Statists in Washington have never looked back.  It’s like the tax that was imposed on telephone service to pay for the Spanish American War that is still in place today.  Instead of picking our pockets every week, what do you think most Americans would say about the size of the federal government if they had to write one big check on April 15th?  There would be no tax rebates, because there would be no tax withheld.  Do you think Americans would force Congress to sharpen their pencils and scale back the size of government?

Help is On the Way

Ronald Reagan said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help!’”  But perhaps the best example of how far from our founding principles our government has strayed comes from Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut as she spoke during a House End of Year Wrap Up Session:

“This House–we understand, we’re there,” she said.  “You can count on us because we believe that it’s our moral responsibility to make sure that you and your family need our help.” 

I don’t know about you, but I don’t need the House of Representatives making sure I need their help.  I need as little interference as possible from them.  Their meddlesome intrusions in our lives is killing what made this country great.  It is a point we cannot make often enough.

If I asked you a simple question, what government organization works well, what would you say?  Let’s take a look at two government organizations and compare their effectiveness and motivation.

The Military

Whether you support our troops on the battlefield or want them to always stay home in their barracks, most Americans will say the military does a pretty good job.  Why? That is, why are they effective, not just why do people think so?  Well, they put a lot of investment in training and technology.  They seem to have solved the problem of integration, being based on merit rather than racial prejudice.  These are all important things, but I don’ t they get to the core of the issue.  The key question is, what happens if they don’t do their job?  They die…they die, the guy beside them dies, their buddies die, and depending on the size of the conflict, their families and country may eventually die.  With that kind of motivation, race is not even secondary.  If the guy next to me has got my back and I have his, I don’t care what color he or she is.  We do it right, we live;  we don’t, we die.

The K-12 Teacher

K-12 education comes under fire in this country, and rightly so, for failing to produce an educated workforce.  In New York, for example we spend over $14,000 per student, per year on education, far above the national average of around $9,000.  Are students in New York 50% smarter than the country in general?  Hardly.  Is the nation as a whole turning out well educated students?  Sadly, no.

Our K-12 public schools are a government run monopoly.  So what happens to a K-12 teacher if they fail to do their job?  If they have been in the job long enough to get tenure, nothing.  They will get a raise like everyone else.  So what motivates them to turn out outstanding students?  I’ll wait.

Let me be clear that I don’t want to lump all teachers together.  They are many teachers who, by having what  I suppose is a strong moral streak,  do a great job because they want to teach.  Okay, so let’s look at the teaching profession where there is a group that does their best because they get satisfaction from doing a good job.  Now, some studies come out that say the way to improve results is smaller classroom size.  The teacher’s unions get behind it and eventually push it through.  So what does that mean?  If you cut the size of the class in half, you double the number of classes.  If you double the number of classes, you have to double the number of teachers and thus have to go deeper into the labor pool to find them.  Before you took this step, we can probably assume that all the self-motivated teachers were already on the job.  So the additional teachers are motivated by what?

Co -conspirators

That brings us back to the teacher’s unions.  When government’s come under pressure to cut educational expenses, the airwaves are soon flooded with the heart wrenching commercials pleading to restore the funding “for the children’s sake.”  What you don’t hear is the trailer that says, “This commercial paid for by the PTA,” or “This commercial paid for by the Association of Concerned Parents.”  No, what you typically hear is, “This commercial paid for by the X Teacher’s union, Joe Blow, President.”

Who do the unions really represent…really? The students? or the teachers?  They want the funds restored so that their membership is not hurt and their dues are not curtailed.  If their true concern was for the students, why not support school vouchers and charter schools?  They fight the former with a vengeance and the latter, if it is not union organized.

Let’s Not Pick on K-12 Education

Let’s look at other government areas.  Government is the only area where union membership is growing.  How many people relish going to their Department of Motor Vehicles?  How efficient is the Post Office?  Amtrak?  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have a bonus compensation plan, which is a step in the right direction unless it leads to cooking the books and making extremely risky loans that lead to the near collapse of our economy.  How can we get this under control?

