McCain Sponsored Finance Reform In Question

“The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81, enacted March 27, 2002) is United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were Senators Russell Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003.” Wikipedia

The basis of this post isn’t so much whether or not you agree with the bill. Me personally, I think its the dumbest thing a Republican could do (but then again, we all know how great of a Republican McCain is). Why!? Why cut off all of the companies from giving to your campaign? Being a conservative, McCain is supposed to be mindful of AT LEAST basic economics (which discourages government from meddling in economic affairs), and supportive of a corporations and other groups right to exercise free speech by giving money to the candidate they think will best benefit them. Instead, he authors this bill that outraged many conservatives and quite frankly shouldn’t have been signed by Bush (another GREAT “compassionate” conservative). On top of that, the Supreme Court completely ignores the unconstitutionality of the bill and allows it to become the law of the land. Unbelievable.

Anyways, the most basic part of this bill was:

1.The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion;

2.The proliferation of issue advocacy ads, by defining as “electioneering communications” broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union funds.

The issue that is presented is whether or not Citizens United broke these rules when they ran a ”90-minute film released during last year’s presidential election lambasting then-New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.”(Politico, link below)

“The case in question,Citizens United v. FEC, deals with whether federal election laws should have applied.” This would be a great moment for the Supreme Court to overturn the Campaign Reform Act, although I won’t be holding my breath. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for fairness in politics, but the Campaign Reform Act goes a couple of steps too far by imposing ridiculous limitations that seem to single out wealthy, more than likely Republican, ilk. I’ll be keeping my eyes and ears open on September 9th, and I hope you all do as well.

This brings me to the reason that this all caught my attention (a little story for you all). I have recently been reading Mark Levin’s “Men in Black” (whatever you may think about his show or personality, there is no denying his excellent penmanship and constitutional knowledge) and came across the chapter talking about this bill. I finished the chapter, and then happened to glance at the table in the break room. On the table was a USW (United Steel Workers) magazine. It is a union publication. So, I picked it up and started to skim through it. Needless to say, it reaffirmed my hatred of unions as they are today. The entire magazine was either an Obama love story or how Republicans are evil people. I thought to myself: WHY would McCain bow to a-holes like these, and give up OUR leverage when THEIR leverage is alive and strong. Then, driving home from work, I hear McCain on some radio program talking about how he hopes the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn his bill. REALLY? You would rather throw a conservative group under the bus and spit on the constitution (simultaneously, mind you) in order to keep on some bill you authored almost eight years ago? Didn’t your embarrassing defeat teach you anything about not throwing fellow conservatives to the wolves and not making dumb decisions? So, I decided at that point that a little research was in order. I’d love to hear every body’s comments on this one: am I being unreasonable? Is there something I’m missing here?

This post cross posted at http://www.ktracy.com/ and linked at http://www.mattersofopinion.net/
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24338.html#ixzz0PoOz1Pcb

A Study in an Expansive Judiciary: Porter County Asks Court to Overstep Bounds.

For a moment, I am going to overlook the particular pros and cons of remaining in or getting out of the RDA. The more important issue for me is the massive expense that such litigation will inevitably waste, and the fact that the County is asking the courts to step in where they do not belong. For those that have not read, Dan Whitten has formally filed the lawsuit that he spoke so adamantly of in months past. (For full discussion, see here: Porter County Council files suit against RDA.)

I would like to discuss what I find legally and constitutionally most troubling in order of precedence:

1. Separation of Powers - Political Question. Article 3 of the Federal Constitution as well as Articles 3 and 7 of the Indiana Constitution separate the judiciary from the political branches of government. Specifically, the respective Constitutions restrain the judiciary from exercising power over what are referred to as “political questions”. It was the intention of the framers to avoid the reach of an expansive judiciary by limiting the amount a court may exercise a quasi-legislative function. Just as in other controversial matters recently avoided by the local courts, this requires any Indiana Court to immediately dismiss claims such as these.

2. State Supremacy. Counties are creations, mere subdivisions of state government. Let me be clear: there is no parallel federalism provision of the state Constitution. Counties are subordinate to, and mere implementations of, state government. (see I.C. § 32-1-1-1, et. seq.). Measures passed by the State of Indiana cannot be contradicted or otherwise altered at the county level. Any conflicts will be resolved in favor of the state. Since the measure forming the RDA was done by the state legislature, any effort to circumvent it should be denied in the courts. What Whitten should have done if his complaint had actual substance is to lobby the proper body—the state legislature.

3. Judicial Precedent. After some legal research on my part, there is nothing to suggest that a court hearing this matter has the authority to intervene in such a dispute under Indiana law. A court attempting to enforce the Council’s decision to withdraw from the RDA is severely overstepping its Constitutional, statutory, and stare decisis, authority.

In conclusion, a competent court should dismiss this matter before even a cursory review. In the instance that a court decides to exercise extra-judicial powers over this matter, it will without a doubt be reversed at the Appellate or State Supreme Court level, only further burdening Porter County taxpayers with needless litigation. My greatest fear in all of government is where a judiciary oversteps and individuals, (technically elected or not) unilaterally make political decisions on behalf of the citizens. That is a delineated function of the other branches of government. Whether it is the tyranny of nine at the Federal level, or the dictatorship of a single "elected" local superior or circuit court judge, it is equally as troubling.

Whether you agree or not with the principal of withdrawing from the RDA, isn’t the cure here worse than the disease? In other words, shouldn’t the cost of frivolous litigation outweigh any short term, personal political gains for Dan Whitten…? Should he be able to use Porter County funds as well as the state judiciary for his own personal benefit?

Stories worth commenting

Thought I'd just throw out a couple stories, all of which will play a role in politics this year and next:

Mayor Costas to travel with Governor Daniels to China and Japan, the trip is funded with private donations.

Is Valparaiso making a bid to keep Porter Hospital in the city? Well frankly if the administration wasn't trying the citizens would have to wonder why not. Who's more willing to give the hospital a tax abatement? Should either the county or the city do so?

