Guest blog: Imminent Rebellion: The New Fort Sumter

August 6, 2010 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note:  This is a continuation of a strand of guest blog articles about the growing schism between the states and the federal government written by guest blogger James Williamson, an Ohio native and current Alaska resident.  Here’s a link to the first of his articles, “Imminent Rebellion: States vs the Federal Government.”  His prior post, “Imminent Rebellion:  The Tar Pit,” left loose ends that are wrapped up in what is written below. As you may recall, Fort Sumter, South Carolina, is where our nation’s Civil War began, back in the 1860’s.  Will the the friction between states and the federal government reach a breaking point?  Will there be a new Fort Sumter?  The focal issue of this post is illegal immigration.

Imminent Rebellion: The New Fort Sumter

At the end of “Imminent Rebellion: The Tar Pit,” we reviewed the sticky situation which immigrants and employers find themselves trapped in.  This is largely because of the inadequacy of current immigration laws and the shortcomings of enforcement  (i.e. weakness of I-9 requirements).  As time goes on and more and more employers become dependent upon immigrants to maintain their workforce they find themselves in a very precarious position.  They can crackdown and lose a large part of their labor force or they can ignore the problem and stay profitable.  The latest stage of the awkward predicament of unauthorized labor is a very sneaky one.  Employers faced with the huge liability of hiring unauthorized workers are less and less willing to hire anyone they suspect does not have work authorization for fear of immigration raids, and perhaps even more damaging, bad publicity.

I work in the construction industry, and the drywall contractors were the first to figure out that there was a way around the law:  Don’t pay W-2 wages. Pay 1099 wages. There is (as far as I know) no requirement to verify work authorization for a subcontractor or consultant.  These are considered independent business entities and are responsible for their own verification of work authorization and the payment of taxes. Simply put, hire them as self-employed contract workers and let them worry about employment eligibility and payroll taxes.  So the drywall industry started paying by the sheet of drywall hung and/or finished.  Officially, on their accounting, they will show dozens or hundreds of subcontractors generally consisting of a single worker. Sometimes, though, subcontractors with multiple workers will surface where the owner doesn’t have work authorization either.  Since the drywall industry began this new and improved technique it has since spread to many other trades and is being practiced by larger and larger companies who are more and more desperate in an ever more competitive market.

The irony of this situation is that this new arrangement actually is a revenue killer for the government.  When it was easy to get a W-2 wage, most aliens didn’t file tax returns for fear of being caught (although some of the more brazen ones would anyway and file many more dependents than they really had).  Now those same aliens are not filing on their 1099’s for the same reason.  Since there isn’t any withholding on a 1099, the government gets less revenue that they are not likely to ever recover.
Think of the pre-Civil War south, when plantation owners practiced slavery.  There are some parallels that are striking.  We now have a division among the states (and cities) on the question of immigration much like we did on the question of slavery.  States and cities that profit from the current situation favor leniency and in some cases amnesty.  Note the reaction of Los Angeles to the recently enacted Arizona law, for example.  States and cities that do not profit from large populations of unauthorized alien workers are generally on the other side of the argument calling for stricter laws and the “abolition”, if you will, of such employment practices and securing the border.  The reasons for ending illegal immigration and slavery are quite different but the end result is the same:  Tension exists between the states and the federal government that is fueled by economic pressures.  For the deep south, the slaves kept the cotton machine going, and consequently kept the southern political influence alive until the resolution of the Civil War.  For states like California, New York, and Texas, immigrants dominate the service, construction, and agriculture industries.

John C. Calhoun, in his final address to the U.S. Senate in 1860, argued that it was not slavery but the imbalance of power that caused the tension between the states.  It was the north imposing its will upon the south by reason of it’s population growth.  Growth increased the representation in congress and economic influence over the country.   He argued that to preserve the union, the balance of power would need to be restored or the south would be forced to separate to protect its interests from what was perceived as a hostile north.  This, of course, was on the eve of the Civil War, and with the election of Abraham Lincoln, who was viewed by the south to be a threat to the status quo, the south began to take their exit.  Now we have the opposite situation with the federal government favoring the status quo by doing nothing, but again the end result is the same:  There are many unhappy states that view the federal government as a problem, not a solution.

Congressman and senators are reluctant to take any real action.  After all, if you are a congressman or senator with a large population of illegal immigrants in your district, what greater boon can you have than a large portion of your constituency that can’t vote?  More power + less accountability = a politician’s dream.  Business owners who rely on illegal immigrant labor are reluctant to push for legislative change because they don’t want to see large portions of their workforce disappear.  Since business is still the largest source of cash for the political machine there is double the reason for politicians to do nothing.  This appears to be a nice arrangement: Talk about change but don’t actually deliver the change, while campaign money keeps flowing, and then repeat, with more talk about reform, do nothing, etc.  There is only one problem with the model though:  State politicians don’t get any of the benefit from this arrangement since they don’t regulate immigration but they have to deal with the problems it creates.  Hence Arizona Senate Bill 1070, its aftermath, and the new political Fort Sumter…

Posted in National Politics. Tags: . 11 Comments »

My take on the Christian Science Monitor op/ed by Michael Spencer on “The Coming Evangelical Collapse”

August 6, 2010 — buckeyerino

This is my second consecutive blog post on the topic of religious tolerance, and it’s a topic I’ve touched on before, in this post at great length, and tangentially in this post, this post, this post, and this post.  Those four latter posts were chiefly about Rev. Wright, and how silly I thought it was to tie Obama to Rev. Wright.  I still think it was silliness.  In thirty years time, probably much less, the story of the interaction between religion and politics will be dominated by much weightier matters, and Rev. Wright won’t even be a blip on the radar screen.  In fact, we’ll probably yearn for the day when Rev. Wright was the top story, as a recollection of the good old days.

There’s a reason I’m harping on this topic.  I sense grave trouble ahead for the First Amendment’s freedom of religion.  If the religious tolerance doesn’t improve, at some future date, we could be living in a very different America where the government is very hostile toward religion.  If it reaches that point, then, in my mind, America will cease to be America.

But before I elaborate further, I want to draw your attention to an editorial that I saw two or three days ago in the Christian Science Monitor, but apparently it was written much earlier at a blog titled Internet Monk.  Written by a Christian named Michael Spencer, it was titled “The Coming Evangelical Collapse.”  Seeing the editorial this week I thought was very timely, considering some other headlines this week in relation to Federal courts.  The editorial is displayed across three pages on the CSM website, and I recommend clicking the link and reading at least to the top of the second page.

I’m sure you’ve seen the evangelical Christian mega-churches, emblematic of the charismatic movement that feature dancing and clapping to Christian rock music played on drums, electronic keyboards, and electric guitars, with sermons derived just as much from poetry and song lyrics as they are from the scriptures.  Maybe you even attend such a church.  The modern charismatic movement within Christianity was an adaptation mostly designed to bring younger generations in contact with the churches.  It was thought that without such adaptations, the Christian congregations would dwindle away to nearly nothing as church members aged and passed away with none of the rising generation taking their places in the pews.

