Archive for February, 2009

“Government can do something for the people only in proportion as it can do something to the people.” — Thomas Jefferson

Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner nailed it when he declared “the era of Big Government is Back.”

I happen to know Boehner’s communications director, Michael Steel (no, not that Michael Steele – notice the extra “e” on the RNC Chairman’s name).  I actually know him very, very well.  Not only is he the former press secretary for Congressman John Shadegg, we shared a hotel room at the Holiday Inn Express in Muskogee, OK for two months back in 2004 when we were working together on Dr. Tom Coburn’s U.S. Senate campaign.  You don’t get better than Mike Steel when it comes to messaging.

“From everything I’ve seen, it looks like the era of big government spending is back,” he told reporters at a lunch convened by the Christian Science Monitor. “My question to my Democratic friends is how are you going to pay for it?”

…

Boehner also laid down a hard line Republicans plan to take on any Democratic health care or insurance-coverage proposal.

“I think government running the biggest health care company in the world is preposterous,” he said.

Music to my ears.

Governors will have to make some tough choices that Congress and Obama have forced upon them through policy changes in the stimulus bill.   At least one Democrat Governor is seriously considering not taking the federal money, because of the strings that are attached.

For most Governors, it’s too much of an enticement as they struggle to deal with massive budget deficits.  In Arizona Governor Brewer’s case, she faces the largest shortfall as a percentage of the total budget in the nation – no state has it as bad as Arizona.

That’s the legacy of Janet Napolitano.  The inheritance she left her successor was a two-year shortfall of nearly $5 billion.  That is an absolutely staggering sum.

So, it’s not likely that Brewer will join Governors like Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Mark Sanford of South Carolina, or Haley Barbour of Mississippi.

But there is an important reason why Brewer will likely take the money – the obligations for Arizona are actually less severe than other states.  Jindal, Sanford and Barbour are reticent to take the federal money because they will have to make changes to unemployment laws and state health care laws to satisfy the desire Democrats in the House and Senate have for “government-creep,” that is, the requirement that states expand the scope of government services  to more and more people.

In an ironic twist, Napolitano had already broadened the scope of government so much that Arizona can take the money without fundamentally changing current law.

My point is this.  Brewer taking the money is not a sign of retreating on principle as compared to other Governors who don’t take the money.  It just demonstrates, yet one more time, the enduring legacy of a big-government liberal who tried to masquerade as a “moderate” and happened to be named Janet.

The WSJ has a great editorial today about the Senate moving to add two seats to the U.S. House.  The bill to give D.C. a Member of Congress and to give Utah a Member of Congress passed a cloture vote yesterday.  The five Republicans who joined bill sponsor Orrin Hatch (R-UT) were Sens. Cochran (MS), Collins (ME), Lugar (IN), Murkowski (AK), Snowe (ME), Specter (PA), Voinovich (OH).

For me, the surprises were Murkowski and Cochran and Lugar.  I’ve given up on the ladies from Maine and Specter from PA. I do believe that this will become known as Hatch’s Folly.

Here is the conclusion of the editorial:

More important, the legislation runs afoul of the plain language of the Constitution, which provides that House members shall be chosen “by the People of the several States” and stipulates that the District of Columbia is not a state.

In 1960, Congress proposed a Constitutional amendment giving residents of the capital the right to vote for President. The 23rd Amendment was ratified the following year. The District already sends a nonvoting delegate to the House, but if Congress wishes to grant it full representation, it should do so by amending, not ignoring, the Constitution.

It was a great speech, from the stand point of delivery, timing and cadence.  And it was flat out terrible in substance.  More on that later.

I need to get this off my chest, as a former Congressional staffer that has seen 20-some State of the Union speeches (I know, I know, this wasn’t a SOTU, but it may as well have been – most people couldn’t tell the difference), and a few in person, it drives me absolutely nuts to see Members of the House and Senate line up along the aisle to get a chance to shake the President’s hand, and more importantly, be seen by the folks back home.  I know a little about the job of a Congressman, and I think it is a total and utter waste of time for grown men and women, with important responsibility, to go to the floor of the House hours and hours beforehand and sit on the aisle for their chance to get their mug on TV.  Blah! 

By the way, what was up with Pelosi’s horrendous puke green outfit?  Good grief, you are going to be seen by tens of millions of people for more than an hour and you wear that?!?

Do you think there is any specific reason that White House Chief of Staff sat next to Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano?

Ok, back to text.  Great delivery.  The Democrats in Congress were a little over-anxious with the applause. A standing ovation for Obama saying “nobody messes with Joe”? Really?  I suppose they were really, really excited to have a Democrat talking to them, so I won’t hold it against them.

I am really starting to tire of the phrase, “while the cost of action will be great, the cost of inaction will be far greater.”  I just don’t see how inaction could actually cost more than the $3 trillion+ that action will cost.

Obama seemed a little defensive about “helping banks”.  He must be hearing from some of his left-wing base about that and the polling must not look good (yes they poll EVERYTHING)  “It’s not about helping banks about helping people.”

Obama was also very, very good at blaming Bush without sounding whiney.  Phrases like, “it reflects the stark reality of what we have inherited… a trillion dollar deficit, a financial crisis and a costly recession.”

The discussion of energy, health care and education were a little sparse on specifics, but lots of lofty rhetoric.  One line that gave me a chill up and down my spine (and not in a good way) was:

So let there be no doubt: health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year.

That scares me.  Because when Obama says health care reform, he means government-run, government-managed health care.  Fewer choices, rationed care, less quality of life.  Please, Mr. President, we really CAN wait for that, we prefer to wait – at least for my lifetime.

I was stunned by this line:

I’m proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities.

Do you really think you can get away with such a demonstrably false claim, Mr. President?