Dan Whitten spells out his reasons for suing on RDA membership question. Now the real question is, if the Porter County council loses how much will have been spent in legal fees? If they win, will Portage-Chesterton-Valpo-Kouts-Hebron vote to overule the council and re-join the RDA anyway?

LaPorte County auditor spells out his reasoning for using old assessments, prior to the period of confusion for tax bills. This follows along with previous post about the movement in LaPorte County to remove the assessor from office.

Meanwhile in LaPorte County

via Howey Politics

LaPORTE BEGINS ASSESSOR REMOVAL: La Porte County Council President Mark Yagelski will ask the County Commissioners on Tuesday to pursue removing County Assessor Carol McDaniel from office (Wink, Michigan city News-Dispatch). Yagelski said he received a critical report on McDaniel’s performance from Tim Rushenberg, Indiana Department of Local Government Finance commissioner, along with a request to initiate the process for her removal, on Aug. 10. State legislation passed in 2008 allows the DLGF to make the request of county officials, and this is the first time it has used that authority. Yagelski will ask the County Commission to adopt an ordinance calling for McDaniel’s removal. An ordinance approved by the commissioners would pass to La Porte County Prosecutor Robert Beckman, who is required to file the case with Judge Tom Alevizos in La Porte County Circuit Court.

DNC building vandalized: IT MUST BE "TEABAGGERS!!"

Kevin Tracy sent me this link today in an email (he wanted oh so badly to write on this one but since he had school didn't have the time) about a kid who vandalized windows at a state Democratic Party headquarters in hopes of blaming "teabaggers" for the incident. The entire story can be read in the Denver Post, or click here: http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_13203950

But to sum it up, 24-year-old Maurice Schwenkler and another guy (the accomplice is still at large) took hammers to the windows of the DNC building which had posters with President Obamas face on them. Naturally, a public statement was quickly made blaming, well, me (and people like me): "Democratic Party chairwoman Pat Waak said the damage to her building in Denver's art district was a consequence of 'an effort on the other side to stir up hate.'"

She certainly changed her tone when it was released that Maurice Schwnkler was a Democratic activist and had helped in several campaign efforts:

"On the last day of the 2008 Republican National Convention, he was charged with misdemeanor unlawful assembly in St. Paul, Minn."

"Schwenkler received $500 in November 2008 to walk door-to-door in support of Democrat Mollie Cullom, who lost her race to Republican state Rep. David Balmer of Centennial."

"Schwenkler was one of dozens of paid canvassers bankrolled by the Colorado Citizens' Coalition, a political 527 committee."

"Schwenkler has worked for Democratic causes. (Denver Police Department )funded by labor groups and well-known, wealthy liberal donors."

So NATURALLY Ms. Waak had to change her tone a little: "What I've been saying is there is a lot of rhetoric out there from both sides of the spectrum."

Really? Getting mad at a town hall meeting and yelling is one thing, breaking windows to discredit conservative voices is another thing entirely. In fact, as Mr. Tracy pointed out, if I were the insurance company I wouldn't pay for the window repairs.

This follows a black conservative man who was recently beat up at a rally just a couple of weeks ago. Why is it that OUR side isn't doing things like this? Is there a poster with Obama with a Hitler mustache every so often, yes. However the same posters were seen ONLY WITH BUSH instead of Obama but a year ago. Yet conservatives are the ones said to be inciting violence? Yet the conservatives are called every name under the sun, whether its Nazi or bully or racist or astroturfer? This is laughable.

WHATEVER your opinion on "teabaggers" or protesters, one thing is for certain: when it comes to public opinion, conservatives have turned the numbers around. Republicans are finally getting some alternative bills out there, and the steam generated by those of us that rally and make our voices heard is helping to propel the Republicans in taking charge. Have there been things said/done at rallies that I have seen that I personally would not say/do? Sure. However comparing those instances with the above incidence is like comparing grapes and watermelons. Check out the full story, and try not to laugh out loud. I wasn't able to.

The Elephant Shows its Ass: The Public Healthcare Debate and the Decline of Civility.

Since it seems that no conservative is taking aim at this issue, I figured I would express my extreme disappointment with those I happen to agree with on the national health care issue, and officially condemn their outrageous behavior.

I spent most of this morning on CSPAN carefully watching and taking notes of one town hall meeting in Reston, Virginia that took place yesterday, and I was severely disappointed in my peers. What I have had to watch over the past ninety minutes or so was a crude showing of the most unschooled, ignorant fear mongers of our viewpoint. It alarms me a great deal that these folks represent us in these meetings, simply because they shout the loudest and have the freest schedules. This morning I lost a great deal of pride in my fellow countrymen and somewhat like-minded future leaders of our party.

This morning, I have been forced to listen to cursing, obscenity, shouting, disruption, and nearly riotous behavior. This is entirely unacceptable.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides for and protects, inter alia, an individual’s Right to Free Speech as well as one’s Right to Association. While these provide the foundation of our free democracy, they are not without limits. The core of the Right to Free Speech, according to the U.S. Supreme Court is political speech. Presumably, at these town hall meetings, relevant political speech should be given the highest level of protection available under the Constitution—what the Court refers to as the level of Strict Scrutiny. While I agree wholeheartedly in what these town hall participants are saying within the realm of this right, “obscenity” is afforded much less, and almost no protection. That being said, not only is such obscenity largely outside Constitutional protection, it is indecent, devoid of substance, tasteless, and unproductive.

I am among the strongest advocates against adopting a public healthcare scheme. The proposed Plan does not reduce the overall cost of care, it gives the government yet more control over our everyday lives, it grossly lacks efficiency (as any other government program), and expands a system that is already severely in peril. These are just a few of the intellectual reasons we should fear and oppose this initiative. But—where are the rational conservatives on this issue? They are entirely absent from public view.