The charismatic style of worship is not what I prefer, myself.  I prefer the more traditional services, with hymns accompanied by a piano or organ, and sermons that delve into scripture.  But I’m not writing this blog piece to find fault with the evangelical movement in a wish that worship returns to a more traditional format.  Quite the opposite.  I’m concerned that the evangelical charismatic movement might be decimated.

Spencer’s op/ed discusses some of the vulnerabilities of the charismatic format of worship, particularly the vulnerabilities of parishioners who are not so informed about the doctrines recorded in the Bible.

The strength of the charismatic movement is fellowship, a sense of belonging, of knowing that your fellow parishioners deeply love and care about you, and another strength is the simple sermons that communicate the message “God loves you.”  Indeed, God does love us–it’s the most important message a Christian church ought to convey–and fellowship was one of the purposes in forming churches in the first place.

Michael Spencer points out that enduring discipleship requires deeper doctrinal roots, and that can be more challenging to foster in the charismatic format of worship.  Touting conservative political values can ring hollow without deeper understandings of doctrine.  The perceived bond between evangelical Christianity and political conservatism means that evangelical Christianity will have the same ire directed at it as is directed at conservatism.  When that ire bears down with full force upon the parishioners of the evangelical ministries, significant numbers of them will not be sufficiently prepared to withstand it.  Jesus Christ told a parable of a sower and seed.  The seeds that could get no depth of root, though they sprouted quickly, were eventually scorched by the mid-day sun.

So, in my mind, religious tolerance practiced by all Americans would allow these ministries to continue to flourish, and I hope such is the case.  So I have been harping on the principle of religious tolerance.  All faiths, including non-Christian faiths, stand to benefit.

There you have it.  I’ve explained myself.  I’ve explained my motive.

But I believe Michael Spencer is not mistaken.  I see the writing on the wall.  On our current trajectory, I believe, as he does, that:

“Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.”

Michael Spencer goes on to predict what the fallout will look like, what elements of Christianity are likely to survive the onslaught, and what principles to follow that will likely bring about Christian revitalization.  I differ somewhat on what the fallout will look like, but I don’t wish to dwell on it too much.

Instead, I have something to say concerning the agents of hostility against Christianity.  Spencer does not identify who these agents of intolerance will be, nor does he identify the path by which the government becomes hostile to Christianity.

A prominent headline in the mainstream media this week has been the ruling by a Federal district court that California’s Proposition 8 identifying marriage as a union between a man and a woman is unconstitutional.  I’ve been keeping a wary eye on this. Our Constitution begins with “We the People,” yet a vote of the people has been overturned by this ruling.  Each state determines its own marriage laws, but the federal judiciary is now co-opting the states’ prerogatives.  I don’t agree that such a case should ever have been heard in a federal court, in the first place.  There already are murmurings that some states may eventually rebel against the federal government, but, as we see, on virtually every front and virtually every issue, the federal government seems intent on widening the rift.

I don’t take solace in the fact that this ruling is being appealed.  I’ll explain why.

The other big headline in the mainstream media this week is that Elena Kagan, though unqualified, has been confirmed as the newest Supreme Court justice.  This is emblematic of a larger trend.  Part of the agenda of the Obama Administration in filling federal court vacancies is to stack the deck in favor of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual) community.  The Kagan appointment fits this agenda, and her Senate confirmation shows just how easy it will be for the Obama Administration to continue this agenda in filling federal court vacancies at every level.

But that’s not all.  I’ve looked around at several states that elect judges.  Often times in such states, like Ohio, the party affiliation of the judicial candidates is not listed on the ballot, yet we know that there is a Democrat slate of candidates and a Republican slate of candidates.  This year, there appears to be yet another slate of candidates.  There is a slate of LGBT-endorsed candidates.  In a number of races, the LGBT has tapped a candidate from the Democrat or Republican slate to also appear on their slate.  But in those cases where that is not the case, the LGBT is fielding their own candidate.

Among those three-way races, or more-way races, where the LGBT has fielded their own candidate, I’ve witnessed some crafty campaign advertising, wherein the campaign message is couched in Tea Party Movement terms.  In such cases the LGBT advertisement highlights the campaign contributors of the partisan slate candidates, and cites it as evidence that the partisan candidates are agenda-driven, prone to legislating from the bench to serve the interests of campaign contributors.  Thus, the LGBT candidate is positioned as the candidate who will uphold the Constitution, not an activist who will pursue the agendas driven by campaign contributors.  Clearly, this mimics Tea Party Movement communications.

If you want an example of such a campaign to research on your own, I invite you to look into the campaign of a candidate for Supreme Court justice in the state of Washington named Charlie Wiggins who is competing against Bryan Chushcoff and Richard B. Sanders in a top-two primary election slated for August 17.  The top two candidates will proceed to a run-off in the November general election.

It’s set in motion already.  The first dominoes have fallen in these two headlines of this week.  The LGBT community will fashion the government to their liking through the courts, at federal and state levels, bypassing legislatures, and clearly bypassing votes of the people.

This is the path by which the government becomes hostile toward Christianity.

Religion has been made the scapegoat in prior losses the LGBT suffered in vote after vote of the people.  As I have pointed out, there are secular arguments that even an atheist can make against same-sex marriage, so scapegoating religion is disingenuous, but it serves the purpose of the LGBT community, so they continue to do so.

But Christianity can withstand hostile governments.  If the opposition that evangelical Christianity were to face were merely hostile governments, then I would not be in agreement with Michael Spencer’s editorial.

I predict, however, that after the LGBT community has toppled the last domino in their quest for the government to embrace their agenda, the LGBT community will still not be done with the work they want to do.  They will turn their attention on any church that considers homosexuality a sin, and they will harass such churches.

Thus the LGBT community will be the foremost agents of the persecution that evangelical Christianity will face, and I don’t share Spencer’s view that the Roman Catholic church will add significantly to its numbers during the onslaught in light of who, in my opinion, will be the agents of Christian oppression, but I do share his view that a great many Christian parishioners won’t withstand such opposition.

When that fever pitch is reached, we shall see the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion discarded.  Violent civil strife may even ensue.

Religious tolerance practiced by all Americans would prevent such events from unfolding.  It is apparent to me, however, that the LGBT community will only tolerate the denominations that align themselves with the standards of political correctness set forth by the LGBT community.

If you are reading this, you may be thinking to yourself that you are reading the absurd paranoid ramblings of a raving lunatic.  I invite you to read this again in thirty years time to match it against what has actually transpired by then.

Posted in National Politics, Politics in the MSM. Tags: , . 3 Comments »

WSJ op/ed on religion: Ground Zero mosque

August 5, 2010 — buckeyerino

Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote this opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal titled “Liberal Piety and the Memory of 9/11,” which clarifies some of the reasoning behind opposition to the planned construction of a mosque a very short distance from Ground Zero.  I recommend clicking the link and reading it.

It certainly is no accident that Ground Zero for the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, targeted landmarks of New York City.  Because it’s America’s biggest city? In my mind: I suppose so.  Because it’s America’s financial capital?  In my opinion: I suppose so.  Because it’s America’s media center?  My best guess is: I suppose so.  Because it’s the largest community of Americans who identify themselves as Jewish?  My mind is totally clear on this one: Most definitely.

Dorothy Rabinowitz is not paranoid.  She has good reason to believe that Jews are prime targets of terrorists who identify themselves as Muslims.

