Buckeye RINO

Editor’s note:  This press release was issued on 8/17/2010.  Ohio’s 9th Congressional District stretches from Lucas County through Ottawa County, Erie County, and into southern Lorain County.

Iott Signs No Pork Pledge

Rich Iott, candidate for Ohio’s 9^th Congressional District, has signed the No Pork Pledge sponsored by Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW).

CAGW, which advocates the elimination of waste and inefficiency in government through nonpartisan public education programs and lobbying activities, in July named incumbent Rep. Marcy Kaptur their ‘Porker of the Month’ for “gaming the House Democrats’ prohibition on awarding earmarks to for-profit companies and wasting taxpayers’ money.”

Upon notice of the award, Iott said:

“Politicians like Marcy Kaptur, who’ve been in Washington so long that they actually think this sort of wasteful spending is a good thing, have brought our county to the edge of bankruptcy with a debt approaching $14 trillion.  Now is the time to acknowledge that earmarks need to stop and that her so-called ‘legislative priorities’ are not the priorities of the taxpayers she’s supposed to represent.

“Ohio’s 9^th Congressional District needs a businessman who understands that “eviscerating earmark reform and wasting taxpayers’ money” (as the CAGW called it) is not the way to create economic growth in the district, the state or the nation. 

“When I’m elected, I promise to end ‘pay-to-play’ corruption, and bring some real-world, common sense business experience to Capitol Hill.”

In following through on that promise, Iott signed the No Pork Pledge which reads:

I, Rich Iott, pledge to the constituents of the 9^th Congressional district of the state of Ohio and to the American people that I will not request any pork-barrel earmark, which is defined as meeting one of the following criteria: 

• Requested by only one chamber of Congress
• Not specifically authorized
• Not competitively awarded
• Not requested by the President
• Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding
• Not the subject of congressional hearing
• Serves only a local or special interest

“When career politicians each try to get their own piece of the pie, it is the taxpayers who are left with an empty plate – and the bill.  While I don’t need to sign a pledge to remember that my obligation is not to spend taxpayer money on pork, I’m happy to put my commitment in writing so the voters can hold me accountable,” Rich Iott said.

Can we stop with the assaults on the Constitution already?

What impacts us the most noticeably is the erosion of the Bill of Rights because it spells out the rights of American citizens.

Freedom of the press.  Freedom of speech.  Freedom of religion.  Freedom of peaceable assembly.  Freedom to bear arms.  Freedom to remain silent when suspected of a crime.  Freedom to have a jury of your peers decide the outcome of a case when you are tried on criminal charges.  Freedom to not be compelled to testify against yourself in court.  Freedom to have an attorney represent you when you are detained as a suspect.  Freedom to not have your privacy, your domicile, invaded and personal property confiscated during the course of a criminal investigation unless you are presented with a warrant issued by a judge.  Freedom for citizens to retain powers not expressly reserved unto the federal or state governments.

And there are other freedoms beyond these.

Yet they are all under assault.

It’s inconvenient for the Department of Homeland Security to obtain warrants to gain access to private conversations that take place by phone or email.

It’s inconvenient that attendees of a town hall meeting voice disagreement with an elected official.

It’s inconvenient to have a secret agenda that gets sniffed out by the press.

It’s inconvenient that police aren’t the only ones that can bear arms.

It’s inconvenient that a religion might suggest that you commit sin.

It’s inconvenient that you can’t coerce your family members to remain members of the religious denomination they grew up with.

It’s inconvenient that police aren’t able to coerce an admission of guilt from a suspect.

It’s inconvenient that a suspect might request an attorney before agreeing to respond to the questions of the police.

It’s inconvenient to Mirandize suspects.

It’s inconvenient that a prosecutors can’t have a case decided by a judge biased in their favor, and, instead, have it decided by a unanimous verdict from a jury.

It’s inconvenient for a Tea Party gathering to take place just outside a venue where elected officials are trying to drum up support for the policies they want to implement.

And there are other inconveniences, depending on who you are and what coercion you want to exert.