Why, you ask? This proportion of our base is seemingly missing from public comment because 1) their rational voices are being drowned out by a small minority of uninformed but angry co-patriots, 2) media coverage is biased in favor of the more “juicy” or “sexy” scenes of shouting and near violence, and 3) media coverage is biased in favor of making conservatives look zealous, ignorant, ill-prepared, and ill-informed. Unfortunately for us, the media is overwhelmingly succeeding at this goal.

Can someone explain to me where the intellectual conservative has gone? Is he of a dying breed, overcome by zealots with oversimplified and emotionally charged messages? When did the Republican Party cease being the party of civility, gentlemanly conduct, and rational discourse?

I fervently pray that what I observed this morning was merely anecdotal, and that this is not as widespread as it appears. I encourage many of you that have participated in these meetings to give comment here and to convince me otherwise.

The Portage Bus Boycott: Mayor Olga-Velasquez Misses Major ChicaGo Dash Opportunity.

In a recent submissive move, Mayor Olga continued her futile opposition of Mayor Costas’ request for new ChicaGo Dash buses (for full discussion, read here: 6/19/09, Valpo bus purchase denied; 7/11/09, Portage mayor should work with Valparaiso).

As several PCP contributors have commented, (see for example, Olga and Harper go after Costas, Hitching to a Broken Wagon: Portage’s Mayor Olga-Velasquez Plays Party over People.) Mayor Olga has decided to once again tow the Party line in a disappointing move for the residents of Portage. Instead of reaching some compromise that would benefit all of the citizens of Porter County, Olga-Velasquez has instead blindly followed the direction of Bob Harper, the Dems’ visible leader and the County’s iron-fisted Commissioner.

Despite Olga’s ardent opposition, NIRPC recently approved funding for this project. 8/20/09, NIRPC approves bus funding for Valpo. In an ironic twist of fate, according to an undisclosed source Mayor Olga was seen this past Friday anxiously defending her position in front of an audience of angry Portage residents. I believe this demonstrates the very foolishness in blindly following Harper’s direction, and as well as a county party in decline.

Olga cited demographics to support her opposition, exclaiming that the ChicaGo Dash parking lot is filled with BMW’s, Audis, and Mercedes. Are public services suddenly ONLY about catering to the poorest citizens?

If the residents of Portage disagree with their own Mayor’s position, is she doing her job in representing them? Will continued moves like this jeopardize her hopes of re-election? What do you think, PCP?

The Green Series: Geothermal Energy

To the right you will see an illustration of just how geothermal power operates. Basically, one would drill into the Earths absorbed heat (this includes heating from solar radiation as well as from the mantle of the Earth) and deposit water. The water heats up, turning into steam, which generates electricity.

There are a few different reasons that I like this form of alternative energy. First of all it has 100% consistency (the inside of the Earth is always hot and will always stay hot, where as the wind doesn’t necessarily blow all the time to turn wind mills and fossil fuels evertually run out). Actually, a good list of pros is found at http://www.energy-consumer-edge.com/ . Straight from the site, the pros are as follows:

“Once in operation, geothermal plants may be the most reliable of all energy production methods. Since they are fundamentally simpler than most other power systems, there is less to go wrong.

Other factors that contribute to the impressive reliability of geothermal systems:

They require no purchase or transport of fuel.

They require no waste disposal.
They can be used either as base load systems or swing with demand.
They have no intermittency or dispatchability problems. (A discussion of these problems can be found on the Pros and Cons of Wind Power page.)
It’s noteworthy that every geothermal energy facility that has been built in the last 100 years is still in production.
In geologically suitable areas, geothermal energy is currently cost competitive with conventional generation methods.”

HOWEVER it is worth noting that for geothermal energy to become the main source of power for the US there are still some advances that must be made. For example:

“ Geothermal power plants do have high initial costs to drill and construct new facilities.” These costs are primarily because:”current cost figures are based on projects that are located at the best geothermal sites.” This means that the geothermal power as it is used today has to be used around fault lines and areas of geothermal activity fairly close to the Earths surface. The technology must still be refined to be able to place one anywhere and just drill til’ you hit heat.
These hydrothermal hot spots don’t occur everywhere. “In the U.S. they are located in the Western States, Alaska, and Hawaii.

To be both usable and economical a site must have an adequate volume of hot water or steam that is not too impure to use, a surface water source to cool generating equipment, and close proximity to power transmission lines. So, even in promising areas, economically usable sites are few and they are difficult to locate.”

However, if these advances could be made, geothermal energy could be a never ending supply. It is said that geothermal energy will outlast the sun. The following graph illustrates just how much energy is unused beneath the Earths crust:

Units: Billions of barrels of oil equivalent
Crustal Heat—————–79,000,000
Thermal Aquifers——————–130
Oil Reserves———————–5,300

That is an outstanding amount of unused energy, and if I were running an energy company, I would be pumping millions into research. Think about it: if I was originally an oil tycoon, and I ran out of oil, I still retain the property rights to that plot of land. After the oil is sucked up, I could simply reorganize the machinery and replace whatever needed to be replaced, and dig a little further down to reach the depth that would be needed to find the adequate ammount of heat to run the machinery. THAT is a huge reason why geothermal energy tops my list of supported green energy alternatives.

This post cross posted at http://www.ktracy.com/ and linked at http://www.mattersofopinion.net/

Facebook Status Update Sparks Debate Between RLC and Moderates—What Do You Think, PCP?

Over the past couple of days, I have amused myself in sparring with young members, the aspiring leadership, of the local Republican Liberty Caucus (“Ron Paulers” to some) about the philosophical differences in the way we think about our elected leadership. I found interesting the topic of the dialogue as it evolved, and figured that readers here might appreciate reading or getting involved as well. It began with the status update in full text below (personal and extraneous comments have been omitted):

Shawn Olson: "Politics...let's break the word down. Poly. As in many, or a multitude of. Ticks. As in small bloodsucking animals that bring about disease, and who hang onto the backs of people". Therefore: Governmental employees who synthetically take on the appearance of swine, engaging in poly-ticks so they can successfully suck the life out of everyday Americans by gorging themselves at the HOG trough.

