A Sonoran View

Whatever happened to the national goals of a Strong National Defense, Fiscal Responsibility, Energy Independence, Free Market Solutions, and Individual Liberty?  Why have we moved 180 degrees from this goal — a goal that made this country great?

National Defense

Over the past eight years we have worn down and, as of the latest poll of military morale, demoralized our once superb fighting force.  We have had two long wars fought with politician oversight, mostly not to win, but to avoid losing.   Why are we repeating mistakes of prior wars?  We seem to use a calculator and a checkbook to measure our commitment to a fight, rather than providing an all out commitment to win rapidly and decisively.

In an effort to avoid drawing out the Afghan war further, our President, is considering a plan to wind down this conflict and either fight a small scale war or leave entirely.  His personally appointed Afghan Commander has provided the President with a plan to win the war, but needs a greater commitment from the White House – a commitment that the White House appears unwilling to make.  What the White House, and the many others, who decry that the Afghan war grinds on interminably fail to grasp simple plan.  The plan is that similar to the strategy of World War II, where the Pacific Theater was fought as a holding action until the European Theater was won, we have fought a holding action in Afghanistan while we won the Iraqi war.

Our President needs to understand that the reason we went into Afghanistan was that the Taliban were allowing Al Qaeda to move freely, train freely, and constitute a large fighting and terror delivery force.  Pulling out of Afghanistan or downsizing the war will embolden the Taliban and re-constitute a powerful al Qaeda.  Pulling out now will waste the lives of those who have fallen and the sacrifice of those who suffered injury and permanent handicap fighting that holding action so that we could win in Iraq and then take on Afghanistan to win.

Fiscal Responsibility

Under George Bush and a mostly Republican Congress this nation experienced wild spending.  Government intervention via a supposed oversight with a manipulated Community Reinvestment Act, allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to light the time fuse for a mortgage meltdown.

Now, Barack Obama and the Democrat Congress have shown the Republicans just what irrational and fiscally unconscionable spending can be.  The Democrat spending in the name of stimulus has been off the charts.  Unfortunately, the stimulus bill is only stimulating local governments to continue spending, and providing the Congress with the ability to funnel funds to pet, non-stimulating projects—few long term sustainable jobs have been created.  Thus the unemployment rate has crossed the 10% threshold, when it was not supposed to go above 8%.  We were told that the fiscal situation had reached a crisis of economic collapse and that the stimulus had to be passed quickly and fully to prevent this.  Then we were told that no one could foresee just how bad the crisis was.  What is worse than a national economic collapse?  This failed stimulus and out of control unemployment rate has forced the administration to count “saved” jobs – a measure that simply cannot be realistically counted.

Energy Independence

The Department of Energy was created to find an alternative to gasoline in the Carter Administration—we see how well that went, yet we are still funding a $70+ billion department filled with bureaucracy.

While we sit on an abundance of oil and natural gas, we are pushing a green energy platform that has no hope of meeting the immense power needs of this country in the next ten years.  Last year, we produced a little more than 2% of our energy from wind and solar.  We have abandoned nuclear power – a source for clean energy, with albeit a disposal problem – yet European nations, and especially France have embraced nuclear.  We are seeking to cripple this nation’s resource of cheap energy with Cap and “Tax” — sorry, Cap and Trade.  According to CBS News, this effort will raise each family’s home energy bill by $1,761 (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040.shtml).

This tax will also affect business and everything you consume, by raising prices on just about all good and services originating in this country.  This will be a cascading tax.  The tax on a tax will have a cascading effect and will hamper small business’ ability to create jobs—these are the folks who generally create about 70% of the jobs in this country.  What is absolutely dumbfounding about this effort is that the U.N.’s climate projection models which equated the increase in CO² with a corresponding increase in earth’s temperature have been proven wrong with actual data. (Jeffrey Ball, Wall Street Journal, Monday, November 2, 2009) (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125686509223717691.html?mod=rss_Today’s_Most_Popular)

But on the matter of global warming, I defer to Jonathan DuHamel who writes “Wry Heat” here at the Tucson Citizen.  On the matter of this insane backbreaking energy restriction on our economic growth, at a time when we need economic growth to pay down our gargantuan, out of this world debt, I can only assume we have gone mad.