Controlling the Uncontrollable

Our government is trying to install a massive health care program that will cost a trillion dollars.  At the same time, tens of billions of dollars are stolen from Medicare every year and they can’t stop it.  Early this year, the Obama Administration passed a $787 billion stimulus package, spent $18 million to build a website to track it, and put Joe Biden in the role of watch dog.  How is that working out?  A recent report from ABC News, of all places, found that credit for creating jobs was given on the web site to Congressional Districts that do not exist.  A $1,000 grant was purported to have created 50 jobs.  The New York Times investigated and found that the $1,000 went to purchase a lawn mower.  It took from the time of the founding of the Republic until about the mid 1990s to accumulate $6 trillion in debt.  It has doubled since then, and it is projected to go from $12 trillion to $14 trillion by next year!

It cannot be controlled.  It is impossible to control.  The only solution is to cut the federal government down to size.  Take out the Constitution and read what the true function of government are supposed to be.  The military, absolutely;  the Post Office, yes it’s in there; coin money; establish patents and copyrights; establish the courts; control the District of Columbia; regulate interstate commerce; make treaties; give the State of the Union address.  That pretty much sums it up and everything else should be left to the states and local government or the people.

We should jettison all the rest and cut this government down to size and get out of debt.  Department of Labor–gone;  Department of Health and Human Services–gone; Deparment of Housing and Urban Development–gone; Deparment of Transportation–gone; Deparment of Energy–gone; Deparment of Education–gone; Deparment of Veterans Affairs–gone, rolled into the Department of Defense;  Deparment of Homeland Security–gone, rolled into the Department of Defense; Deparment of the Interior–gone; Deparment of Agriculture–gone.

The amount of money saved would be enormous.  Selling all the real estate and buildings would bring in more money.  We could then cut taxes to jump start the economy and run a surplus to cut the debt.  The next step would be to make it illegal for unions to organize government workers without a referendum approved by all the voters.  Side benefits would be less campaign money because there would be less government to influence.  Government would be more accountable to the people because it would be closer to the people, that is, at the state level or local level.  We can do this proactively, or wait until the government is bankrupt and we have to sell off the parts to the Chinese.

There is panic in the ranks of the left this Halloween.  In today’s Times, Frank Rich, does his level best to whistle past the graveyard, but the fear is clear.  He astonishingly titles his piece, “The G.O.P. Stalinists Invade Upstate New York.”  I guess they feel the Hitler moniker has lost its zest, so the leftists resort to calling those on the right, Stalinists.  Their disorientation could not be more palpable.

What has them in such a tizzy?  It centers around the special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District.  The local Republican party bosses chose a candidate, Dede Scozzafava, who would never be mistaken as a conservative, although Mr. Rich actually called her, “a mainstream conservative by New York standards.”  That’s like saying David Letterman is chaste by liberal standards, as if these things are measured on a relative scale.  But that’s the way liberals and statists think.  If your neighbor is more promiscuous than you, then you must be celebate.  If you want to make Nancy Pelosi a moderate, move her to Cuba.

Ground Shift

What has Mr. Rich and his cohorts nervously clearing their throats, is that the uprising against the entrenched statists, led by the Tea Parties, actually delivered results.   Ms. Scozzafava is pro-abortion, pro-same-sex marriage, pro-Obama stimulus package, pro-card check to make it easier to form a union without a secret ballot election, and supported by ACORN.  This is what Mr. Rich calls a conservative, “by New York standards.”  What sticks in his craw is that the election was a win-win, for him and his friends.  Elect the Republican or the Democrat and it doesn’t matter much, they both hold the same basic views.  Then along came Doug Hoffman.

Doug Hoffman threw his hat in the ring on the Conservative Party line.  By this Saturday, with support pouring in all across the country from true conservatives, Hoffman was in a dead heat with the conservative and the Republican Scozzafava was fading fast.  So she decided to suspend her campaign, and Mr. Rich and company hit the panic button.