And now the latest fad is to attack the 14th Amendment.  The 14th Amendment is a very useful amendment.  Among the ramifications of the 14th Amendment is that states cannot infringe upon rights granted by the Constitution to citizens.  It’s not contained in the Bill of Rights, but it applies the Bill of Rights to the laws of  every state in the Union.  Most importantly, citizenship could not be withheld from those born on American soil simply because a special interest group, or a state, wanted them excluded.  Large segments of our population would not have been truly free without the 14th Amendment.

The current controversy surrounds “anchor babies,” which are children born on U.S. soil to parents that do not have a legal right to reside here, and the birth of the child allows those illegal immigrants to get a foot in the door.

I think there are other ways to handle illegal immigrants so that they are legally required to leave the United States even after having a baby born here, even a baby who is a U.S. citizen.  A baby who is entitled to be a U.S. citizen.  A baby that has a guarantee of U.S. citizenship.  I may tackle such a proposal in an upcoming blog piece.

But if you are going to repeal an amendment or portion thereof, shouldn’t you choose one that took a measure of freedom away from citizens, such as the 16th Amendment that established an income tax?

I don’t want citizenship withheld from babies born on our soil.  I think it’s dangerous for the integrity of our Constitution to even entertain such a notion.

I don’t want any of our Constitutional rights and freedoms to be curtailed because there are those who find it inconvenient.

Don’t you dare touch the 14th Amendment!  Stop endangering our Constitution!

Our Constitution and the rights it grants are the envy of  billions of individuals who live beyond our borders.  Why in the world do we want to attack it?  Why would we want to nullify portions of it that granted more freedoms to citizens?  It amounts to insanity.  It amounts to stupidity.  It amounts to betrayal.  It amounts to sabotage.  It amounts to Big Brother.  It amounts to oppression.  It amounts to tyranny.  It amounts to the destruction of our republic.

I love our Constitution.  I hold it dear.  Stop messing with it.

Need some good reasons to vote for Tom Ganley for Congress?  There are boatloads of them.  Some of the most obvious reasons, for voters who are paying attention, would be the contrasts between Tom Ganley and the Democrat incumbent representing Ohio’s 13th Congressional district, Betty Sutton.

If you are unfamiliar with Tom Ganley, the Republican nominee, I would urge you to visit his campaign website for an introduction to him.

If you’re a 13th district voter, you should already know U.S. Rep. Betty Sutton.

Did you know that, in the 111th Session of Congress, she has voted the Democrat Party line, as defined by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 99% of the time?  This ties her with 9 others for 15th place on the list of those voting the Democrat Party line.  Only 14 members of the U.S. House of Representatives are ahead of her on that list, and one of those 14 is Nancy Pelosi.  Another one of those 14 ahead of her is Pelosi’s Number 2, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, but his voting record only supersedes hers by one-tenth of one percent.  ONE-TENTH OF ONE PERCENT SEPARATES HER FROM THE NUMBER 2 DEMOCRAT IN THE U.S. HOUSE!  Keep in mind that there are 433 (two vacant seats, otherwise 435) House members, and that 255 of them are Democrats.  15th place is rarefied air, indeed.

If you’re curious about how loyal other Democrat members of Ohio’s delegation are to Nancy Pelosi, the Washington Post presents this webpage.  56 Democrats are ahead of Tim Ryan, with a voting record that’s 98.4% in line with Nancy Pelosi.  Mary Jo Kilroy and Charlie Wilson clock in with 98.1%.  Marcia Fudge is pegged at 97.7%.

By contrast, no Ohio Republicans show as much loyalty to the Republican Party line as these 5 Ohio Democrats do to the Democrat Party line.  Overall, Democrats in the U.S. House are more monolithic in their loyalty to the Democrat Party line than Republicans are to theirs.  Are Congressional Republicans the monolithic obstructionist “Party of No?”  With only 180 Republican members of the U.S. House, to begin with, Republicans have very little power to block the majority party.  When legislation that Pelosi wants is “obstructed” from passage, defectors from her own party made that “0bstruction” possible.  The record shows, however, that defection is more rare among Democrats than among Republicans.  I can only interpret that to mean that Republicans are more bipartisan.