And while Americans mourn the tragic loss of lives at that fateful spot of New York City, there are a number of people scattered around this globe that would dance and make merry on that spot of ground.  Many of those would-be revelers would identify themselves as Muslim.

Is the building of a mosque that close to Ground Zero an attempt to revel in the damage caused by evil deeds?  It might be.  Or it might not.  It’s like a Rorschach test, with no conclusively right or wrong answer–different people see it from different perspectives.

The next to last paragraph of the editorial reads thus:

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser—devout Muslim, physician, former U.S. Navy lieutenant commander and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy—says there is every reason to investigate the center’s funding under the circumstances. Of the mosque so near the site of the 9/11 attacks, he notes “It will certainly be seen as a victory for political Islam.”

It seems quite reasonable that it would be viewed by a number of people as a victory for political Islam.  But not every one would jump to that conclusion.

My opinion?  I’ve already spoken out, here at Buckeye RINO, against religious intolerance from the political right.  Of course, that admonition can well be extended to others along the political spectrum.  Religious freedom extends to Muslims.  Religious tolerance should extend that far, also.

I can’t help that there are a number of people who will view it as a victory for political Islam.  People will make of it what they make of it.  The First Amendment to our Constitution has to be the prevailing principle.

Besides religious freedom, I also believe in property rights.  If Muslims acquire a property, they have the property rights and the religious rights to build a mosque there.

On the other hand, yes, if I were Jewish resident of New York City, I’d likely feel those exact same feelings that Dorothy Rabinowitz expressed.  In fact, I sympathize with those feelings, already, even though I’m not a New Yorker (disclaimer: for one summer, I did live in upstate New York, but I don’t think that makes me a New Yorker, even in small measure), even though I’m not Jewish, and even though I can’t empathize because I’ve never walked in her shoes and borne the brunt of anti-Semitic persecution.  I am an American, though, and a human being, and on those common grounds, I feel anguish to this very day for what happened on 9/11, just as surely as I cried tears of great sadness on the day it all happened.

Religious tolerance, though, sometimes means we have to live with a great deal of anguish as we allow other religions to exercise their Constitutional liberties.  So a mosque can be built there.  But there will be many who feel an anguish that cannot be alleviated.  It’s just the way it is.

It has to be a two-way street.  Public figures have publicly asked the public to refrain from retaliating against and persecuting Muslims. Again, I expect religious tolerance to extend to Muslims.  But I also expect Muslims in America to tolerate other religions.  I expect Muslims in America to neither persecute nor molest persons not of their faith.  As has been pointed out, there have been a few Muslim individuals that haven’t measured up to that expectation, and they must face American justice to be held accountable for their deeds.

If a Muslim chooses to reside in the United States of America, then it should coincide with the choice to respect our Constitution, and our laws, including the freedom of non-Muslims to choose their own religion.  This necessarily means that Muslims must forfeit any design to impose any incarnation of political Islam in America.  There is freedom to believe what you believe so long as it stays within the religious realm.  Furthermore, in America, there can be no coercion exerted to make others adhere to a religious persuasion, and a Muslim who chooses to reside here must agree to abide by that principle.  Political Islam cannot coexist with the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.  Any Islamic insurrection that may arise in an effort to wrest power from the people of the United States of America must be crushed or America would cease to be America.  If a Muslim insists on living in a nation that conforms to sharia law, then that Muslim must necessarily take up residence somewhere else.

I have worked alongside Muslims in companies where I have been employed, and I enjoyed their friendship.  They were friendly, devout, honest, trustworthy, humble, hard-working, conscientious, respectful, well-behaved, ethical individuals.  I wouldn’t mind if there were many, many more of them here that shared those same characteristics.  I hope the American experience is as rewarding for them as it is for me.

Posted in National Politics, Politics in the MSM. Tags: , . 3 Comments »

Guest blog: Imminent Rebellion: The Tar Pit

August 4, 2010 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note:  James Williamson, one of my younger brothers, an Ohio native who is currently residing in Alaska, submitted this guest blog.  This is his second guest blog article for Buckeye RINO, the first one (when he was a Utah resident) being “Imminent Rebellion: States vs the Federal Government.”  This is another chapter of the Imminent Rebellion saga, and there will be yet another chapter after this one, with this and the next installment examining the sticky subject of immigration.  For illegal immigrants and for potential employers, the circumstances that lead them to a point of convergence can turn out to be a morass for both of them.  The author asks that you put yourself in the shoes of the immigrant that skirts the laws, and then in the shoes of the employer that may unwittingly hire illegal immigrants.  Would you be able to extricate yourself from the tar pit?

Imminent Rebellion: The Tar Pit

First I would like to thank the Buckeye RINO for allowing me a an online venue to express my opinions and sentiments. I would also like to thank him for being a sounding board before I write to help me sort through what I want to say and how to articulate it.  Today will be the beginning of a two part blog on perhaps the steamiest issue of them all:  immigration.

The controversy over immigration begins with a very simple fact:  more people want to come here than current law will allow.  It sounds innocuous enough by itself but add some greed, corruption, and an insatiable desire to come to the land of opportunity and it becomes a complicated web that is nearly impossible to unwind.

Let’s imagine for a minute you are living in one of the poorer countries on the planet such as Haiti or the Philippines.  You make about $250 a month.  To rent an apartment you need about $100 and to buy food you need another $125.  (This is not an uncommon scenario in many places of the world).  Would you be content with $25 of discretionary income?  Let’s say now you are married and have two children.  Even with the combined income of both parents and grandma watching the kids you see little improvement.  Your income is now $500 but your budget looks something like this:

$200 – rent
$175 – food & expendables
$30 – electricity
$35 – bus fare
$15 – school supplies
$25 – clothing, furniture, etc.
$30 – discretionary

Do you like your life?  You live this everyday and if anything happens that causes you to spend more than $30 unexpectedly ruins your life.  So you hear that you cousin in the US makes $1500 a month working at a hotel.  Three times your current income with only one breadwinner.  You start to dream, then you start to salivate.  Your desire to leave where you are becomes unbearable so you find out how you can immigrate.  It turns out that you can’t get residency because your cousin is not a close enough relative to solicit you and you don’t have enough money to start a business and hire 10 people.  You aren’t a professional athlete or famous entertainer and you don’t have a college degree.  What avenue do you have left to become a resident of the good old USA?  The diversity lottery!  The US allows 50,000 green cards a year to be issued for the entire world to increase the diversity in the country.  (Don’t ask me the logic behind it because it doesn’t make any sense to me.)  So if you are extremely lucky and your country hasn’t hit their limits for immigration (Mexico for example routinely exceeds the limit to be eligible to participate) you might be able to come legally…  If you are willing to try every year for fifty years you might even have a 50/50 chance…

So your options now become stay where you are or find a way to get around the law.  Obviously many, many people have chosen the latter or I wouldn’t be writing this article today.  So how do they do it?  Well we actually make it fairly simple for them.  Get a visa.  Any visa will do, as long as you can get in through the front door you’ve made it to your destination and didn’t even need to hop the Rio Grande, you came in at the airport!  If you can’t get a visa it’s more complicated but where there is a will there is a way.  You can “borrow” your cousin’s visa or you can avoid the border crossings altogether and come in as a “wetback” (a last resort).