So how does Mr. Rich frame his argument?  Well he starts by saying Hoffman has no grasp of local issues.  Uh, the position is United States Congressman, not city alderman.  He well understands the issues at the national level and how the policies of the Obama Administration are bankrupting the country.  Those policies will negatively affect the people in his district.  But leave it to Mr. Rich to scoff at Hoffman, because he doesn’t know how much pork barrel spending the district needs. A true patriotic Congressman, like John Murtha, finds a way to build an airport in the district that nobody uses and hands the bill to people in other districts like, well, New York’s 23rd.  He’s going to Washington to fight those who are bleeding the Treasury dry.  So Mr. Rich fights that by calling Fort Drum, home to the U.S. Army’s 10th Mountain Division, a “pork-dependent military base.”  Hmmm…the last time I read my copy of the Constitution, it specifically required providing for the national defense.  I couldn’t find in my copy where it required building airports no one needed so that John Murtha could get re-elected in perpetuity.  I understand it is a fine distinction, but I would have thought someone employed by the New York Times would be able to make it.

Frank Rich’s Happy Talk

Mr. Rich oddly calls the developments in New York as good news.  With a recent Gallup Poll, showing that for every self-described liberal there are two self-described conservatives, Mr. Rich says the ideologues that brought about the events in New York’s 23rd, may then start picking off other conservatives and destroy the party.  Does he mean conservatives like Arlen Spector, Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, Charlie Crist, oh my!  With 73% of GOP voters saying that Congressional Republicans have lost touch with their base, this is not good news for Mr. Rich and company.  What he believes is that a small cabal of conservatives will put unelectiable candidates on the ballot that voters will reject and the Democrats will gleefully reap the rewards.  In reality, the GOP leadership has for too long put weak candidates on the ballot that Democrats easily beat because the Republican base cannot get excited about them.  McCain is a war hero and worthy of our admiration, but just look at his signature legislation:  McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy.  He was not a conservative on many fronts. 

Nixon was a conservative, Ford was not.  Reagan was a conservative, Bush 41 was not and  Dole was not.  George W. started more conservative than not, but then drifted to become a big spender.  McCain was not a conservative.  Do you see a pattern here?  Conservative Republicans win.

With Obama’s approval rating going down in a virtual straight line, Mr. Rich confidently proclaims that the only politician Obama has to fear is Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan.  By all means, Mr. Rich, you keep telling your pals that.

Can anyone offer us a deal to give us cash if replace our Congressional Clunkers?  How about the health insurance companies?  They’d probably kick in, since they are Congress’ new whipping boy.  Oil companies, coal companies?  They get bashed everytime Congress screws up and bans nuclear power, offshore drilling, ANWR, and coal as the price of oil climbs.  Banks who didn’t take TARP money?  Well Congress wants to set their salaries now.

Congressional Mileage

How much liberty per dollar are we getting for the money guzzling Congressmen and Senators who pull down $169,300 per year (more for committee chairs, and Speaker Pelosi who weighs in at $217,400)?  And this doesn’t begin to count their expense budgets, gold plated health care, etc.  I’m sure we could get much better mileage from a smaller government and a Congress that only meets half a year.  I’m willing to bet that the longer Congress stays in session the more trouble they get us into, while consolidating their power and feathering their own nests.

Here’s the Plan

Let’s set up a fund.  We’ll let Goldman Sachs run it, as they seem to know how to turn a buck. Anyone can contribute to the fund, no limits. For every Congressman who voted for the Stimulus, Cap and Trade, and the Health Care disaster and is run out of office, the fund will pay out a percentage of the fund to everyone who registered and voted.  The percentage will be calculated as the percentage of these clunkers who are retired out of Congress.

Think about it.  If you are a voter who really, really believes that the Stimulus, Cap and Trade, and the government takeover of our health care system is a good thing, you will vote to re-elect the members of Congress who voted the same way.  However if you don’t, then perhaps you need a little personal stimulus to cross party lines, or set aside ideology, and vote the bums out.  It might even help improve voter turnout.  And why not?  If ACORN get get illegal aliens and dead people to vote for their candidates, we need a way to fight back.