Oh, you wanted to know the rest of the Pelosi-loyalty numbers for Ohio’s Congressional Democrats:  Marcy Kaptur, 96.2%; Steve Driehaus, 94.7%; John Boccieri, 93.8%; Zack Space, 93.2%; Dennis Kucinich, 91.6%.  OK, Kucinich is far more liberal than this Pelosi-loyalty percentage would indicate, but I still maintain that he’s not as liberal as Betty Sutton.

In my book, Nancy Pelosi is uber-liberal, firmly entrenched in the left-wing of the left-wing of the Democrat Party, as is her constituency back in her San Francisco & vicinity home district, California’s 8th Congressional district.  Here’s a map of Pelosi’s home district, just so you can get an idea of who her constituents are.  Therefore, in my book, the more one votes the Democrat Party line, which line is defined by uber-liberal Nancy Pelosi, the more liberal one is likely to be, with few exceptions.  By that standard, Betty Sutton is Ohio’s most liberal Representative to the U.S. House, and our state has some fairly liberal Congress members.

I know some of you will say “Dennis Kucinich doesn’t vote as often with Nancy Pelosi because he’s even further to the left than Pelosi is.”  I disagree.  There may be a very small handful of issues where Kucinich is further left than Pelosi, but I can think of a number of occasions, particularly during Presidential Democrat Primary debates, when Kucinich has made statements that are much more mainstream, some of which even I, DJW, had to agree with.  I truly believe that both Pelosi and Sutton are more liberal than Kucinich.

Now, I want you to look at this map of Ohio’s 13th Congressional district, covering the northern half of Lorain County, a wide stripe of southern Cuyahoga County, a wide stripe of northern Medina County, and the western half of Summit County.  Now I ask you, which community in that district is as liberal as Betty Sutton?  I don’t think Lorain or Elyria are.  I should know.  I’ve campaigned in those communities, myself.  Oberlin is the most liberal community in Lorain County, and it’s in Marcy Kaptur’s district, not Sutton’s.  Does the constituency of Betty Sutton’s home district resemble the constituency of Nancy Pelosi’s home district?  I don’t think so.  I think there’s a terrible mismatch between the pulse of the 13th district and the ideology of Betty Sutton, and I think it’s high time that the voters knew that Sutton is out of touch with them.

(By the way, how frequently is she hosting live, in-person town hall meetings?)

In 2006, when U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown left the 13th District seat open in order to vie for his Senate seat, there were crowded fields in both the Democrat and Republican primaries to succeed him.  In the nomination contests, no candidates reached a majority (over 50%) of each respective party’s votes.  Carpetbagger Betty Sutton was nominated with 31.29% of the Democrat vote.  Two keys to her nomination victory were Sherrod Brown’s endorsement and Emily’s List’s backing.  Emily’s List, by the way, is a PAC that endorses female candidates who embrace uber-liberal feminist political positions (as opposed to mainstream feminist political positions), with the most important tenet to embrace being support for abortion-on-demand.  To Emily’s List, Sarah Palin is the most disgusting piece of crap on the planet.

Lorain Mayor (at the time) Craig Foltin was nominated with 37.46% of the Republican vote.  I was an unabashed supporter of Foltin, and gave some help to his campaign as a volunteer.

Betty Sutton won the seat in the November 2006 elections when anti-Republican sentiment had reached its high-water mark in Ohio in the wake of some widely publicized scandals that tarnished some of Ohio’s Republican politicians.  It was a difficult political environment for Foltin to campaign in that year.

There was a former U.S. President who had a campaign mantra, “It’s the economy, stupid!”  Oh yeah, that was Bill Clinton.  Way back then, I guess Sutton wasn’t paying attention.  Should we forgive her for it?

Besides knowing the district and its needs very well, Foltin understood a number of things about economics, unlike Betty Sutton, who has to be told how to vote on economic issues because she can’t figure out such things by herself.

In 2008, I endorsed Dave Potter for Congress over Sutton, and much of my decision was based on their relative understandings of economics.  Potter knew economic principles quite well, while Sutton has to rely on others for guidance on economic decisions, and those those guiding Sutton seem to be more rooted in mythology than reality.