OK so now you are in the the good old USA.  It doesn’t really matter which route you took because regardless of how you got here you are in the same condition as everyone else that has chosen to do what you just did:  you need a job and no one can legally hire you.  Your potential employer wants to hire you but needs proof of work eligibility.  Your cousin tells you all you need is a driver’s license and a social security card.  Until recently you could get a legitimate driver’s license with your current passport in most states and still can in some, so you pick a state that has looser laws and get a legitimate driver’s license.  Now you need a social security card so you go to the social security administration and they issue you a legitimate social security number with a card that has “Not valid for work authorization” written on it.  Or if you fear being caught if you show up at a government agency you borrow your cousin’s number.  A guy only known as “Pancho” gets you a social security card with your real or borrowed number on it but without the annoying text that says your aren’t allowed to work and voila!  You can now show your employer a driver’s license and social security card!  Your employer checks your documents that seem to be legitimate (he can’t tell) files his I-9 and you have started your path to prosperity!  (Oh, and Pancho told you that he could also get you a US birth certificate if you need one!) At first you love your new lifestyle of generous cash flow and easy living.  After a while you hear on the news that Arizona has passed a new law…

OK now let’s switch roles for a minute.  You are an employer and Olga comes in looking for employment.  Every other Romanian (contrary to popular belief illegal immigrants are not all from Latin America) immigrant you have hired has been a working fool.  You interview and she produces a driver’s license and a social security card that look legitimate to you (honestly you can’t tell) and so you file your I-9 and put her to work.  The instructions for the I-9 explicitly tell you that you cannot dictate which forms the potential employee needs to show.  Even though you suspect that your employee may not really have work authorization the law prevents you from asking for a passport or green card because she has already shown you a driver’s license and social security card.  Time goes on and you are happy as a lark with your Romanian machine and they represent more than 50% of your work force.  Slaughtering and packing meat is a job that not many others will do at the wages you can offer.  You can’t really raise the wages very much though or your competitors will mop the floor with you.  Things are looking good for your business until one day ICE knocks on your door…

Posted in National Politics. Tags: . 11 Comments »

Reprint of Voinovich’s Senate speech opposing Kagan selection for SCOTUS

August 3, 2010 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note:  Last September, I, DJW, an Ohio native and Ohio political blogger who has, in times past, supported Voinovich candidacies in many ways, visited the Washington DC office of U.S. Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), and came away from the experience very dismayed (putting it mildly) by the stonewall treatment I received.  The Voinovich staff likes access to some of us bloggers by distributing press releases to us, but it doesn’t seem to be a two-way street, as I was afforded no access to the Voinovich staff except for the staffer who turned me away empty-handed.  It made me regret helping Voinovich as much as I did.  Nevertheless, today I relent (temporarily) to reprint a speech delivered 8/3/2010 on the Senate floor.  I do so because I disagree with Elena Kagan’s nomination to become a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, and Voinovich’s speech in opposition is very well expressed.

SPEECH ON THE NOMINATION OF SOLICITOR GENERAL ELENA KAGAN TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

August 3, 2010

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. I will not support Gen. Kagan’s nomination. I did not come to this decision lightly.

As I said last August during the debate on Justice Sotomayor, the role of the Senate in the nomination of a Supreme Court justice is to give its advice and consent on the president’s nomination with the Senate to judge whether an individual is qualified based on a number of factors. Among these factors are the nominee’s education, legal experience, prior judicial experience, written record, judicial temperament, commitment to the rule of law, and overall contributions to the law. Based on my review of Elena Kagan’s record, and using these factors, I have determined that General Kagan, at this time, does not meet the criteria for membership on our nation’s highest court.

The president deserves deference in his nominations, and of course presidential elections have a direct impact on the makeup of our judiciary; that is to say, elections have consequences. But, Senate confirmations should not be a simple mechanical affirmation of the president’s selection, especially when the nominee will enjoy a lifetime appointment. A senator is duty bound to conscientiously review the qualifications of the President’s nominee and make an independent assessment of the nominee’s qualifications.

Gen. Kagan is well educated, intelligent, bright and engaging and advanced quite rapidly in her career of teaching and law school administration, but one must ask, is that enough? I believe it is not. I believe a judicial nominee must have substantial experience in the law especially when that nominee is seeking a lifetime appointment to the highest court in our land. After reviewing her background, I believe Gen. Kagan does not have that relevant experience.

Gen. Kagan is the first nominee to the Supreme Court with no prior judicial experience since 1971, almost 40 years ago. While I do not believe that a lack of judicial experience should bar one from serving on the Supreme Court, I note that reviewing prior judicial service is obviously the easiest way to assess a nominee’s fitness for the court. This lack of judicial experience does not prevent her nomination, but, in my opinion, it does shift the burden to the nominee to demonstrate her other relevant experience.

For example, when the Senate considered Justice Sotomayor’s nomination there were over a thousand prior opinions one could review to decide if she was ready for the job; with Gen. Kagan, there are none. When I asked her to name opinions that she worked on with Justice Marshall with which she disagreed, she stated that she could not remember any individual opinion she worked on, much less whether she disagreed with Justice Marshall on any of them.

During our meeting, Gen. Kagan noted her service as solicitor general, another job I did not think she was qualified to hold, was the other relevant experience she possessed and I agree that it is relevant. Her time as Solicitor General, however, has been too short. Since President Kennedy’s solicitor general, Archibald Cox, only one confirmed solicitor general has served for a shorter time than Gen. Kagan. Gen. Kagan argued her first case before the Supreme Court less than a year ago and now we are going to confirm her as a member of that Court?

If you base her qualifications on her earlier legal practice, her experience is particularly limited. Gen. Kagan worked for two years as a practicing attorney. Justices Rehnquist and Powell, the last two Supreme Court nominees without prior judicial experience, each spent many years in the active practice of the law. Justice Rehnquist practiced in Arizona for over 16 years. Justice Powell was a partner in a major Virginia law firm for over 25 years and in practice for 38 years.  Gen. Kagan has two years of experience in private practice and one as solicitor general. I also think it is worth noting that the independent Congressional Research Service has found that on average, the 39 justices who lacked prior judicial experience had more than 20 years of experience in private practice. Gen. Kagan’s experience pales in comparison.

During Justice Sotomayor’s confirmation, I spoke about how President Obama’s standard for selecting judicial nominees based on what was in their heart flew in the face of our meritocracy. We, as a nation, aspire to hire people for jobs based on their skill, not on where they are from or who they know. Justice Sotomayor, in addition to her 17 years of total service on the trial and appellate benches, was in private practice for 8 years and was a district attorney for 4 years. Justice Sotomayor’s experience as a lawyer and a judge, her judicial temperament, and the fact that her opinions were within the judicial mainstream gave me confidence that she had the relevant experience to sit on the Supreme Court. Because there is such a limited written record with Gen. Kagan and because she has gone out of her way to not answer questions, I have no idea what she will do on the bench and whether she will be able to suppress her own values to apply the law. The fact is we really do not know that much about her views.