What do you think?

In an op-ed piece in the New York Times, entitled, “What You Might Not Know About the Recovery,” that might more appropriately be entitled, “What I Don’t Know About the Recovery,” Joe Biden educates us on the stimulus.  It’s typical after the fact political obfuscation to try to convince people that they are not really seeing what they see with their own two eyes.

He begins in typical fashion going back to when he and Barack Obama took office, but avoids mentioning President Bush by name:

We still have a long way to go, but clearly we are closer to recovery today than we were in January.

This is a true statement, but I would argue that this is in spite of the $787 billion of our money squandered on the stimulus plan, while Mr. Biden says it is because of it.  It is instructive to see how someone begins their defense of an issue and Mr. Biden begins by saying that not all of our $787 billion is being spend on pork barrel projects.

Notwithstanding this progress, the nature of the Recovery Act remains misunderstood by many, and misconstrued by others: critics have suggested that the entire $787 billion is being spent on pet programs. As the person leading the administration’s efforts to put the Recovery Act into effect, I want to set the record straight.

He takes up the position that the statists typically do, that we are too stupid to understand.  This is complex stuff, America, way over your head.  You need us in the political class to take care of this for you.  Notice he didn’t say there was no pork barrel spending.  He says that not the entire $787 billion is being spent on pet projects. (Don’t forget the $30 million for Nancy Pelosi’s salt marsh harvest mouse).  Feel better?

Tax Cuts?

He says the single largest part of the recovery act is tax cuts, more than one third.  Huh?  Does he mean the $8 per week in lower payroll taxes?  That’s going to stimulate the economy?  At the same time they are finding trillions, TRILLIONS, in new taxes and spending through Cap and Trade, Heath Care reform, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, that will dwarf the paltry $8 per week that people are probably saving, rather than spending, if they even notice it at all.

Transfer Payments

The second larget chunk, Mr. Biden tells us, is for transfer payments.  In other words, money from the federal government given to state and local governments. Where do all governments get their money from?  Us.  So taking our money in federal taxes and giving it to state and local governments helps us exactly how?  Don’t forget the portion of each dollar that gets lost along the way as each bureaucracy handles it.

What are these transfer payments going to be used for?  Uncle Joe tells us:

The money is allowing state governments to avoid laying off teachers (14,000 in New York City alone), firefighters and police officers and preventing states’ budget gaps from growing wider.

The dictionary defines recovery as returning to health, consciousness, etc.  This part of the stimulus does nothing to stimulate the economy.  It’s another one of the Obama administration’s wonderful fictions about saving jobs.  As the economy continues to shed jobs even above the level that the Obama administration told us it would go without the stimulus Biden boasts that they saved the jobs of government workers; union workers; Democratic voters.  Also it helps bloated state governments that have mismanaged their finances from having to make fiscally responsible decisions but keeping them fat, dumb, and happy.  By the way, which states seems to be in the most financial trouble?  California, New York, New Jersey, Michagan?  Aren’t those all “blue” states?  So is the Obama adminsitration helping America or helping themselves?

On Track?

Mr. Biden says that we are on track and that 25% of the funds have been committed.  What exactly does that mean, committed?  If you go to Recovery.gov, you will see that as of this week, only 8.5% of the money has actually been spent.  Give Mr. Biden a calculator, please.  With the three chunks that the Vice President says comprise the stimulus: tax cuts, transfer payments, and infrastructure projects, and that signs of recovery are due to the stimulus, how can the stimulus have that kind of affect when only 8.5% of the money has been spent?

The Resiliency of the American Economy

The American economy is the envy of the world.  It is resilient beyond description.  It is recovering on its own, despite government interference, and the government meddling that caused this recession.  The American people are no longer being fooled by the smooth talking Barack and Joe Show.  A Rasmussen poll shows that only 25% of the American people believe that the stimulus has helped the economy.  If that’s not bad enough 31% say that the stimulus has actually hurt the economy.  On top of that 45% say the rest of the stimulus should be cancelled.

