Earmarks

The Senate just doesn’t get it.  Friday, March 14^th, the Senate had an opportunity to end earmarks, at least on their side of the Capitol, but chose not to do so.  We have to ask why?  Earmarks are essentially spending without representation.  These appropriations are not voted per se, they often are inserted into a bill after the vote or are inserted into an unrelated bill that needs to be passed.  Earmarks are used as leverage for re-election (look what I have done for my state) and they are used to curry the favor of other Senators on a bill.  Senators simply do not wish to give up this effective re-election perk. After this recent vote we now know that the majority of Senators find nothing wrong with this practice of spending without representation. Remember 33 of these Senators are up for re-election in November. Perhaps checking to see how your Senator voted before casting your Senatorial vote in November would be a good thing to do.

Choosing the Right Person

If you like Senator McCain or dislike him, it is probably based on his recorded history. You can look at his accomplishments and failures and get a pretty decent picture of how he thinks. You can do this to a lesser degree with Senator Clinton. We could not do this with Senator Obama because we have no history - all we have are his words. Remember, words from any politician are just words designed to obtain our favor and vote. Now Senator Obama has some of his history revealed - yes he has condemned the statements of Reverend Wright, yes, he is now further distancing himself from Rev. Wright.What do we really know about Senator Obama? He wants us to believe that he had never heard these rants from Rev. Wright. Yet he was disinclined to have him speak at his Presidential announcement because the Reverend often uses rough words, according to Senator Obama - that was some time ago. I am sorry Senator Obama, what you say only rings true to those who desperately want a Democrat in the White House without regard to a good vetting of the candidate. Twenty years is a long time and you have made Reverend Wright a close part of your family for years. You have NEVER heard about his rants? Why then did you choose to not have him speak at your announcement? Comments from your spouse may now be better understood when held up against the ideology of Reverend Wright.

Our Choices

It is our plight to have to pick from second tier candidates again as we have had to do in the past elections of recent memory.Looking back, have we had any really good candidates for the Presidency on the ballot?Of recent years we had a choice between George Bush and John Kerry, George Bush and Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, Bill Clinton and George Bush 41 and Ross Perot (he had sufficient vote to be listed), George Bush 41 and Michael Dukakis. Are there candidates out there with the capability, experience, and judgment to be President, who do not have to dance around, obscure, and mislead us on their history to be elected?Is it us, the voters, is it the press, or is it the flood of people who make politics a career and not a calling that allows us to be presented with and to accept second tier candidates time and again?

Democrat Super Delegates

What are the reasons for the existence of super delegates?Well, the reason may be the same reason as the requirement for the Electoral College.First, can there be any other reason than to insure that party regulars can steer the party away from the choice of the primary voters and caucus attendees, if they feel that these rank and file non-party regulars may be picking an unelectable candidate or a candidate who is not in step with the Party?Is there any other reason – I can’t think of one – please comment if you have come up with other valid reasons.

The Founding fathers felt that the populace, with a very high illiteracy rate at that time and no national press, would have difficulty making a choice for the President because they would not know enough about the candidates.Also at that time this was truly a states rights nation with the federal government to be subordinate to the states in all matters except foreign affairs, international trade and defense.So why shouldn’t the states choose the President.It was not until 1872 that a popular vote was used at all, and that was to decide on who the Electoral College members would be for each state.Prior to 1872 the state legislators determined the members of the Electoral College.We were founded as a Republic and to this date we operate as a Republic in Presidential elections, with a hint of Democracy – popular vote only counts toward the Electoral vote for each state.

It does seem surprising that the Democratic Party would choose to use super delegates, representing 20% of the overall delegates, appointed by the party based primarily upon positions now or previously held in the Congress and State Legislators.It also is surprising that the Democratic Party would use proportional delegate counts, if not to provide more impact to the super delegates.No one candidate can really win a state so the delegate count would remain in a region where no candidate can get a commanding lead unless the other candidates fall or drop out along the way, thus the super delegates’ votes become prominent.This smacks of the Electoral College, in that the Democratic Party might not believe that their membership is incapable of choosing a candidate.At least the Founding Fathers had a compelling reason to make this country a Republic and not a pure democracy.What is the Democratic Party’s reason for operating like a republic and not a pure democracy?Perhaps someone will enlighten me with a comment – be nice.

For those of you who have not given this thought, I ask “what is change?”Is change the same thing to you as to the person standing next to you?Are you sure that the change you are seeking is the change that is being offered from the candidates?Change can mean many things.According to Webster’s dictionary “change” is a noun and a verb.It can mean make something radically different or to simply shift position.It can mean to become different or to completely transform.It can also simply mean to pass possession from one owner to that of another.

Have you thought about the change being offered by your candidate?Are you quite sure that your definition of change means the same to your candidate.What if your candidate wants to radically change something you thing works well?What if your candidate wants to NOT change what you want changed?Senator Obama appears to be setting a record listing something like 140 issues in need of change.Have you studied each of these items on the change hit list to be sure you agree with them all or most all?

We have three potential new U.S. Presidents running for office today.Each candidate talks about change, one has driven a whole lot of change already while in Congress – some like the change, some do not.One candidate claims to be an agent for change, but has not demonstrated that he or she is a proven agent of change. Another candidate wants to make a host of radical changes and again without any evidence that that candidate is capable of steering radical change.To support all these changes, you need to do two things, especially when the word radical is in the mix.First, you need to understand what your candidate really wants to change and whether that candidate is fully capable of delivering the change; second, you need to understand whether the change your candidate wants to deliver will be more harmful than no change at all.

Another element of change is determining whether the candidate can do it alone or does the candidate need help.None of the candidates running will be able to effect change without help.Currently there are 468 assistant change agents up for reelection in November (435 Representatives and 33 Senators).Many of these folks do not want change because they have it “pretty good”.Some have been sitting in their power perches observing the scurrying about them by new folks who earnestly desire to make things better, yet these birds of prey like it just the way it is, despite what they tell their constituents.Let me be clear!Anti-change is so intense in Congress that changing one person, the President, will change very little other than window dressing.

An example of the wrong change by the wrong person and the impact of that change recently came to light.Senators Obama and Clinton, pandering to win Ohio, each derided NAFTA as being the cause of the misery in Ohio.Each candidate knows better, but instead of pointing out that NAFTA is not the reason for the misery in Ohio, that it is our country’s failure to remain competitive in world trade, they heavily derided NAFTA.They pandered for votes and delegates and in doing so, made our loyal trade partner, Canada, a major supplier of oil to us, very nervous.Canada started to talk about reviewing the amount of oil they send us.The push for NAFTA change, misplaced as it was, caused both campaigns to let Canada know quietly that they were just campaign posturing – you know, blowing smoke up the electorate’s collective butts!Remember be careful what kind of change you seek and who you choose to deliver it.

(See http://brokengovernment.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/nafta-means-lost-jobs-%e2%80%93-probably-not/ for more insight on NAFTA.)

To recap, if you want change, determine just what change you want, what will its affect be, and if the person you want to deliver that change has the know-how for change, veracity, and a history of driving bipartisan change.You will also need to give that person change assistants, which means changing the 87% of Congress up for election to remove the perched power brokers using seniority to block change.