Chris Buckley: Weren't you trying ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING to become one of these not that long ago...!? Interesting...

Olson: Yes! Chris as you know I did run for office! Just because one runs for office doesn't mean he is looking to be a Politician. Sometimes when your concerns are ignored not answered and feel the government has gone beyond its constitutional authority. You wait and wait but still see no one willing to step in and fix the problems, therefore one needs to step in and fix it themselves. If everyone that felt the need to go against their elected officials were to run for office and not wait for others to do it for them, we might end up with less and less Poly-tick-tions. I think that normal citizens running for office by being a elected official, would be a greater check and balance, then having a politician being the elected official! Not every elected official is a Poly-Tick but those are few compared to the amount of Poly-Tick-tions that are in office!

Buckley: Well, clever use of alliteration, anyway. You didn't make a distinction between "officeholders" and "poly-tick-ians" in your original statement, so I figured I would call you out on the ironic hypocrisy. Perhaps my profession is one about splitting fine hairs, but logic is logic. Not everyone is cut out for public service, and being a politician is a unique and rare skill that takes great experience to develop. I know that your types of people believe that the average joe could do the job; however, these are the same people that believe they can adequately represent themselves in court and end up unnecessarily losing or serving twice the criminal sentences than had they simply hired a competent attorney. Running for office is not always the best way to air your differences with officeholders. If you don't have the education, natural ability, skill, and experience, you might just have to rely upon the tried-and-true ways to affect change. Let the professionals handle the rest.

Olson: I thought that I made the distinction clear any officeholder is acceptable to being a poly-tick-tion. "that believe they can adequately represent themselves in court" I can give you just as many examples of people who represent themselves that win, same goes for I can give you examples of where the lawyer messed up the cases because of his feelings on the case or lack of his own experience. In my experience most lawyers want to make a deal before the case actually goes to court.
Now I do sort of agree on the part everyone isn't cut out for public service, If your opinion changes just as much as the direction of the wind. (These people tend to vote their hearts...or have ulterior motives aka: staying in office!)
You need one that will take their oath of defending the constitution seriously. If the bill isn't constitutional then you have to vote NO! If the bill puts undo burdens on the electorate you vote NO! No matter how feel good intended the bill maybe.

Olson (cont’d): Letting the professionals handle the rest. Isn’t that the problems we are having today? Business as usual! Example of the professionals handling our economy we told the lending institutions to be more free in there lending ideas give the money out like its candy so everyone can have a home. Don’t worry if they can afford it or not! Then lets make these loans Triple A Bonds and trade them on the market. It was the old pyramid scheme the problem is the pyramid can only get so big before it collapses. While the creators got out with lots of money the suckers at the bottom was crushed. Then we the people get are arms twisted by the professionals getting government bailing the same banks who made the money on the pyramid scheme. Now that’s tried and true methods in action, finding new ways to screw the American People!

Buckley: Well, I can see that you regularly read Ron Paul's website and remain faithful, but do you have ideas of your own!? It's really easy to sit back and make very primitive arguments about a Constitution you don't fully understand. You seem to think lawyers are unskilled or that seven years of intense education and experience is without merit. I am not saying in my analogy that in every case a person is better off with a lawyer, but more often than not this is the case; trust me, I have served in and before several courts and, by and large, the pro se litigants are far worse off.

Buckley (cont’d): To your point about re-election as motive, I think if you read Madison and Hamilton, the Federalists predicted this very behavior as a desirable means to a modestly positive end. It ensures that action is based upon a compromise or proportional influence of faction, which essentially neutralizes this effect. I'll tell you what: if you would like to debate me on the forefathers or on particular clauses of the Constitution, you set the time and place, I'd be glad to accommodate you. The bigger the audience the better, as far as I'm concerned...[omitted]

Charlie Kochenash: What’s wrong with debating right here [Facebook]? Everyone is watching. But, please, stick to the issues. I am tired of people with weak arguments resorting to personal attacks. Chris, one thing I would like you to hit on, if you don't mind, is this. You made the following comment above [omitted]: "Not everyone is cut out for public service, and being a politician is a unique and rare skill that takes great experience to develop. I know that your types of people believe that the average joe could do the job; however, these are the same people that believe they can adequately represent themselves in court..." Ouch. Why do we have so many problems with government? Is it because we are electing "average joes" to office? Do these politicians just not know what they are doing? How does one, who aspires to get into public service, acquire the experience that produces the rare and unique skill?

Buckley: Well, Charlie, I feel that is a VERY good question with a fairly simple answer. No matter your trade or profession, the most effective training tool is observation. This goes to my own (and continuing) experience as a young lawyer. Theoretical knowledge is great; it is filling your toolbox with the proper tools that one day you will need. Observation is watching a man of the trade use his tools in an effective way. Since I am a born litigator, I sat for many, many trials as co-counsel to get a feel for how to use those tools I was acquiring in law school. After observing and assisting at several trials, I was actually able to argue my own cases. It was much easier than I anticipated, due to my training and experience in the courtroom. The same is true for aspiring politicians. You can observe on television, but the best experience to begin with is watching how they operate in everyday life. The life of a legislator is a life of compromise, problem solving, and complaints.

I know that you've already begun this informal training, Charlie, as I have seen you at many key events. Whether you agree with particular points of view of individual politicians, being a politician in general is a skill in and of itself, and you have to acknowledge that. Whether you agree with it or not, our forefathers envisioned representatives close to the people; namely, individuals not unlike lawyers who actually REPRESENT the people of their respective districts. As I mentioned above, this is not an improper motive, and neither did our forefathers think so. Representative democracy is a utilitarian construction about providing the most to the most, within certain limits of tyranny by the majority upon the minority. Just like legal counsel, the feelings of the individual representative should be objective and irrelevant, because, by definition, this detracts from truly representing the people of your district.