The Stupid American People

With 92% of the stimulus yet to be spent 9% more Americans say cancel the rest than say to keep going.  So Mr. Biden grabs the op-ed page of the New York Times to, sigh, lecture the American people once again on how they misunderstand, and misconstrue what your benevolant, socialist leaning government is trying to do for you.  How ungrateful can you be?  If you people don’t get it, then the president and vice president will just have to take over the rest of the economy and set you all straight.  They will tell you how much you can earn, what cars to buy, what food to eat, what kind of light bulbs to put in your house, control how much energy you can use in your house through the smart grid, what medical treatment you can have, and when you have to die.

The Sleeping Giant Awakes

The American people have been charmed by Barack Obama as he is a very charming man.  He is an historic president.  But they are starting to notice the tea parties, the abdication of the main stream media to do their job, the warnings about what is happening to their country and they are starting to pay attention.  The more they see and hear the more Obama’s approval ratings drop.  So he pushes harder and faster.  It will be a close race to see if President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can ram through their agenda and slam the door behind them, or if we can wrestle back control of our liberties and send these people packing.

It’s time to brush off the Constitution, read the 10th amendment, and start stripping the federal government back down to the size the founders envisioned.  That will give more power to the states and the people and make government more accountable.  Face it, when your Congressman represents several hundred thousand constituents and their voice is only one of 435 in the House of Representatives, is it any wonder that the founders gave them only the powers spelled out in the Constitution.  They believed that effective government has to be responsive to the people.  That is impossible in Washington.  It is too big.  It is run by too many unelected career bureaucrats.  It has too much power to tax us, regulate us, spend our tax dollars on things to which we are morally opposed, and interfere with our liberties.

This is a critical time in our history and time to roll back the unrelenting growth of government and shrink it down to size.

The Constitution in the Hands of Activist Judges

President Barack Obama has made his first nomination to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor.  She has a great American personal story, not quite as great as Clarence Thomas, but a great one nonetheless.  Here is what Barack Obama said about Clarence Thomas and Justice Scalia.

“I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas,” said the presumptive Democratic nominee. “I don’t think that he…” the crowd interrupted with applause. “I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the constitution. I would not have nominated Justice Scalia though I don’t think there is any doubt about his intellectual brilliance. Because he and I just disagree. — Barack Obama with Rick Warren

Much of the ballyhoo over Judge Sotomayor has been about her background.  No one, I repeat, no one has a more compelling story than Clarence Thomas, but when he was up for nomination, the ad hominem attacks were disgraceful.  Barack Obama doesn’t think Clarence Thomas is a strong enough jurist?  You may disagree with Clarence Thomas’ beliefs but remember the context of the question from Rick Warren.  Warren asked who on the Supreme Court Obama would not have nominated and out of the nine justices, he picked Thomas.  So Obama thinks Souter has a greater legal mind than Thomas? Or was Obama trying to score a twofer?  He can bash a conservative to score points on the left, while showing he is not a knee jerk Affirmative Action type by singling out the black guy, so he can score points with independents.  Let’s be clear, Obama rarely makes a public statement that is not calculated for effect.

President Obama is now trying to get his first nominee confirmed and to do so is pointing to the tradition that President’s should generally get who they want, unless there is a serious problem with the nominee.  However, while in the Senate, he had a different view as shown during the confirmation of Samual Alito.  Obama voted to fillibuster that nomination.

“As we all know, there’s been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process. There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.

I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record.” — Barack Obama speech on why he was voting against Samual Alito.

With the nomination of John Roberts, Senator Obama clearly stakes out a position favoring judicial activism.  He said that in 95% of the cases following the Constitution is fine.  The other 5% of the time judges should feel free to re-write the constitution.

“The problem I face — a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts — is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases — what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”  — Barack Obama’s speech on why he was voting against John Roberts

Okay, so show me where Ruth Bader Ginsburg has voted with Antonin Scalia 95% of the time.  If you take what Obama says at face value, if they followed the Constitution 95% of the time, Ginsburg and Scalia would vote the same way.  Since Scalia plainly says his philosophy follows “original intent”, that is, adhering to the Constitution as written, Obama must be admitting that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a judicial activist since she rarely agrees with Scalia.