Frankly, I have been surprised by some of my colleagues who attempt to compare her to the famous Justice Brandeis, another justice with no prior judicial experience. Justice Brandeis practiced the law for almost 30 years prior to his nomination, much of his practice being pro bono in his later years. Furthermore, Justice Brandeis is widely regarded as one of the great legal minds of not just his time, but of American history, having developed numerous areas of the modern law from scratch. Yet again, Gen. Kagan pales in comparison.

In my meeting with Gen. Kagan, I asked her about how little writing she had published and she responded that she had more academic writing than other members of the Supreme Court. This is factually incorrect and misleading. First, this is incorrect; Justice Scalia is widely published with numerous articles and books, Justice Ginsburg went so far as to learn Swedish to co-author a book on Swedish judicial procedure, and Justice Breyer was one of the foremost authorities on administrative law with many books and articles to his name before joining the Court. Second, it is misleading because each justice publishes hundreds of pages a year in the form of opinions, greatly eclipsing Gen. Kagan’s academic production.

There are over 800 federal judges, many of whom clearly have the experience, intelligence and legal skill to serve on our Supreme Court. Additionally, if one believes, which I do not, that the federal judiciary is somehow out of touch with our society, thousands, if not tens of thousands of state court judges are out there with lengthy judicial records, many ready to serve on the Supreme Court.

As an aside, only a former law professor would think that the dean of a law school is somehow more in touch with everyday people than a judge. Everyday a judge is presented with the facts of everyday life and must apply the law to them. A dean in a law school surrounded by professors earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and donors worth millions and students soon to enter into a professional career never gets to see everyday life and is never faced with the factory worker, the farmer, or any of the hardworking blue collar Americans.  How is a law school dean more in touch with everyday people?

Some of my colleagues would like to have had a less liberal person nominated by the president.  My position is that this president will surely nominate a liberal. The most important question is “is that liberal nominee qualified to be a member of the Supreme Court?” I would argue that Gen. Kagan has been nominated based on her friendships and personal attachments with President Obama and others at the White House, not based on objective qualities that would indicate she is qualified to be a Supreme Court justice.

In closing, lack of judicial experience should not be an absolute bar on serving as a Supreme Court justice.  However, Solicitor General Kagan not only lacks judicial experience, but has limited experience as a practicing attorney with really only the last year as solicitor general and two years as a junior associate making up her entire practice. Additionally, Gen. Kagan has an extremely limited written record, which should make all of us unsure as to what sort of Justice Gen. Kagan might be.

Mr. President, for the reasons I have just listed, I cannot in good conscience support the nomination of Gen. Kagan to be a member of the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

— END —

Posted in National Politics. Tags: . 2 Comments »

Congressional ethics investigations of Rangel & Waters

July 31, 2010 — buckeyerino

U.S. Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) was recently spotlighted by a Congressional ethics panel.  A plea bargain has apparently mollified the committee.

Now there are murmurings that U.S. Rep Maxine Waters (D-CA) may be the next one spotlighted by a Congressional ethics panel.

Some media pundits have surmised that these news headlines may be damaging the Democrat brand at an inopportune time–as midterm elections loom ahead.

My take on it?  It’s not going to hurt Rangel and Waters in their own districts, unlike former Democrat U.S. Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana who was replaced by Republican Joseph Cao.  The Democrat brand is being hurt by their domestic policy agenda.  The alleged unethical actions of one, or two, or three, or four, or five, or so members of their caucus, at the end of the day, has little to do with how the Democrat brand is perceived in the current political and economic environment.  The public is clearly distracted by unemployment, home foreclosures, and other perils that hit closer to home.  Few are paying attention to ethics investigations at this point (unless the tycoons of Wall Street, the Fed, and former and current officials of the U.S. Department of Treasury were being investigated–then we’d be all ears because of our collective outrage against the bailouts).

If a Congressional Democrat had to pick a time to be spotlighted by the ethics panel, this is a good time to do it.  The public distraction is only one factor in the equation.  The other important factor is that it seems likely that the Democrats won’t maintain their House majority, anyway.  If you were in their shoes, would you want an ethics panel chaired by fellow Democrats now?  Or Republicans after they take office in January?  If you wanted to strike a deal, settle a case by plea bargain, would you rather cut the deal with Democrats chairing the panel or Republicans?  If you were disciplined as a result of ethics hearings, would you rather have the penalties meted out by Democrats or Republicans?

As a Republican observer, I think it’s a win-win for Democrats who step forward for scrutiny now rather than later.  If you believe you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve got to think the panel will be more fair to you now rather than later.  If you have done something wrong, it’s not likely to be remembered, not likely to cost much political clout, and not likely to be heavily penalized in the event of a sour outcome to the hearings.

If a targeted Democrat were to try to dodge an inquiry now, but couldn’t prevent it from resurfacing later,  even if the Republicans chairing the panel were quite fair in applying the rules, at the very least there will be acrimony.  Partisan rancor would be the source of that acrimony.  The Democrats would circle their wagons and lodge complaints of Republican witch-hunting.  By that time, though, the public might not be so distracted.  They might pay attention, and, despite the charges of witch-hunting, the public might not let the matter go by the wayside until all the dirty laundry has been aired before an ethics panel.  If, after that airing, the ethics probe was justified because of findings of wrongdoing, then it wouldn’t have turned out to be a witch-hunt after all, and the Democrat caucus that circled their wagons around you would be tarnished with the perception that they’d attempted a cover-up.  What would happen to the Democrat brand then, when the party is already down and needs to pick itself back up?  How sure are you that the hearings chaired by the other party will be fair?  How sure are you that a deal can be cut to settle the case?  How sure are you that the penalties won’t be harsh?  If you stayed in office this time around, will the public catch up to you the next time, as happened in Rep. Jefferson’s case?  If so, would the caucus shrink further, by your absence from it, rather than rebound during the next election cycle?  If  the panel exonerated you, and it did appear that the Republicans engaged in a witch-hunt, is that going to repair the public trust in Congress that is now in tatters (recent polls: Congressional approval rating of 11%) because of the public perception of hyperpartisanship and political posturing?  It’s a lose-lose.

If you are a Congressional Democrat with a target on your back, and an ethics probe lies in your future, then your next press conference referencing a potential probe should be “Bring it on!”  Then, under your breath, so no one else hears, whisper to investigators, “And hurry up about it!”

Posted in National Politics, Politics in the MSM. Tags: , . 1 Comment »

Press release: Peter J. Corrigan gaining ground in competitive race for Ohio’s 10th Congressional district

July 23, 2010 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note:  This press release was issued on 7/23/2010 by the Cuyahoga County Republican Party.  In even-numbered years, all 435 seats in U.S. House of Representatives, the lower chamber of Congress, are up for election.  The general election this year will be held on November 2nd.  Those who are elected will take office in January 2011.  Ohio’s 10th Congressional district, wholly contained within Cuyahoga County, stretches along the lakefront from the west side of Cleveland over to Bay Village and extends inland as far south as Olmsted Falls and Parma.