Free Market Solutions

In just about a year, reaching back into the Bush administration, we apparently decided that government knows better that the individual.  Government of the people, by the people, and for the people, has become government by and of the elected to the people not for the people — a dangerous change.

We have seen how bond holders suffered a lapse of the rule of law in the way bankruptcies were adjudicated, with unions actually being placed first in line above bond holders.  We have seen how executives are being capped on earnings.  Yes, there may have been abuses, but the government need not be and should not be the arbiter of how much someone in the private sector can make.  Rather the shareholders should have been given more power to control the Boards of these “run a muck” companies, and to control the compensation of the top executives.

We have seen how our government has taken ownership of, and is managing private enterprise companies, like General Motors.  Enough!  Government can’t manage government, yet win at private enterprise.  There is enough corruption in Congress today to greatly overshadow the “greedy” corporate executives, who we have been told are the scourge of the earth and the source of all our problems, by our corrupt government in Washington.  For starters, just think about those sweetheart mortgage deals to Chris Dodd and others.

Individual Liberty

The 2,000 page House Bill (H.R. 3962) is supposed to provide health care for those who are uninsured, yet is does not.  Too many uninsureds remain uninsured, despite the bill.  The bill has a front loaded tax revenue stream and a back load delivery date, and it still costs nearly a Trillion dollars.  This bill severely infringes on individual rights and liberty.  The Bill requires individuals to purchase health care insurance or be subject to fines and even jail time.  It taxes small business and will lead to a single payer universal health care system run by the government.

Why don’t we just buy health insurance for the uninsured – it would be substantially cheaper.  This 2,000 page bill is not intended to provide health insurance for the uninsured.  If it did only intend to insure the uninsured, it would only need to be 100 or so pages.  Instead the Democratsl hides theirt true agenda behind 2,000 pages wherein they control of our lives and our bodies.  Remember how hard the Democrats fought to allow a woman a choice over her body— “reproductive rights”.  Why then do the Democrats now wish to control every other part of our bodies?

In this post I thought I would share my letter to Congresswoman Giffords about the Constitution and Health Care reform.  I hope that both those on the left and the right can view the letter based on its factual content and if need be look up in the Constitution the Article and Section’s mentioned. For those interested, the Constitution can be found at: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

For this argument the most important phrase in Article I Section 8 is:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.  Foregoing powers refers to the total of eighteen powers that the federal government possesses along with any other Constitutional amendments and no more.  The argument to provide for the general welfare has been misused and trampled by Congress long enough.  The Congress must use the 18 powers to provide for the general welfare.

Congresswoman Giffords recently responded to my question to her, both in writing and in person, one on one, about where in the Constitution’s eighteen delineated powers of the Federal Government does it grant the authority for the Federal Government to provide for a national health care plan and to compel citizens to have health care.  The following is my recent response to her email.

 ”Your response included information from the Congressional Research Service.  In your response you state: “Most of these statutes have been enacted pursuant to Congress’s authority to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper” to carry out its mandate to … provide for the… general Welfare.” 

You and your attorney at the Congressional Research Service have missed a few points.  Providing for the general welfare, in Section 8 Article I, is defined by and restricts the Government of the United States to the 18 powers granted the federal government in the Constitution.  Only those 18 powers may be used to provide for the general welfare. (It’s in there pretty clearly if you re-read the Constitution).  In addition, the tenth amendment sealed the deal and prevents the federal government from assuming powers not granted to it.

Specifically you quote the last paragraph in Section 8 Article I, but you and your attorney failed to quote it properly.  In it you can create all laws and provide for the general welfare by executingthose powers vested by this Constitution to the Government of the United States. Remember, you are vested by the eighteen powers only. You do not have broad reaching powers  to decide what the general welfare is and to legislate whatever you want to legislate.  You are bound and restricted by the eighteen powers and any subsequent Constitutional amendments.  Despite the nice try by the attorney at the Congressional Research Service, you cannot change the Constitution.