At the time of Sutton’s campaign against Potter, this is what she touted as her economic record:

1. Rep. Sutton supports the suspension of purchases of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) temporarily. Filling the SPR takes 70,000 barrels of oil off the market each day, even though the reserve is 97 percent full with enough to meet our national security needs. At a time of record prices, suspending these government purchases, as we have done in the past, could reduce gas prices by 5 to 24 cents a gallon — a critical first step for America’s families, businesses, and the economy.
2. Rep. Sutton has joined with other Freshman House members to urge the President to temporarily suspend purchases of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). This would allow more oil to remain on the market and could drive down the price of gas for consumers by as much as $.25 a gallon.
3. Rep. Sutton is also a cosponsor of H.R. 5473 to temporarily suspend shipments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
4. Rep. Sutton is a cosponsor of H.R. 2372 – WEAN Off of Oil Act (DeLauro) – Imposes a 50% tax on crude oil profits over $50 per barrel by major oil companies and directs proceeds to the Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve.
5. House passed bill to deal with price-gouging/fixing at the wholesale and retail level: Rep. Sutton cosponsored and the House passed H.R. 1252 – Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act (Rep. Stupak) – Protects consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and other fuels by setting criminal penalties and permitting states to bring lawsuits against wholesalers or retailers.
6. House passed bill to address price fixing at the OPEC level: Rep. Sutton voted for and the House passed H.R. 2264 – No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act (NOPEC) – Authorizes the Justice Department to take legal action against OPEC state-controlled entities that participate in conspiracies to limit the supply, or fix the price, of oil.
7. Market Manipulation: Rep. Sutton is a cosponsor of the Prevent Unfair Manipulation of Prices Act, H.R. 594 (The PUMP Act). This bill would amend the Commodity Exchange Act to extend its jurisdiction to certain: (1) “included energy transactions” traded on an electronic trading facility; and (2) certain energy commodities involved in over-the-counter transactions. This would address market manipulation on the commodity level and empowers the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to impose civil and criminal penalties for price manipulation and other violations of such Act.
8. Oil savings from the Energy Independence and Security Act: The bill increases fuel efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon in 2020. The fuel economy and renewable fuel standards combined will save the U.S. 2.3 million barrels of oil a day in 2020, which is about what we import from the Persian Gulf today. This act is important as we reduce our dependence on oil. The fuel economy provisions alone will create 149,300 jobs, and save consumers $22 billion at the pump every year starting in 2020 ($700 – $1000), even after paying for the fuel-saving technology needed to meet the standards.
9. The Energy Independence and Security Act also invests in clean renewable energy. (Since the bill did not repeal all of the subsidies paid to big oil, Rep. Sutton joined with other Freshman House Members and signed two letters urging Congressional leadership to continue to pursue an increase in a renewable electricity standard (RES) and to pass renewable energy and efficiency tax incentives paid for by ending subsidies to big oil companies. Sutton also voted for H.R H.R. 5351, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Act, which passed the House. This bill contains provisions to end unnecessary subsidies to big oil companies and instead provide tax incentives to invest in clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency.
10. Long-term Reinvestment in Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing. Rep. Sutton wrote a letter, co-signed by several other members of Congress, to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development urging funding for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program. This program was authorized by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and provides low interest loans to automobile manufacturers and component suppliers. The loans would cover up to 30% of the cost of retooling a manufacturing facility in the United States to produce advanced technology vehicles or their key components, e.g., engines and transmissions.

My own take on the above bullet points is as follows:

Sutton’s measures vis-a-vis the Strategic Petroleum Reserve=a drop in the bucket, so that wipes out the first 3 bullet points. In hindsight, those measures did not bring about the savings they projected.  Other marketplace factors, such as supply and demand, brought the gasoline prices down from record highs.

The fourth bullet point just means that when oil prices were already high, she wanted to add more taxes to make the prices higher.

5th bullet point, redundant. We already have state laws that protect us from retail price gouging.

6th bullet point, silly, because our Justice Department can’t really take on OPEC countries, and going after the companies only induces a shell game.

7th bullet point, half measure. The whole futures market is in need of overhaul. Tweaking is insufficient.  Even as of August 2010, we still don’t have the kind of marketplace reforms that our economy needs.