10th Congressional Candidate Peter Corrigan Proves Tough Test For Kucinich

Seven-term incumbent Congressman Dennis Kucinich faces the toughest challenge of his Congressional career in 2010 against Peter Corrigan. Corrigan, the Republican candidate for Ohio’s 10th Congressional District has been on the move and experts in Ohio and the national stage have begun to take notice. A conservative Republican, Corrigan is running against ultra-liberal Dennis Kucinich in a seat that was previously thought of as “un-poachable” by mainstream political pundits. However the Weekly Standard recently published an article suggesting that if Dennis Kucinich can be defeated, Corrigan is the candidate to do it. To review the article please click on the following link http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/can-dennis-kucinich-be-defeated

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has officially announced Peter Corrigan as an ‘On the Radar’ candidate, an important first step in its Young Guns program. Founded in the 2007-2008 election cycle by Reps. Eric Cantor (R-VA), Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), and Paul Ryan (R-WI), the Young Guns program is a member-driven organization dedicated to electing open-seat and challenger candidates nationwide.

NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions stated “Peter is an accomplished, independent leader who will fight to create jobs and rein in government spending. I am confident that we will be successful in our efforts to win this seat and add it to the Republican column in November.”

Recent polling by Scott Brown’s pollster, Neil Newhouse at Public Opinion Strategies, shows that Kucinich has lost a portion of his base support after abandoning his stated positions on key issues such as healthcare and the budget crisis by caving to political pressure from the Obama Administration. Voters in the District are evenly split (47%-47%) on whether Kucinich should be re-elected; very weak numbers for a 14-year incumbent Congressman, but not surprising given his – and the Democratic Congressional leaders’ – plummeting approval ratings.

Kucinich currently has twice the money on hand as Corrigan for this campaign; a gap Corrigan intends to eliminate and surpass in the next 30 days. For more information, to volunteer or make a donation please visit the Peter Corrigan for Congress Campaign website at www.corriganforcongress.com or call the campaign office directly at 216-579-9487.

Corrigan comes from a long line of public servants to Ohio and enters the 10th Congressional District race this fall with his family’s legacy in mind. The grandson of a Chief of the Cleveland Fire Department, the nephew of a Cleveland city councilman and of a judge on the Ohio Court of Appeals, as well as the son of a well renowned Cleveland physician, Corrigan knows Ohio’s 10th Congressional District well and plans on representing it accurately and passionately. He was a high school Honors student, as well as a lettered Track and Field star who later attended Wake Forest University. After earning his Bachelors in Physics, Corrigan attended Case Western Reserve University to receive his Masters and afterwards, Harvard Business School. After many years of working as a tradesman, physicist, and business leader, Corrigan currently works as the Chief Operating Officer of Prestolite Electric in Cleveland where he resides with his wife and three children.  For more information, please visit Peter’s site www.corriganforcongress.com

Posted in Local Politics, National Politics. Tags: , . Leave a Comment »

Improve safety, but stay on course with “all of the above”

June 25, 2010 — buckeyerino

I know that there is a growing chorus for eliminating oil drilling, particularly offshore, but I’m still on board with the “all of the above” approach to meeting our nation’s energy needs.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in National Politics. Tags: . 2 Comments »

The character of Fremont, Nebraska

June 22, 2010 — buckeyerino

The city of Fremont in the state of Nebraska made national news on Monday as local election results showed that voters approved a ballot measure to enact a city ordinance that prohibits the city’s landlords from renting space to illegal immigrants and also prohibits the city’s employers from hiring illegal immigrants.

In this piece, however, I don’t want to put forth my immigration proposals (though I have written one blog post with a few thoughts on immigration).  There’s a lot of spin being propagated in the national dialogue about the character of the town of Fremont.  Let’s take a peek inside Fremont to see what we can see, shall we?

I happen to know a former resident of Fremont very, very, very well.  Me.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in National Politics. Tags: . Leave a Comment »

15th Annual Hispanic Leadership Conference

April 19, 2010 — buckeyerino

Hosted by the Coalition for Hispanic/Latino Issues and Progress (CHIP), one of the County’s oldest Hispanic advocacy organizations the conference invites expert speakers and professionals to inform attendees on the major issues affecting Latinos and the at-large community throughout the United States and beyond. It serves as a forum where civic leaders, educators, students, social workers, non-profit organizations, Union and corporate representatives, Hispanic-Latino advocacy groups and concerned citizens, can exchange views, network, and review information provided by national, state, and local presenters, enabling us all to better address the major issues facing the Hispanic-Latino and greater community. Additionally, we promise all an atmosphere of friendship, rejuvenation, and inspiration through out the Friday Speaker /Media/Sponsor reception, Saturday conference and Saturday Evening Formal Gala.

Editor’s note:  The date of the event is May 1st.  Please act quickly if you wish to register (by Friday of this week).  I received a registration form by email, but don’t have the tools to post it here. $70 for all the activities of the conference, $35 for just the Gala (fiesta!), or $35 for just the daytime speeches and workshop presentations.  For registration, you may contact Michael or Dina Ferrer by email (mf777df@msn.com) or by phone (440-989-1178).  I have attended some of these conferences in the past, whenever my calendar permits.  I highly recommend it.  For those of Hispanic-Latino heritage, this is tailored to you.  For those not of Hispanic-Latino heritage, like myself, this is fun, highly informative, and an is excellent chance to mingle & network.  From my own experience, I would estimate that 98% to 99% of what is spoken by the presenters is in English, so there is no reason for anxiety if you don’t know the Spanish language.  There’s nothing else like this in all of Ohio! More information continued below:

15th Annual Hispanic Leadership Conference

Scheduled for May 1, 2010

The 15th Annual Hispanic Leadership Conference hosted by the Coalition for Hispanic Issues & Progress (CHIP) will be held at Lorain County Community College’s Spitzer Conference Center and Stocker Theater on May 1, 2010 from 8:00am-4:00pm followed by the Saturday Evening Formal Gala, a celebration of culture, entertainment, fellowship and dancing from 6:00pm to midnight at the Lorain Party Center. Tickets are $70 for Conference and Gala, $35 each for the conference or Gala Only tickets, and $15 for dance only tickets after 9:00pm on Saturday. College students are ½ priced and limited scholarships are available for high school students. Conference and Gala tickets include a continental breakfast, lunch and dinner. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Announcements, International Politics, Local Politics, National Politics, State Politics. Tags: , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Guest blog: David Arredondo, “Why vote GOP?”

April 16, 2010 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note: David Arredondo is vice chair of Lorain County Republican Party.  This is the text of a speech he delivered at a Candidates Night in Lorain, Ohio, on 4/14/2010 that was hosted by Coalition for Hispanic/Latino Issues & Progress (CHIP).

WHY VOTE REPUBLICAN

David Arredondo

April 14, 2010

Abraham Lincoln, the first elected Republican president, celebrated what the founders of this nation had achieved: a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  Lincoln, like the abolitionist who constituted the majority of the party back in his day, championed the emancipation and empowerment of the people.

Now, more than ever, the Republican Party has renewed its commitment to these principles that Lincoln championed.

Individuals who seek personal empowerment and control over their own lives, instead of an increase of government control over their lives, turn to the Republican Party, which embraces these ideals.  Our founders intended the people to check and balance the government, not the other way around.  President Ronald Reagan stated that, “Government isn’t the solution to our problems.  Government IS the problem.”