So, in short, I would not have just chanced showing up in a courtroom the first day I decided I wanted to be a lawyer. Doesn't that sound a little ridiculous, even to a populist? Would I walk in to a law firm on my first day and demand I take the biggest or toughest case? Certainly not, and for the same reason, I could not in good conscience win the graces of the people to adequately represent them in government without the necessary experience to be confident that I can provide them with the utmost service they rightly deserve. I just hope others would have the same courtesy and respect for the office of representing others.

PORTER COUNTY POLITICS: WHAT DO YOU THINK!?

Ed Charbonneau Named to Indiana Senate Appropriations Committee.

For the full story, please go here: Northwest Indiana Senator Appointed to Appropriations.

It was no surprise that Sen. Charbonneau was elected to his first full term in the Indiana Senate nearly one year ago, in spite of Obama’s coattails and the avalanche of democratic support. Despite these trends and the unfavorably shifting demographics, Ed was able to reach out to the people of District 5, and effectively communicate his unexpected contributions as only one year of being a Freshman Senator. As was disclosed yesterday in a post by Briefs, Ed has a pro-business, common sense approach to frugally solving Indiana’s problems. Since the election Ed has authored and sponsored a variety of bills.

Leading up to the 2008 election, Ed’s flagship legislation included a Bill making it a felony to disarm a police officer. This year, Ed has authored and sponsored efforts to favor Indiana businesses in state government contracts, created a Silver Alert system for endangered seniors, expanded veterans’ benefits, and increased the rights of victims in certain criminal matters, just to name a few.

Ed’s experience in business and economics is also well established. Ed has both an undergraduate degree in economics from Wabash College, as well as an MBA from Loyola, and a law degree from South Texas College. He has served in several leadership capacities in business and nonprofit, ranging from interim CEO of Methodist Hospitals, Inc. here in Northwest Indiana, IDEM’s Budget Crisis Task Force, Governmental Affairs Officer with U.S. Steel, and has chaired the boards of the Indiana Forum and local United Way, respectively. He has shown through his experience a diligent pursuit of what is both morally upright and fiscally responsible.

Senator Ed Charbonneau’s recent appointment is a credit to those of us in District 5, and will benefit us, his constituents, as well as the entire State in years to come. Please join me in congratulating Ed on his most recent accomplishment!

Recession Priorities - Job Creation and New Business

At least that what one would think would be the goal of our elected officials in a recession, right?

Not so fast, the Indiana Chamber of Commerce is out with their rankings of our elected legislators and the results are a bit surprising. In the midst of a recession and massive unemployment increases, many of our elected leaders voted consistently against businesses, large and small, and the issues that would have helped them. As with any of our posts here, I encourage those leaders to dare to engage us and explain themselves.

Far too many northwest Indiana voters will go to the polls again next year and re-elect men and women who aren't doing the jobs we send them to do. This time, take a few minutes and get some facts on the bills your politician read and how they voted.

Senator Charbonneau 84% pro-business
Senator Landske 74%
Senator Tallian 57%

Rep. Soliday 82% pro-business
Rep. Moseley 50%
Rep. Brown 42%
Rep. Vandenburgh 45%

Now in our county, labor quite often leans on the Democrats to vote against business. But as far as I can tell there weren't big labor vs. business fights this year. Basically many of the votes against business were votes against doing government better to save us all money.

I will reiterate here again, as I have in other posts, Senator Landske should be celebrated as a regional leader, who's time to step aside for new leadership has come. Voting against government re-organization, especially for Lake County was a vote from days past.

The Politics of Fear: Revisiting Porter’s Missed Opportunities in 100 South (109th Ave.).

For those of you that still have not read Rich James’ August 7 Article, take the time and read it here: Porter County Politics of Fear article. Basically, James criticizes Porter County Government’s obstinate refusal to adapt and its persistent resistance to growth.

As I have outlined in previous articles, this absolute prohibition is not founded in reason or logic. It does not weigh the merits of individual proposals, but rather, seeks, in a blanket way, to resist the inevitable trend toward economic growth and progress. A few examples include the adoption of the Unified Development Ordinance, adamant opposition to the RDA, a derailing of any commuter or rail system proposal, and even blocking the rezoning for a proposed (and way overdue) upgrade of Porter Memorial Hospital.

This blind opposition relies on an irrational, trifurcated fear: 1) the overwhelming taxpayer fear of paying more taxes, 2) an overall fear of progress or change, and 3) the fear of “those people” moving into our precious and pure Porter County. While I agree that radical change is often dangerous and unstable, the need for gradual adaptation to the surrounding economies of neighboring counties and municipalities is without question. Foremost of these is the above opportunity Porter County has once again rejected.

Let me debunk these fears with regard to this particular project. First, as leaders of the County (or any unit of government for that matter) matching Federal dollars is the best of all possible situations to be in. Here, not only did we employ our representatives to bargain for these funds, we may have sacrificed other opportunities in the future in order to get this done. (For an explanation of “political capital” please feel free to contact me for a full discussion.) The fear of more taxes, especially when it is the duty of county government to maintain county roads is implausible, especially given the matching funds.

Second, I think the message we have learned in Porter County from this recession so far is that we have a need to diversify. Relying principally or solely on the steelworker labor pool is shortsighted in the least. Not only should we, as Porter County residents, not fear progress, we should embrace any opportunity to employ our citizens in an economically diverse and sustainable way. Economic growth is the only solution to this dilemma, and along this corridor is a great place to get started.