You have a serious problem with the 2,000 page House health care bill and the very numerous items in the bill that violate your authority to legislate.

I desire that you will take your oath of office seriously and “…protect and defend the constitution…” by following the Constitution when you vote.  I sincerely implore you to consider the Constitution before you radically change this nation forever and saddle it with another trillion dollars of debt.  We all know this health care bill is not about health care and that it is about transforming this nation forever to a more socialist government.  I never dreamed you were a socialist and still do not believe it.  You are a smart business woman and hold a fiduciary and moral responsibility to the people of your district. 

You can fix health care incrementally without trashing the Constitution and forever transforming our way of government.  This bill is not the way to fix the problems of today’s health care system.  You are better than that.”

It is time for every American left or right to hold our elected officials to the rules provided for them to legislate.  No more unfunded mandates.  No compelling citizens to have health insurance.  No more spending that will break our economy and cause us to lose our national credit rating – it has been threatened by rating agencies who regularly rate sovereign governments.  Remember that our currency is only backed by the full FAITH and CREDIT of the United States of America.  When we lose our world credit rating, we will lose the power of our currency.  This national health care bill in the House, of nearly 2,000 pages, is not about health care, because if it were, we could buy health insurance for all uninsured who want to be insured for substantially less that the $1 Trillion it will cost us.   It is not deficit neutral, by an accounting trick – tax now then implement in three years.  This plan will tax medical supplies in an effort to cut health care costs – I too don’t understand that one.  We are told that it needs to be passed right now.  Then why is implementation years off?  This House bill cuts Medicare by $500 Billion dollars in an effort to minimize the cost of this TAX and HEALTH plan.

We can only hope that Congresswoman Giffords heeds my request and the request of many of her other constituents.

I thought that I would write a piece on where we stand with Rio Nuevo and how we got to this point.  After researching, I don’t have a blog post on Rio Nuevo, but I have uncovered the best broken field runner in the history of local politics.  Nina Trasoff in her 60’s is one spry very agile politician.  Some time ago I talked with Ms. Trasoff at a Rita Ranch event.  I found her to be very charming and vivacious, but never dreamed that she could run the political 100 yard dash in under 9 seconds and complete a steeplechase in record time without knocking over one barrier.  She has proven herself to be a political tri-athlete.

For a year she has dodged a full in-depth, truly independent, outside audit of Rio Nuevo, by leaping those steeplechase barriers and running those 100 yard sprints.  She chaired the city counsel Rio Nuevo sub-committee providing oversight on Rio Nuevo, until the full council suspended the sub-committee.  It was suspended because the legislature was pushing for transparency.

Wasn’t Nina the council member who pushed for a bond to be issued in record time at the end of 2008?  Wasn’t this the bond that was issued at the time the bond market was near collapse causing the City of Tucson to pay a hefty premium for the issuance?  Wasn’t this bond issued as her answer to the threat from the legislature to cut off Rio Nuevo funding, for lack of transparency?  

In early 2009, the council voted to have an outside audit of Rio Nuevo—the audit never happened.

Nina was quick and agile, but she may have lost a step or two.  If fact, it appears that in a recent pronouncement she blamed the Arizona State Legislature for preventing the City of Tucson and the council from obtaining that audit.  This is a sign that she has lost that step. This dodging and weaving prompted a serving State Representative, who had been in the middle of the fray between the Arizona Legislature and the council earlier this year, to be quoted in a recent press release.  He rebutted Ms. Trasoff’s assertion that the Legislature prevented the City of Tucson and the Tucson City Counsel from obtaining the promised outside audit.  This rebuttal is significant.

Trasoff has said she inherited this Rio Nuevo mess.  We must then ask what she did about it.  Did she fight for that independent outside audit—no! 