“A lot has been made about the Supreme Court and my criteria,” Obama said in a 20-minute speech to 250 of the night’s biggest donors. “I want people who have a common touch, who have a sense of what it’s like to struggle.”

He praised Sotomayor because she knows that “every once in a while, people need a hand up.” — Barack Obama speaking on why Sonia Sotomayor should be nominated to the Supreme Court

In this statement about Sotomayor, he confirms what he really believes that personal prejudices, and by that I mean “pre-judging”, are an essential element for a judge.  He believes the Constitution plays a role, but where the outcome is not pleasant, by all means re-write the Constitution to give you the outcome you want.  But once again Obama flip-flops:

“There are, of course, some in Washington who are attempting to draw old battle lines and playing the usual political games, pulling a few comments out of context to paint a distorted picture of Judge Sotomayor’s record. But I am confident that these efforts will fail; because Judge Sotomayor’s seventeen-year record on the bench – hundreds of judicial decisions that every American can read for him or herself – speak far louder than any attack; her record makes clear that she is fair, unbiased, and dedicated to the rule of law.” — Barack Obama’s weekly radio address.

First, I want to point to the Obama straw man, “some in Washington,” without naming who those some are.  So, here he says she is “fair, unbiased, and dedicated to the rule of law.”  Well, which one is it?  Biased, to swing those 5% of the cases that need a better outcome, or dedicated to the rule of law.

Teaching Moment

Judge Sotomayor’s nomination will probably be confirmed.  What conservatives must do is refrain from the name calling, any ad hominem attacks, and focus on whether or not she is a judicial activist or not.  The questioning should be respectful but unwavering.  Most Americans are opposed to activist judges.  The American people should be clearly informed that Justice Sotomayor is just that.  But if the long knives come out to damage her, that message will be lost, as will a valuable issue to use in the next election.  When adhering to conservative principles 60% of the American people are with us.  When we put up wishy washy candidates to appeal to groups, the Democratic playbook, we get slaughtered every time.

But while state legislatures for decades have passed laws — and provided millions of dollars — to cap the size of classes, some academic researchers and education leaders say that small reductions in the number of students in a room often have little effect on their performance.  — New York Times, Feb. 22, 2009

Well shut my mouth!  School taxes have been growing at an extraordinary rate and at the same time a high school graduate comes in for a job interview who cannot even put together a comprehensible sentence.  We created a federal Department of Education that since it’s inception has spent over $1.3 trillion dollars, with improvements in education that are marginal at best.

What happened?

This has not been an effort to improve education.  If you cut the size of the class in half, you have to double the number of teachers.  This has been a jobs program for the teacher’s union and the Democrats have wholly supported it because the teacher’s unions are in the Democratic camp.  Once again we have our government conspiring to empower themselves at the expense of the American people.

When I went to K-12 school, my classroom was typically 28-33 students.  My friends who went to Catholic school had some classes that numbered 50 students in a class.  I learned, they learned.  You would think that cutting class sizes in half would double academic performance or better.  If not, why on earth would you do it?  Why would you spend twice as much on teachers, since compensation is typically 80% of a school’s budget, if you were only going to get a 10% improvement in performance?  If that is the extent of the return, you would probably look elsewhere such as in techniques or methods.

The Collapse of Disipline and the Supremacy of Self Esteem

I submit the reason for the lack of educational performance is lack of discipline.  If a teacher can’t control their classroom, no one learns.  The marginal improvement in performance with reduced class size is not because they are a significantly better learning environment, but because you have reduced the teacher’s span of control.  Why can a class of 50 students in Catholic School still learn?  Because when the nun snapped her finger, everyone came to attention.  Everyone wore uniforms.  Everyone paid tuition.  If you got out of line, the nuns would put you back in line, pronto.  If the nuns weren’t able to put you back in line, either your parents would or you would get bounced out of school. With a 50% drop out rate in the City of New York, John Cardinal O’Connor asked the mayor of New York to give him the bottom 10% of the students in the New York City school system and he would educate them.  The mayor declined.