Third, these Commissioners and Council members fear socio-economic, and yes, racial diversity. There, I said it. They are preying upon the fear that crime, economic blight, and undesirable businesses will inevitably result from racial migration from Lake County. For those that don’t believe me, check out the text of the Council meetings themselves. (If you can’t reach this conclusion on your own, again, I would be glad to demonstrate this for you…) Again, this fear is irrational, unfounded in data, and un-American. Do we really fear the prosperous development contagiously spreading from Crown Point, of all places? What an awful place to work and live… Has anyone taken a good look at that area lately?

Well, one thing is for sure. You can make your job much easier as a local politician if you oppose absolutely EVERYTHING. That way, you don’t have to go through the tireless exercise of evaluating the merits of individual proposals. Instead, just take Nancy Reagan way out of context: “Just say NO.”

An Open Letter To Mr. Glenn Beck

All right, I know that I was going to continue with the Green Series (and I will), but this was on my mind all day and I REALLY needed to get it off my chest (plus the guy that I was going to have on about energy cancelled because his group doesn’t allow him to do interviews, which is fine, I understand somebody keeping their job instead of being on a radio show, however I didn’t have to rush to look up information on alternative energy sources anymore so I took a break from it for a day). Anyways, this is an open letter to Glenn Beck. Enjoy.

Dear Mr. Glenn Beck,

I understand that there has been some controversy with your show lately, most notably related to a comment that you made about Obama being a racist. While I don’t particularly see any evidence in that matter, I am an advocate of freedom of speech. After all, if Kanye West can say “George Bush doesn’t care about black people” and still sell millions of albums, I’m sure you can say that “Obama is a racist” and still have a successful show. I do watch the show from time to time, and although I do think there are times where you go off the deep end (most notably you recently screamed at a caller telling her “Get off my show you pinhead!”…yeah…stuff like that) over all it is a good show, an entertaining show, and I think that you also have written some good books.

Although I agree with your freedom of speech to say what you said, I also agree with your sponsors’ right to pull their advertising dollars from your show. You must realize by now that saying things like “Obama is a racist” WILL piss off a lot of people and turn corporations away from funding your program: you’ve been doing your show for some time now and should know this by now. The best thing for you to do is to either show some hard evidence that Obama is indeed a racist, or apologize.

If you aren’t able to show any hard evidence that would back up such a claim, I would appreciate it if you would apologize anyways. And here is why: You have been a HUGE supporter of liberty, of the TEA Parties, the universal health care protests, and many other great causes. That comment not just reflected on your CAREER, but on movements that are spreading right now. How soon will your comment be linked to these organizations that you support so much? How much damage have you done to the image of a movement that has already been slandered with adages such as racists and Nazis? Do everyone that is involved with these movements a HUGE favor: when your about to speak, take a deep breathe, think about the next sentence and the adverse effects on liberty which you hold so dear, AND THEN SHUT UP IF ITS GOING TO HURT THOSE MOVEMENTS! Your not doing ANY of us a favor by going around making an ass of yourself. Thank you.

(Sigh) There. Now I feel better.

This post cross posted at www.ktracy.com and linked at www.mattersofopinion.net

The Green Series: Wind Power Just Hot Air

While health care reform has recently been on the front of everybody’s minds lately, it is important to remember that there is still an energy and climate debate going on behind closed doors around the nation as well. As many people know, a form of the Cap and Trade Bill passed the House a couple of months ago (see my article on this site to find out why cap and trade WILL kill our economy) and now there is a national “green” movement to replace coal as a major source of energy.
Since the next few guests on my show (http://www.mattersofopinion.net/) will be debating with me primarily on such “green” energy policies and since I hate going to a gun fight with a knife, I of course have been doing research in my spare time to find out more about these “green” coal replacers. Now, first thing first, let me say I’m not opposed to “green” energy. The more energy we can produce ourselves as a country the better for us economically. However there are always ways that we can seduce companies to move in that direction (companies like BP are already doing it) rather than punish corporations as if they were misbehaved five year olds. At risk of sounding like a Republican parrot, tax cuts are one great way to achieve a cleaner environment while reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Other means of incentive based “nudging” in that direction would be effective as well (and there will be more means as the series continues) however the Democrats don’t have a very good track record when it comes to working WITH energy companies to achieve common ground. Mostly they demonize them in order to win elections.
But regardless, the first means of alternative (or “green”) energy that I decided to look up was wind power. The first thing that comes to my mind is the obvious: what if there is no wind? I’m assuming that there is some kind of back up system in place within these wind mills for such an occasion, but what if there is no wind for a couple of days? How much back up is there? I haven’t been able to find an exact amount online, perhaps one of my interviewees will clear that up for me. Also, there is the eye-sore element. The amount of wind mills that would be needed to completely replace coal as our primary energy source would be enormous, and while some people might find them enchanting, there are many more that don’t want six of them in their back yard just so they can microwave a burrito.
Also, the amount of energy that is lost during the transition process from the actual wind mill to the plant is ENORMOUS. Somewhere around the realm of 20 to 40% (these are the highs and lows I’ve been able to find) of the energy created from the wind mill is lost when it is transferred any sort of long distance. This means wind mills would LITERALLY have to dot our countryside from coast to coast in order to achieve what wind mill advocates want.
The most damning evidence that wind power isn’t a good idea would be the amount of jobs lost. The Bright Green Blog (certainly not a politically conservative blog) starts a great entry on wind power like this: “Todd Woody cites new report from the American Wind Energy Association that about 85,000 people are now employed by the wind power industry, up from 50,000 a year ago. Mr. Woody then says that “the coal industry employs about 81,000 workers,” citing a 2007 report from the Department of Energy.”
And finishes with this:
“But it’s a bogus comparison. According to the wind energy report, those 85,000 jobs in wind power are as “varied as turbine component manufacturing, construction and installation of wind turbines, wind turbine operations and maintenance, legal and marketing services, and more.” The 81,000 coal jobs counted by the Department of Energy are only miners. Their figure excludes those who haul the coal around the country, as well as those who work in coal power plants.”
This (along with PLENTY of similar statistics) debunks the argument by the “green” crowd that the coal jobs would simply shift to the wind mills. I mean, even with out the stats to back it up, common sense tells you that the jobs wouldn’t be able to be replaced! Think about it: Let’s say an average coal power station employs an average of 150 full time workers. Perhaps it takes 100 wind mills to produce the amount of power that one coal plant produces. How many people (full time) does it take to watch after the wind mills? I’ll assume maybe one per ten wind mills? Although the number is more than likely less, I’ll use that as my number for the equation. That means that 140 people, right there, in one plant, would be out of work.
Wind power does not make sense AT ALL. To read the rest of the article that I cited above, click here: http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/01/31/does-wind-power-really-provide-more-jobs-than-coal/. This is but one of many sites regarding wind power, and I encourage you to look up this information for yourself before buying into this “miracle” means of “free” energy or, for that matter, my own opinion this topic.
As I stated above, I’m not against renewable energy, but it needs to be a form that MAKES SENSE, both economically and practically. There will be forms that meet these basic requirements in the Green Series, but wind power isn’t one of them.