Don’t we want Tucson City Counsel members who would fight for and win a true outside independent performance audit, especially if they claim to have inherited the problem?  While a sitting council member and the Rio Nuevo subcommittee chairperson, Ms. Trasoff and the entire council, including Karen Ulrich another member up for re-election, should have seen just what a mess Rio Nuevo is and should have fought for a truly independent audit by a firm with no ties to Tucson.  If Nina Trasoff felt the State Legislature was prohibiting the audit, as she apparently has stated—unlikely considering the legislature’s position on Rio Nuevo—then Ms. Trasoff and Ms. Ulrich along with the other council members should have gone to Phoenix and demanded approval for an independent outside audit.  They did no such thing and for this we can only assume that the current city council, with the exception of Shirley Scott, did not and do not really want a true and independent audit of the entire Rio Nuevo mess.   We must ask why—what are they hiding?

Couple the lack of a truly independent in-depth audit of Rio Nuevo with the four year old campaign promise by both Trasoff and Ulrich to remove the trash collection fee, known as the City of Tucson’s Environmental Services Fee, if elected (a pillar of their campaigns)—a promise they immediately reneged on—and we appear to have two candidates for re-election with questionable skills or is it motives?

If you want yet another reason to remove these two from the council. They have been endorsed by the Arizona Daily Star.  This paper has run countless articles about the problems of Rio Nuevo and the trash fee promise, and yet it did not ask the question, why haven’t you both fought strongly for a real independent outside audit of Rio Nuevo in your four years on the council and then get it?  The Star is becoming a great predictor of the right candidate for political office—it’s the candidate they don’t endorse!

Why is the decision by the Administration, through its Department of Commerce Census Bureau, to count all residents of the United States without regard to resident status in the 2010 Census a big deal?

Before we can answer this question, we need some background.  The United States Census is the cornerstone of our constitutional republic.   It is the ultimate arbiter of how states are represented in the House of Representatives and how the President of the United States is elected by the Electoral College.   Due to the cornerstone nature of the Census to our nation, it is unconscionable to make the 2010 Census subject to tampering, manipulation, a skewed citizen count, or an ideological interpretation.  Why will it be skewed if the current Census Director, members of Congress, and the Administration proceed as intended?

Article I Section 2 of our Constitution originally provided for the enumeration of “persons” of the several states.  At the time the Constitution was adopted, “persons” consisted of free persons and a three fifths fraction of the slaves inhabiting this land, with the exception of Indians.  Let’s look to a further clarification of the intent of the Founders at the time of ratification of the Constitution by the states.  We find in Article II, Section 1 instructions on the presidency eligibility: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”   Thus all persons residing in the United States at ratification were considered to be Citizens of the United States and thus the term persons referred to Citizens.  We also find that the Fourteenth Amendment in Section 2, which modified Article 1 Section 2, requires “…counting the whole number of all persons…” eliminating the fraction and the counting only of free persons.

Before you go off on a tangent about the callous use of a “fraction” of slaves, the compromise method was to prevent the people of the Southern States from having a lopsided vote and a lopsided representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College and a “super vote”, if you will, using slaves to inflate the population count, while only white men voted.    Now to the big deal!

The 2010 census operation fully plans to count any person legal or illegal, citizen or non-citizen—remember only citizens can vote.  We should be counting only “persons” which in the Constitution is synonymous with citizens.  Failure to do this means that states with an abundance of people who are not citizens made up of both legal and illegal residents, without the right to vote, will be unjustly rewarded with more representatives in Congress for law making and taxation and a greater weight to the Electoral College to elect the president of the United States.  If we grant more representatives and more electoral votes to these states, then we seriously skew the one person (citizen) one vote rule.  We end up giving the citizens of these states the power to cast what amount to those “super votes”.  Essentially, a smaller electorate will have the power of a larger state population. 

Senator Vitter of Louisiana, Senator Bennett of Utah, and Representative Chaffets of Utah, want to add a question to the Census Questionnaire, which asks “are you a citizen?”  They are not being received very well, by the Bureau of the Census and members of Congress.  Seems like a logical and appropriate constitutional question to ask during a census, as we are also asking many other questions that are not nearly as important as how many possible legitimate voters exist to apportion House seats and to be represented in the Electoral College—remember only citizens are supposed to vote and be counted in Congress.

We must be cognizant of and stand up to prevent this ideological effort to establish an unbalanced and truly un-constitutional apportionment in the House of Representatives and in Electoral College voting to states with a large illegal population.