The other half of the problem is the focus on making sure everyone always feels good about themselves.  When my daughter was three years old she got a trophy for playing soccer, not for outstanding performance, but just for playing.  The trophy was almost as tall as she was.  I asked, “What do they get if they actually achieve something?  A car?”.  I played Little League baseball because I loved baseball.  When I got a paper certificate it was for making the All Star team or the World Series.

Today, in a relatively affluent school district I see about a dozen yellow jacketed security guards when I go to my children’s school.  We never had security guards at our school and I grew up in a less affluent district.  “Well, you can never tell, you know, with Columbine and everything.”  People talk about Columbine and say it’s because of those kids had access to guns.  Well kids have had access to guns since the Mayflower.  Why did it take until 1999 for Columbine to occur?  I believe it is because we are raising a generation of kids with eggshell egos.  If you tap them they crack.  That’s probably what happened to Klebold and Harris.  They didn’t know how to take a hit to the ego and bounce back.  They probably were never told, “Sorry, kid, you want the trophy you actually have to achieve something.”  Life’s little failures build character.  As Friedrich Nietzsche said, “That which does not kill us makes us stronger.”  But if mommy and daddy are always jumping in to make sure little Johnny never has a bad day, look out.

Low Cost Way to Improve Education

1. Ditch the smaller class sizes.  The marginal improvement is not worth the cost.  Hire fewer teachers and lower school taxes.
2. Re-institute discipline in classes.  Teachers shouldn’t be afraid of students.  Have the student’s wear uniforms, if the half-naked girls, and the boys walking with their pants around their knees are a distraction.
3. Stop pampering the students.  To get a prize you actually have to achieve something.  That way you won’t have a mental breakdown the first time someone says no to you.
4. You are not entitled to a “B” grade for showing up.  The teachers don’t give out grades, the student earn them.
5. Close the Department of Education and put $1.3 trillion back into the economy in the form of lower taxes

We tried it their way for almost thirty years.  Why not give this approach a try for 30 years.  Oh, wait, we did try this for 360 years and it worked before we lurched off toward focusing on keeping Democrats in power rather than educating our children.

The scene was rather startling, an elderly woman holding a cross in her hand peacefully demonstrating for Proposition 8 in Palm Springs, California and some miscreant viciously slaps it out of her hand.

At another venue in the Castro district of San Francisco a group of evangelicals were peacefully gathered on the street praying and making themselves available to anyone who wanted speak to him.  One young lady’s bible was stolen and when she asked that it be returned, her request was met with kicking and punching. Nice. So much for the city of tolerance.

So what we are hearing now, which is a formula we have seen before, is if you lose at the ballot box pick up your marbles and head off to find a activist judge who will discover within an evolved Constitution, the fundamental right that everyone missed for the last two hundred plus years and declare the will of the people null and void.

What’s This Really All About?

Here is the actual text of Proposition 8 (leaving out the legalese regarding where it fits in the California Constitution to just get to the meat of it):

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

That’s it.  If you landed here from another planet you would probably wonder what’s going on?  If you are a foreign visitor and see this on the news you would probably think we had lost our minds.  Who would propose a constitutional amendment to define what any idiot knows to be true?  What should we look for next?  A constitutional amendment that defines the world as round?  The sky blue?  The grass green?

But this is not about rights. It is not about tolerance. It is not about fairness.  It is about mainstreaming.  It is about a definition. It starts by tearing down a definition that has existed for several millennia, the definition of marriage.

Once that definition is altered, then terms like husband and wife lose their meaning.  After all, if you are talking about the marriage of Jim and Joe, who is the wife?  If you are talking about the marriage of Jane and Mary, who is the husband?  If husband and wife lose their meaning, then what will soon follow is that it will become politically incorrect to use those terms at all.  Any instance of husband and wife will have to be stricken first from any public documents then eventually from all documents.  In the end we will all just be spouses or significant others or some other bland descriptor.