This post cross posted at www.ktracy.com and linked at www.mattersofopinion.net

Challenger in Portage Township Trustee Race

Brendan Clancy (D - Portage City Council) announced plans to run for the Portage Township trustee office in 2010. See Times article.

Current plans appear to be:

• expanding services
• Letting seniors at Bonner Center have what they want
• and maintainting ownership of a cemetary

Obviously any expansion of servics will require more expenses and higher taxes, not even sure if this is plausable with circuit breaker tax caps moving to full implementation next year. As for the Senior Center, as has been asked here a few times before, if the City of Portage wants to ramp up services for seniors perhaps they should run the Senior Center since almost all the members are from the City.

The Cemetary is a new one, he suggests a rumor that it was to be privatized, I guess the details would matter, but can't believe that a township maintains a "right" or "obligation" to own and manage a cemetary.

In related news, some are suggesting that Jack Jent (D - former trustee) will also be running for this office. ... this is not confirmed.

Live Mike Pence in Indy

An Even Trade? Abortion for Capital Punishment?

I wrote an article a couple of weeks ago for Porter County Politics (the tab is in the left side bar if you are interested in checking out the site) about a woman who recently killed, maimed, and ATE parts of her three week old child. I went on and on (pretty graphically) about how I hoped that she received the death penalty. Fat Pete (that is his “blogger” name) posed a very good question to me: Would I be willing to do an even trade, no more abortions for no more capital punishment? I’ve thought about it a little, and decided it would make a pretty good post.

First of all I don’t think that the “even trade” agreement would ever come about, mostly because too many “feminists” consider it their God given right to kill their unborn child right up til’ birth. If it were that easy I can guarantee you that EVERY pro lifer out there would hands down give up capital punishment in exchange for the outlawing of abortion.

Second, although I am pro life and pro capital punishment, I’m also a big fan of states rights. If the people in Vermont don’t want capital punishment, great. I’ll make sure I never move there. Now, Texas. That’s my future home. But I digress: my views on abortion have been posted before, but for anybody that may have missed them, they are as follows. I want an outlawing of all third trimester abortions (barring if the mothers life is in danger and incest and rape, yadda yadda yadda) and for the states to put ON A BALLOT whether or not second trimester abortions will occur. I’m willing to leave out first trimester to appease some of the more “feminist” groups in hopes of some support, and also because more often than not if there are genetic defaults or possible problems with the pregnancy, you can usually tell by the first trimester anyways. I know this may not be enough for some of you out there, but hey, I’m not ganna lie about what I think about it. Me personally? I think abortion is sick and unnecessary and not economical for the country, but I think that my means would lead to the same ends and with less friction because it would be done democratically so that the only person that Maddow can demonize would be THE VOTERS, not a politician. I believe the same with capital punishment. Put it on a ballot and watch the voters vote UNANIMOUSLY to kill the killers, not the unborn children. Now, personally, I agree with Dennis Miller: “Tracking devices on rapists? Kill the SOB and you know right where he is, right there, in a grave.”

But back to the original point: trading abortion for capital punishment. Since I am the apointed “economics guy” (thank you, Kevin, for the flattering bio, by the way) I would of course say yes.
Capital punishment, even though I think it is a great crime deterrent and I believe in it, does cost a heck of a lot more money than to put the perp in jail with no parole. The reasons are obvious:

• More pre-trial time…

• More experts…

• Twice as many attorneys…

• Two trials instead of one will be conducted: one for guilt and one for punishment.

• And then will come a series of appeals during which the inmates are held in the high security of death row.”

That adds up to almost double the amount that it would cost just to throw the guy enough food to keep him alive. So for me it would be a double whammy: no more abortions (which, arguably, saves the government money) and no more spending on lengthy trials and appeals. However, as I stated above, I don’t see either side ever coming to such a cut and dry agreement. I could see the left offering up, say, my idea, in PLACE of unlimited abortion, and I would not get behind that at all if it meant no more death penalty. I’m a poker player, and this trade would have to be “all or nothing.” If the right has to push all of their chips into the pot, the left would as well.

This post cross posted at www.ktracy.com and linked from www.mattersofopinion.net

Post Tribune's Rich James swats the commish

If you didn't catch this editorial, it's worth reading a few times. I won't reprint here, although I have in the past, and will let you go read in its entirety on the Post site.

Porter County appears ready to build the wall

DLGF back in Porter County to handle assessment

"The Indiana Department of Local Government Finance (“Department”) has determined that Porter County has not made annual adjustments to assessed valuations required by 50 IAC 21 for 2009 pay 2010 property taxes. By law, when a county fails to make an annual adjustment to assessed valuations, the Department must perform that task for the county.

Pursuant to Indiana law, certified notice is hereby given that on Monday, August 17, 2009, at 6:30 p.m. (CDT), in Section C of the Harre Student Union Ballroom, 1509 Chapel Drive, Valparaiso, IN 46383, the Department will hold a public hearing concerning its performance of the annual adjustment on real property."