8th bullet point, 2020 is a long way off, so, nice maneuver to look like you’re doing something when, in the short run, the status quo is maintained.  Further, is it the government’s responsibility to dictate to the automobile manufacturers what the consumers want?  Or are consumers capable of buying what they want and skipping over what they don’t want?  Do car companies want to respond to what consumers want, in the interest of selling cars?  Or would they rather thumb their nose at consumers, and have cars rust on the sales lots?

9th bullet point, Sutton signed two letters.

10th bullet point, Sutton wrote a letter.

As the 2008 campaign season was winding down to a close, the matter of government bailouts came before Congress.  There were two votes held on a bill to bail out Wall Street to the tune of $700 billion, because the first try didn’t succeed.  Sutton voted no the first time, but she didn’t seem to know why it was a good thing to vote no.  The bill was no better the second time around.  But in between the first vote and the second vote, Sutton set up a conference call between Presidential candidate Barack Obama and freshman Democrats who voted no.  Hitching her wagon to the Obama juggernaut, I believe, is what interested Sutton in changing her vote.  No matter if you embrace Keynesian economics or, like me, reject the government’s economic manipulations prescribed by Keynesian economics, the gist of the bill did not change, therefore, votes should not have changed.  But some people, like Sutton, switched their votes, which means they don’t have an inner compass that guides them on economic issues.  Peer pressure, lobbying, twisting arms, fear tactics–those are the reasons people would change their vote.

When Sutton held a press conference to explain the vote switch, it was heavily scripted, and spoken like an automaton.  The Cleveland Plain Dealer had a clip of it that you can see here.  Those aren’t genuinely her words that are being spoken.  It was an act of ventriloquism, and she was the dummy.  But even if you took her words at face value and gave her the benefit of the doubt that those words did originate from her, the message still makes no sense.

Since then, she hasn’t met a bailout she didn’t like, including the bailout for state education budgets across the nation that was voted on two days ago.

Her support of cap-and-trade clearly shows she has no interest in defending your pocketbooks from being emptied.  If enacted, the public will see sharply increased electric bills, especially in Ohio.

Tax cuts are expiring, and the tax codes will change the way you calculate deductions–for the worse.

We should definitely mention “Cash-for-Clunkers.”  Sutton was all about “Cash-for-Clunkers.”  For about a month or so, consumers were given a window of opportunity to trade in their old cars for new ones and reap the benefit of a government subsidy to do so.  Are subsidies free money?  When the government offers a rebate on a purchase, do they just wave a magic wand, and a fairy godmother makes it all happen?  No.  The government must either confiscate more of the public’s money, or print more of their own money. Did “Cash-for-Clunkers” prime the pump?  What do you think?  What’s the economy like, right now?  Today?  This very minute that you are reading this?  If you don’t measure the value of “Cash-for-Clunkers” in dollars squandered by the government in a failed attempt to stimulate the economy, but measure the value in terms of reduced carbon emissions, what do you think?  Did it work?  Are polar bears partying on the ice floes because carbon emissions were actually reduced?  I don’t think even one little ice cube in the Arctic Ocean was saved from melting because of “Cash-for-Clunkers.”

The government can subsidize, it can bail out, it can rebate, it can stimulate this aspect of the economy, and that aspect of the economy, and we needn’t worry about where the money comes from, for the majority caucus is firm on its commitment to be budget neutral–no increase in budget deficits, no increase in the national debt.  Inefficiencies can be weeded out, and that will pay for all these proposals.  That’s especially true in the case of Obamacare.  But I’m here to tell you that it’s all a myth.  Sutton has worked to propagate just such a myth. Obamacare will have REAL costs, and you’ll feel them acutely when you file your taxes next year.

With no economic moorings, Sutton has just gone with the flow, been driven by the wind, and tossed by the waves.  Spend.  Spend.  Spend.  Spend. $$$$$$$$$$$$$

She’s all excited because she gets to make a difference!  She’s delivering on providing all the social supports she always wanted to!  She’s subsidizing the common folk.  She’s giving health care to those who couldn’t afford it.  Oh, business is being adversely affected?  Don’t worry, we’ll bail them out.  She’s putting lots of money into renewable energy because the industry can’t be profitable and certainly can’t yield the output our economy needs, but what price can you put on being loved by the environmental special interest groups?  Isn’t being loved more important than the dollars squandered on ventures that won’t yield returns?  Enrollment might be dropping at the public schools in your area, but, don’t worry, teaching staffs won’t be cut!  Congress to the rescue!  She has such compassion for those who are out of work, so she’ll vote to extend unemployment benefits again and again and again.  By the way, the federal government might be hiring, so, why not apply?  She plans to keep voting for government expansion, so if you don’t get hired by the government today, try again another day.