The reason, in my humble opinion, why the battle lines have been so starkly drawn and the fighting is getting so fierce and will continue to do so, is because this is not about adding to the rights of gays.  It is about taking away how the majority of Americans define themselves.  They just don’t see it as an equivalency.

If you took three islands and put all the heterosexuals on one island, all the gay men on another and all the gay women on the third and came back in 100 years, only one of those three islands would be populated.  So how does A=B=C?

What Was the Point of Marriage in the First Place?

Marriage and the laws that eventually gave it protection and encouraged it were for the purpose of bringing children into the world.  A man and a woman would come together, make a commitment to be bound to each other, to be responsible for each other and in that family unit bring children into the world and provide for their protection, care, and upbringing.  It was survival, not only for that family, but for the community as a whole.

Are there exceptions to the rule?  Yes.  There are couples who for biological or other reasons cannot have children and there are couples who do not want children.  For the former group adoption has been an alternative.  In the case of homosexuals, the rule is the exception.  They cannot have children without adoption or by involving a third party.  So again, how is that the equivalent of marriage?

It’s Not About Rights

Prior to 1920, women were not allowed to vote.  But with courageous leaders like Susan B. Anthony they fought for those rights and won them through the legislative process and by amendment to the Constitution.  They didn’t seek out an activist judge to redefine the term “male” to mean both men and women.

In the 1947 movie, “Gentleman’s Agreement,” the character portrayed by Gregory Peck poses as a Jew to write about the discrimination against Jews in America.  What was the solution?  Did Jews find an activist judge who would redefine them as Episcopalians?  Can you imagine them making that case?

“So, Mr. Levine,” the judge asked, “you want to become an Episcopalian?  Then why don’t you just become one?  Why are you here?”

“No, your honor, I’m perfectly happy being a Jew. I don’t want to become an Episcopalian; I just want to be called an Episcopalian.”

“Let me get this straight.  You want to continue to be a Jew, worship like a Jew and live the life of a Jew, you just want to be called an Episcopalian?”

“Right.”

” Why?”

“Life would be so much easier.”

The battle surrounding Proposition 8 is a similar one, gays don’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex in the traditional definition marriage, they just want to be defined the same way.

What Does Sex Have To Do With It?

I think that most Americans are open to the idea that the rights that gays are seeking, such as the right to share and inherit property, the right to visit a sick partner in the hospital, the right to make decisions on the part of a partner that currently go to the next of kin, should be allowed.  But taking it a step further, why should it be limited to those who have sexual relations?

Let’s take a hypothetical case of Felix and Oscar.  Felix and Oscar are heterosexual men.  They are getting on in years, both in their early eighties.  They fought together in WWII.  Their wives are both deceased.  They are not physically attracted to each other.  However, they both feel that at this stage in their lives they would like to look out for each other like they did on the beaches of Normandy and the Ardennes forest.  They want to buy and share a house together, pooling their resources, and look after each others health, and leave whatever financial assets they have to the surviving partner.  Their families, though distant, have no problem with this arrangement.  Why couldn’t these two gentlemen have the same rights that gays are seeking?  Do gays seek a special class that only includes those who are sexually intimate?  Why shouldn’t Felix and Oscar have the same rights?

Stick to the Rights Issue

If gay advocates stick to the rights issue and be inclusive such that any two people, who want to be legally bound and committed, can have the right to share, look after, and care for each other, these rights that gays are seeking would probably be granted quickly.  But if the objective is to tear down something that has existed for several thousand years in order to forcefully mainstream a way of life, then they had better be ready for a battle.  Time and again gays are asking straights to be understanding, to be fair and to be compassionate.  Perhaps it’s time to turn the tables where gays should be understanding, fair and considerate and leave marriage well enough alone.

Most fair minded Americans will support individual rights and oppose discrimination.  But if their way of life, which is not discriminatory, comes under attack you can expect them to battle back.  Marriage is not discriminatory.  It is a loving bound between a husband and a wife.