Emphasis was added ... thoughts?

County making website more user friendly

Often, if not most of the time, we are reporting here things that the county has bungled:

• Property taxes
• Assessments
• Land Planning
  

Mainly these topics occur due to the intense amount of politics that surround our county, and the fact that one party is in near total control. Oh well, for today a positive:

• County website - the internal staff is upgrading the county website, at no additional cost according to the article in the Post, to make it more user friendly and offer more information. Good job. Here's the Link - Porter County Government Website
  

Now some extras that should be added next, and feel free to add ideas of your own:

• Videos of every public meeting
• Minutes and Agendas should be posted same day, not weeks or months later
• Email addresses of all elected officials and department heads
• A huge upgrade in the GIS system which is substantially behind Lake and LaPorte
  
• Budgets provided in viewer-friendly formats, so that normal citizens can see and understand where monies are being spent
• A citizens academy, wiki or video based, that explains how our county government works, who's responsible for what, and how to get involved

Open thread today, what are your ideas?

Duneland Superintendant - county tax problem

Duneland chief slams county officials

CHESTERTON | Duneland School Corporation Superintendent Dirk Baer called Porter County's inability to collect and distribute tax revenues in a timely manner a "debacle" on Tuesday.

It is time for the public to mobilize and demand a fix to the problem keeping the district from budgeting and operating efficiently, Baer told the School Board after a preliminary presentation of the 2010 budget. COMMENT - Who is to blame? What can be done except to wait until 2010 elections of county leaders?

How can a school district possibly create a budget, Baer asked in effect, when the state has not yet certified the previous year's budget and the county has not paid out sizeable amounts of money due the year before?

The financial uncertainty makes it impossible to fund programs that move the district ahead, Baer said. And taking out loans until county payments come in has cost the district in interest payments, he added.

Duneland will pay about $98,000 in interest this year on tax anticipation warrants. COMMENT - What about the 2008 Murphy Plan or Bucko Plan that would have loaned money to schools, towns and cities ... Will the county council listen?

"This is ridiculous. We can no longer operate this way," Baer said. "This needs to be corrected at the county level."

Business Manager Bonnie Gaston said the county has distributed to Duneland only 87 percent of its tax revenues due for 2008, leaving the district at least $2 million in the hole.

Assistant Superintendent for Finance David Pruis said the district tried to budget very conservatively because of the unknowns and late county payments. The $11.4 million budgeted for capital projects is down from last year and the proposed $40.4 million general fund is up only very slightly, he said.

"We have no clue whatsoever on what kind of revenue we're going to have," Pruis said.

Baer said in addition to the county failings, state funding -- now the source for districts' general funds -- could be variable since it is based on sales tax collected during the economic recession.

"Cash for Clunkers" a Flunker

The “cash for clunkers” idea is out of money. One billion dollars has already been spent, and the Senate is trying to pump another two billion into the project because it has been so successful. But is it REALLY successful?
For those that don’t know what “cash for clunkers” is, it is a new program where the government will reimburse the car companies for giving you 4,500 dollars for a car that is no older than an 84 vehicle, gets 18 mpg or less, and can run. The new car has to be a vehicle on the government list, I’m sure you can google it to find out the standards if you are interested. I disagree with this plan ideologically mostly because if it smells like a hand out, looks like a hand, and sounds like a hand out, the odds are is that it’s just another government hand out. To me, it seems like the government is realizing that they can throw bail out money and take over these car companies all they want but at the end of the day, the failing economy prevails and nobody has the means to purchase a new vehicle. In fact, I predict a spike (perhaps small spike, but a spike none the less) in car repos in a year or so because a lot of people are jumping on this deal even though they may not have the means to make the car payments in the future.
But enough on what we can’t change. Ideology aside, there are some problems that I have with this program (and liberals should as well) and some inefficiencies that I think could be easily corrected.
First of all, the vehicle that you bring in (your “clunker”) gets destroyed. That is a part of the requirements that the dealership must meet in order to be reimbursed for the 4,500. Now, I know that the government is wasteful, but that is ridiculous! Why destroy the vehicle? Why not donate all of the “clunkers” to public schools that have an auto-mechanics class let the students fix them up? Then, take the fixed up vehicles and sell them dirt cheap to poor people who need a vehicle and can’t afford one. This should be infuriating liberals! Being a conservative, I’m not required to care about the poor (that’s a joke) but the fact that these vehicles, even though they are old, are just being destroyed defies all logic. If somebody could explain why destroying them is a better idea than mine, please, inform me.
Secondly, I don’t think the government is thinking about what they are going to be doing to the scrap metal trade (inadvertently, of course). Already scrap metal is at rock bottom price. This happens naturally with a recession, since more people become unemployed or more people have to tighten their belts, they start picking up scrap metal and saving aluminum cans to sell to the scrap metal yards for cash. In fact, tomorrow is garbage day, and I expect the same gentleman to drive by and dig through my garbage to retrieve any scrap metal I may have thrown out just like he has the past few weeks. And that is fine! Better that than starving or stealing my rims off my car. But regardless, the prices dropping on scrap metal is simple supply and demand. If the scrap yard has more metal than it needs, they aren’t going to pay top dollar. So imagine the amount of scrap metal that is going to pushed into these yards, making that guy that digs through my trash collect that much less in cash.
Lastly, there is the environmental aspect. Once again, being a conservative, I don’t care about the environment (again, a joke), but I wonder what will be done with the gallons upon gallons of fluids that will come from these “clunkers”. Gasoline, oil, transmission fluid, brake fluid…the list goes on and on. Wheres all this going to go? I’m going to assume that the government has an idea as to where these fluids are going to be properly disposed at, but I haven’t heard anything about it on the news.
Regardless, there are a lot of problems with this program that need to be addressed, and I hope that they are before the Senate puts 2 billion more tax dollars into it.