STIMULUS, HEALTH CARE, & DEFICITS

And so it is that we see that in less than 15 short months, the Obama Administration and Congress, led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, have driven up the deficit to unprecedented levels by passing a stimulus bill that has not worked.  Let me remind you, that overwhelming majorities of Democrats in the House and Senate allow them to pass any legislation they wish, including amnesty for illegal immigrants.

In December 2008, unemployment stood at 6.5 percent.  Then newly-elected President Obama vowed that if the stimulus bill passed, it would not rise above 8.5%.  Months later, it hit 10%, where it has been for almost one year with no sign of improving.  All of us have family, neighbors, and friends who are unemployed and have little prospect of employment soon. Health care legislation was passed in a brutal fashion by only three votes; in fact, the only bi-partisanship on the part of the President and the Democratic Majority we have seen has come from 30 or more courageous Democrats who have voted with Republicans to oppose both the Stimulus and health care.  These two measures have added trillions, not billions, to the deficit.  What is happening to Greece, Europe, and California, is coming to a city or state like yours soon.  We cannot sustain this debt now and we certainly cannot look to the taxpayer to bail us out.  As it is now, more than 50% pay no taxes.

JOB CREATION

Republicans understand that the only jobs that government creates are those in the public sector, and expansion of these is what is causing our federal, state, and local budget problems.  We know that the private sector is the engine of growth and prosperity which must be freed of over-regulation, higher taxation, and unreasonable mandates.  No investor will invest, no business owner will expand as long as these conditions persist.Fiscal sustainability is what Republicans promise.  Everybody has to keep some kind of budget, and everybody knows that they can’t get away with spending more than twice what they take in. Combine the billions of new taxes in the health care bill with the $1 trillion from letting the Bush tax cuts expire, the $940 billion price tag of health care, and the $789 billion stimulus . . . and you have a simple reality: This is the biggest tax and spend government in American history.

The Republican Party expects accountability of its government.  With unprecedented budget shortfalls, this year, vote Republican.  At the top of the Ohio ticket, the party has fielded a candidate, John Kasich, who was the architect of a balanced Federal budget.  The Republicans on your ballot this year are determined to reassert the people’s sovereignty.

By an 8-1 margin, Democrats and independents are switching to the Republican Party in Ohio. Today, and through May 4, I ask you to go to the Board of Elections and ask for the Republican ballot.  On May 4th, go to the polls and ask for the Republican ballot.  Vote Republican, now, so that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from this Earth.

Posted in Local Politics, National Politics, State Politics. Tags: , , . Leave a Comment »

Guest blog: Brandon Rutherford, ” . . . you should vote.”

April 6, 2010 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note:  Brandon Rutherford is an Elyria resident involved in his community by way of a neighborhood block watch, a run for city council, and promotion of Invest Elyria, among other civic pursuits.

YOU SHOULD VOTE

The upcoming election in both May and November has huge implications. We are voting for the men and women who will work to represent us on many levels. The different levels include a county level with our county commissioner race, a state race with our state representative seats being up for election and not to mention our governor’s race. We even have a U.S Senate race which will send someone to Washington D.C to do battle with the lobbyists and special interests to better help residents back here in Ohio. No matter how you vote this election you should vote. I personally will be voting in the Democratic Primary. I know that many that read this site on a regular basis besides me are probably Republicans but that doesn’t matter to me. I want to have a good debate and have the best ideas possible presented to others to best have the public’s best interests in mind when they cast votes that make changes to you and your family’s life.

Posted in Local Politics, National Politics, State Politics. Tags: , , . 1 Comment »

[UPDATE] How do illegal immigrants register vehicles?

February 3, 2010 — buckeyerino

Well, for awhile, Ohio was facilitating vehicle registration for illegal immigrants to the United States of America.  And it happened on Strickland’s watch.

We’ve known about this for awhile now.  I hadn’t blogged about it before, but it’s been blogged about at:

Collecting My Thoughts: http://collectingmythoughts.blogspot.com/2009/09/governor-stricklands-illegal-immigrant.html

Right Ohio: http://www.rightohio.com/2009/11/02/strickland-administration-grants-illegal-immigrants-now-illegals-are-panicked-that-laws-might-be-enforced/

and

Kyle Sisk: http://kylesisk.typepad.com/sisker/2009/09/ted-stricklands-new-program-driving-privileges-for-who-the-hell-knows.html

Well, now actual numbers are rolling in to quantify just how bad the problem is.  Kyle Sisk has added these blog posts that will make your head hurt:

http://kylesisk.typepad.com/sisker/2010/02/hay-caramba-less-than-6-you-have-got-to-be-kidding-me.html

http://kylesisk.typepad.com/sisker/2010/02/the-inspector-generals-report-on-stricklands-handpicked-director-continued.html

http://kylesisk.typepad.com/sisker/2010/02/central-ohio-drivers-here-is-some-info-you-might-want-to-know.html

[UPDATE 2/5/2010] Kyle Sisk wasn’t finished with his coverage of these illegal hijinks.  There’s more:

http://kylesisk.typepad.com/sisker/2010/02/either-ron-obrien-or-the-ohio-senate-must-investigate-stricklands-plategate.html

http://kylesisk.typepad.com/sisker/2010/02/playing-nostradamus-with-the-strickland-administration-investigation.html

http://kylesisk.typepad.com/sisker/2010/02/why-plunderbund-is-wrong-re-their-take-on-the-strickland-administration-investigation.html

Posted in National Politics, Political Blogosphere, State Politics. Tags: , , . 1 Comment »

Nevada’s tempest in a teapot–Obama’s right about a few things

February 3, 2010 — buckeyerino

I picked up this story of huffing and puffing Nevada politicians at ABC’s website.

It seems that all the politicians in Nevada are expressing umbrage at the President for saying the following:

“Responsible families don’t do their budgets the way the federal government does.  When times are tough, you — you tighten your belts. You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices. It’s time your government did the same.”

Of course, the federal government should’ve tightened its belt, too, and that fact seems lost on Obama, but the rest of what he said is perfectly sensible.  I said in September of 2008 that families should prepare as best they can for the worsening economy.  The events of September 2008 are different than the events of today, but the prospects for continued and perhaps even worsening economic malaise are still staring us in the face.

But Nevada politicians, whether Democrat or Republican, are evidently irrational.  They’ve built their state’s economic foundation upon the sand (see the economics explained here and here) instead of upon a rock, and when the economic storm blew in, their economic house was pulverized.  Do they face the music of generations of bad decision-making?  Apparently not.  They are still in denial about what a prudent course of action should be.  All they’ve done so far is shoot the messenger, in this case, President Obama, when the truth of the message is plainly evident.

I might add that there was never a time when it was OK to blow a load of cash in Las Vegas casinos at the expense of a college fund, not even in the good times.

President Obama sent a letter of clarification to Senator Reid.  In the letter, the President still makes perfect sense:

“I was making the simple point that families use vacation dollars, not college tuition money, to have fun.”

For the record, I like vacations.  I like to travel.  I learn many things about our world from my travel experiences.  But I wouldn’t be able to afford much traveling or vacationing if I feed those one-armed bandits called slot machines.  I certainly don’t see any educational value in making a casino my tourist destination.