Doesn’t Betty Sutton know that she’s feeling giddy because she’s on a shopping spree to end all shopping sprees with money that comes for free?  It’s not free money, but she’s not ready to learn where all the money comes from right now.  She’s not done dispensing her government charity for worthy causes.  When every constituent group has been cared for, that’s when she’ll have a chance to be schooled on where the money comes from.

Let’s boil it down to this:  Sutton clearly believes in a centrally planned economy.

Soviet bloc governments used to centrally plan economies.  Look what happened to them.  Their propaganda stated that it was for the public good.  North Korea still has a centrally planned economy.  North Korea’s propaganda states that it’s for the public good.  How are they faring?

Sutton also says it’s for the public good.

Sutton is so liberal, she’s a Soviet.

How are we doing?

Editor’s note:  Rich Iott is the Republican nominee for Ohio’s 9th Congressional seat, which is currently held by Marcy Kaptur.  The district encompasses most of Lucas County (a chunk of SW Lucas County is excluded), all of Ottawa County, all of Erie County, and nearly half of Lorain County (the south and west, except NW, areas of Lorain County, are included).  This press release was issued on 8/12/2010.

Iott Schedules District Town Hall Meetings

Editor’s note:  This press release was issued on 8/10/2010.  Ohio’s 9th Congressional district encompasses most of Lucas County (the part of the county that’s not included is in the southwest), all of  Ottawa County, all of Erie County, and nearly half of the land area of Lorain County (the south and southwest are included).  Rich Iott is the Republican nominee challenging the incumbent Democrat Marcy Kaptur (who cast a yes vote on this latest bailout bill, HB 1586) for the 9th Congressional seat.  The final version of HB 1586 passed by both the U. S. House and the U. S. Senate can be read on these three pages: page 1; page 2; page 3.

Rich Iott, candidate for Ohio’s 9th Congressional District, issued the following statement following passage of HR 1586 – the Education, Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act:

“Today the House passed a second so-called stimulus, this time to bail out schools and states.

“What the career politicians in Washington fail to understand is that the over-spending has got to stop.  There are good examples across the country, and right next door in our neighboring state of Indiana, where responsible governments have cut spending and encouraged job growth, resulting in budget surpluses of hundreds of millions of dollars.

“In May, Toledo voters rejected an income tax for their school system.  Their message was clear – that with an 11.6% unemployment rate, they have no more money for failing schools.  By Congress passing this bill in Washington today, the tone-deaf politicians have decided to spend tax dollars from all Americans to bail out the schools that local taxpayers refuse to give additional funds to.  Even the liberal Washington Post criticized this measure as “more of an election-year favor for teachers unions than an optimal use of public resources.”

“Career politicians in Washington are again substituting their personal preferences for the will of the people they are supposed to represent.  They are, again, ignoring what the voters are telling them.

“The first so-called stimulus failed to do what Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her supporters said it would.  Unemployment rose – and so did the debt.  You need to look no further than the fact that, 18 months after the first stimulus became law, they’re still talking about the need to create jobs.

“And while that’s bad enough, they’re planning to pay for this current spending by cutting the Food Stamp program – but not until 2014.  So where is the money going to come from to cover the $26.1 billion cost? It’s going to come from increased taxation on businesses, ‘future’ savings in various programs and more borrowing against the future earnings of our children and our grandchildren.

“And when the time comes to cut the Food Stamp program in order to get the anticipated ‘savings,’ no one really believes that Congress will do so.  In fact, most people will wonder how many times between now and then Congress will actually spend those same projected savings on favors for other special interests.”Congress needs to take a serious look at its profligate spending and get its own fiscal house in order, which would serve as a good example to state and local governments to do the same.”

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…

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…

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 —