The speech ended very well with a nicely written last paragraph:

And if we do – if we come together and lift this nation from the depths of this crisis; if we put our people back to work and restart the engine of our prosperity; if we confront without fear the challenges of our time and summon that enduring spirit of an America that does not quit, then someday years from now our children can tell their children that this was the time when we performed, in the words that are carved into this very chamber, “something worthy to be remembered.”

That is as close to Reagan as Obama got.  Not bad.

A highlight was Sen. Jon Kyl on the Fox News affiliates calling into question Obama’s claim about the “inherited deficit.”  He had a chart and everything – I had a flashback to Ross Perot – and it made me proud he was on message, willing to tell the truth.

If you missed Jindal’s response, read it, it is superbly written.  But he doesn’t have quite the speaking ability of the President.

The Republic ran a very interesting piece by Andrew Weil, M.D., and Rustum Roy, Ph.D writing that Arizona can be at the forefront of integrative health care. 

What struck me is that the message is perfect for those of us deeply concerned about the march toward socialized health care, and the unavoidable “one-size-fits-all” approach to treatment that will result.

Our health is about as personal as anything can get.  Everyone reacts to treatments in different ways, however drastic or subtle those differences are.

I’m not the kind of person that goes to the doctor much.  I have been to my doctor exactly twice in that last 8 years.  Now, I’m not the model of good health, I have plenty of bad eating habits and, before the beginning of the year, my exercise regime consisted of going and standing on a softball field for an hour once a week. (I’m doing much better with exercise lately.)

Although I don’t “consume” health care much, I am acutely aware of the challenges of health care, and the treatment of individuals.  My wife went for more than 10 years not knowing why she always felt like she needed to sleep, even right after getting up and why she had so many strange aches and pains.  After dozens of doctor visits and innumerable tests, she finally got a tip from her sister to be tested for Celiac disease.  Sure enough, she was off the charts.  Literally within a week of changing her diet and taking all wheat and wheat products out of the mix, she was feeling substantially better, with more energy. 

The point is that with medical advances and better understanding about human physiology the natural trend for advancement in medical care is increasingly holistic and personal, and that is very different than the direction policy makers are taking us as they try to push us all into a government-run, government-controlled health care system.

Educate yourself about your health and your unique needs.  Ask your doctor specific questions, because your questions will help your doctor learn more about what your body is doing under certain circumstances, which only makes his or her care that much more effective.  By doing learning more about your own, personal health, you’ll learn that you and your doctor are better prepared to make important decisions about your health than some bureaucrat.  It will motivate you to resist the government takeover of health care. 

Your life may depend on it.

“This Constitution…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ..Laws…to the Contrary notwithstanding… Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers…shall be bound by Oath…to support this Constitution….” –U.S. Constitution 

For years there has been an effort to give the District of Columbia actual voting representation in the U.S. Congress.  They don’t, because the Constitution is clear in Article 1 Section 2:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

The problem for supporters of D.C. getting a seat in Congress is that D.C. is not a state.

However, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah and Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut have a bill that is slated to go to the Senate floor this week.

“I think the votes are there. I think it’s going to pass the Senate,” said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), who is sponsoring the bill with Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.).

The trade-off for Republicans in giving the Democrats what will be a sure seat in Congress is that Utah receives an additional seat in Congress as well.  So Hatch and Lieberman are asking Members of the House and Senate to ignore the Constitution to add two seats to the U.S. House.

It’s clearly unconstitutional, and every Member of t he House and Senate should think back to the oath that they made “to uphold the Constitution.”  This is legislation that deserves to be defeated.

Representative Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) penned a “My Turn” for the Arizona Republic justifying her vote for the stimulus bill.  As I read it, I couldn’t help but think that her mentality about the role of government is one which must not be allowed to permeate younger generations or we will be destined to a permanent welfare state and a complete entitlement mentality.

She writes: 

The hard-working men and women I represent want action – they want their federal government to do what is necessary to create jobs, help small businesses and lay the groundwork for long-term prosperity.

Any right-thinking (not philosophically right, but correct) individual doesn’t want the federal government to “create jobs and help small business.”  It’s not the role of government to “create jobs” – that’s the role of free enterprise.  The best help the government could give small business is to get out of the way.

Yes, some of you are saying to yourselves, “Noble is just a throwback to the right-wing nuts who hate government.”  You’re entitled to your opinion, but just because people mock those of us who care about the proper role of government, doesn’t make government intervention any less destructive.

When it cost a restaurant owner a $90,000 fee just to get plans approved by a city, after spending a small fortune on designing it to comply with a multitude of federal regulations, it creates less and less incentive for businesses to expand, create more jobs, inject more capital into the economy and make our communities better places to live.

We can’t have economic growth unless we have businesses that produce something.  Government doesn’t produce anything that helps the economy. In fact, it largely produces things (laws and regulations) that hurt our economy.

Giffords goes on to write:

Standing by and doing nothing is not an option as retirement accounts dwindle, families lose health care and venerable American companies file for bankruptcy protection… This is not a time for partisan politics or sitting on the sidelines.

This is a cheap shot at Republicans who opposed the Democrat package.  No Republican in the House or the Senate argued that we should do nothing.  In fact, the only bi-partisan vote on a stimulus bill in the House was one submitted by Republicans that relied on tax reductions to help spur business investment.  That garnered some Democrat support.  Giffords tries to paint Republicans as do-nothing obstructionists who acted completely partisan, when it was the Democrats who refused to let Republicans in the room when the stimulus package was being negotiated.

Giffords may be using the typical Democrat talking points to justify her vote, but come 2010 she’s going to have to have answers to why this stimulus bill hasn’t worked.

“Should I keep back my opinions through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason toward my country and an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.”  –Patrick Henry