Remember when Senator Reid was accused of making racist remarks?  How many politicians came to the Senator’s defense?  He made an apology to the President, and the President vouched for the Senator’s character, that the Senator was not a racist.

But, in this instance, no apology is necessary, yet Senator Reid, with lightning quickness, has thrown the President under the bus, even after the President reached out to him with a letter of clarification.  I think the President would do well to file this episode of disloyalty in repayment of his own loyalty in a place where it can be easily retrieved in the case of a future dispute.  Bad karma for Senator Reid.  Bad karma.

One of Reid’s potential opponents for his Senate re-election, Republican Danny Tarkanian, isn’t demonstrating any more intelligence on the issue than Reid is.  I won’t bother to quote any of the Nevada politicians, since their rants aren’t sensible enough to be worthy of repetition on my blog.

So, why all the nonsensical bluster?  As I posted in the run-up to Ohio’s elections on the casino issue, GAMBLING BUYS POLITICIANS.

Posted in gambling, National Politics, Politics in the MSM. Tags: , , . 1 Comment »

It’s about the jobs, Mr. President

January 23, 2010 — buckeyerino

While at Lorain County Community College on Friday, January 22, 2010, Mr. President, you began with shout-outs to your fellow Democrat politicians who’ve been in office for years making swell promises but who never really deliver the goods.  Nevertheless, the crowd cheered as you announced each name: Governor Ted Strickland, Senator Sherrod Brown, Representative Marcy Kaptur, and Representative Betty Sutton; and with that, the lovefest ensued.

It’s interesting that you welcomed the opportunity to travel to Ohio because you sometimes feel like living in Washington DC is like living in a bubble.  Really, Mr. President?  Funny, how I just blogged about the Beltway cocoon just yesterday.  If you find just the first year in the White House insulating after not even serving a full term as a Senator, then imagine how out of touch the multi-term Beltway creatures are.  So, perhaps voting out Sherrod Brown, Marcy Kaptur, and Betty Sutton would be a good thing for voters to do . . . this year, in the case of Kaptur and Sutton.  We’ll deal with Sherrod in 2012.  And if you really want to burst out of your bubble, Mr. President, you might as well go talk to those people who held a Tea Party nearby.  They want to help you burst that bubble in the worst way.

After your intros and warmups, your speech began:

“I walked into office a year ago in the middle of a raging economic storm that was wreaking devastation on your town and communities everywhere.  We had to take some very difficult steps to deal with that mess to stave off an even greater economic catastrophe.  We had to stabilize the financial system, which, given the role of the big banks in creating this mess, was a pretty tough pill to swallow.  I knew it would be unpopular, and rightly so, but I also knew that we had to do it because if they went down, your local banks would have gone down, and if the financial system went down, it would have taken the entire economy and millions more families and businesses with it.  We would have been looking at a second Great Depression.”

Personally, Mr. President, I think we’re looking at a second Great Depression, no matter what.  We’re Americans, though, and we’re tough enough to weather this storm as long as there’s a rainbow on the other side.  Artificially trying to stave it off with interventions like bailouts and Congressional spending binges, I believe, will only leave us in a holding pattern as the storm batters us and batters us.  To eventually correct course, we needed the chief culprits to fail.  Bailing out the financial institutions only enables those culprits to stay in their positions and continue to wreak the havoc that they’ve been wreaking.  It’s hypocritical for you and your political allies, Mr. President, to pout and scold over the bloated compensation packages of Wall Street executives.  Why do they even have jobs?  Because you bailed them out.  You are the enablers.  If their companies failed, they would have been out of work at least temporarily, their compensation bubbles would have burst, and the marketplace would have readjusted their compensation packages when they finally landed new employment.  You, and Mr. Geithner, and, before you, President Bush, and Mr. Paulson, and all the members of Congress have perpetuated the ills of the financial sector for the foreseeable future because you bailed them out.  Surely, as you say, if they fell, other dominoes would have fallen.  Understood.  But America is like a phoenix.  Something new always emerges from the ashes.  Unfortunately, we haven’t reached that stage.  Nothing newer, more efficient, and more advanced can emerge because the old guard still wields the power, propped up by the bailouts.

I’ve campaigned in Lorain County back in 2002 and 2004, and the topic of jobs was the number one issue on the minds of voters back then, and it’s been the number one issue going back even further than that, so, you can be sure, Mr. President, that, on a day like today, when Ohio’s unemployment is announced to be 10.9%, it’s still the number one issue.

So as you turned your focus to talking about creating jobs, the crowd was applauding frequently and loudly.  Sherrod Brown has made those same kinds of speeches to these same people with much the same content year after year after year after year.  It works like a charm.  It’s what the voters always love to hear.

Yet in all the years that Sherrod Brown has represented Lorain County in elected office, do you think that the bright tomorrow he always speaks of has ever arrived?  No.  It never materializes.

Why do you think that is?

Do you think it might be due to the fact that the federal government can’t stop micro-managing the economy, demanding that the economy meet benchmarks of social justice set by the arbiters of what’s politically correct?  Do you think that the federal government might be devouring too big a chunk of the nation’s GDP?  Just as the laws of physics, such as the law of gravity, cannot be suspended by politically willing them to, neither can the laws governing economics be suspended according to whim.  For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  Helping unqualified borrowers purchase homes through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may seem politically expedient, but the piper eventually must be paid.

As you can see, unemployment is not an economic condition that can be corrected in isolation from other economic conditions.  What is needed is a holistic approach that allows for purging of what doesn’t work and emerging of what will work.  Oh, except that the bailouts prevented purging just as surely as they prevent emerging.

Those who stood to pose questions were pretty narrowly focused on employment, weren’t they?  See, I told you jobs has been the number one issue in Lorain County for years.  Virtually every single question from the audience touched on employment in one way or another.

Pundits, and even other Capitol Hill politicians, have been saying that your initial push as President should have been all about jobs.  There would have been more goodwill that could have given you leverage for tackling the health care reform and environmental issues.  Do you see that they were instinctively right?  Isn’t something job related on the mind of virtually every one you called upon, Mr. President?

The special election in Massachusetts gave you an opportunity to take a break from the health care reform issue.  Mr. President, you, yourself, said that health care reform should not be rushed through before Scott Brown is seated in the U.S. Senate.  This stop in Elyria was supposed to be the second stop, after Allentown, Pennsylvania, of a tour about reviving the economy and boosting employment.

But you couldn’t let go of the health care reform issue for even one day, could you, Mr. President?  Even after the Q & A was all about jobs and jobs and jobs, you had to deliver a second town hall speech.  You looked pained that no one had asked you a question to serve as a launching pad to discourse at length on health care reform.  Did you notice any difference in the audience response to your second speech when compared to your first speech?  I did.  Applause was not as frequent and not as raucous.  I think perhaps some of the audience members were wishing for a brief respite from the banter about health care reform and were refreshed to hear you talk about jobs.  Unfortunately, you didn’t grant them much of a respite at all, did you?

But I think the audience, even among those that loved you the most, Mr. President, were giving you hints and clues about where the most productive political pursuits lie:  healing the economy, not through artificial interventions, but letting the axe fall where it needs to (including the federal budget), letting the chips fall where they may, and jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs.

Posted in National Politics. Tags: . 2 Comments »
« Older posts
Newer posts »