If We Can Keep It

BLOG HAS MOVED

2009-04-15T17:56:00.000-07:00

If We Can Keep It has now moved to www.nicktroiano.com - under the tab "If We Can Keep It"

Thanks!

Newt Gingrich Answers My Question on Entitlement Reform

2009-04-06T08:56:00.000-07:00

On a Politico.com Arena Live-Chat

Me: Mr. Speaker, as a young person worried about the long-term budget outlook, how would you rate our President as far as his commitment to entitlement reform? Laying out a plan to pay down the debt?

Mr. Gingrich: Every young person should be worried about the tax burden they are going to pay for their entire working life to pay off the huge spending of the last year of Bush and the eight years of Obama. It is like going on a giant vacation and putting it on your credit card and never paying it off and having to pay interest every month for the rest of your life.
Emily Renwick at the American Enterprise Institute is working to develop the actual tax burden a 20 year old would pay over a 50 year working lifetime just to pay interest on the debt we are running up under Obama.

The Appearance of Impropriety

2009-03-15T19:41:00.000-07:00

Sent the following letter to some local papers:

To the Editor,

If citizens wish to enjoy their freedom in a democratic system, they have a responsibility to hold their government accountable. Thomas Jefferson wisely said that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. This solely motivates what I write today.

I am troubled that the Pike County Director of Elections, Yolanda Goldsack, will be administering an upcoming election in which her spouse, Bob Goldsack, is a candidate for school board. This is a potentially serious conflict of interest.

If you recall, there was public outrage when Mrs. Goldsack, a Republican Party activist, was appointed to her position by two Republican Commissioners during the vacation of the third Democratic Commissioner. An editorial by the River Reporter at the time stated, “When it comes to something as important as our votes, election officials ought to be, like Caesar’s wife, above suspicion.” Years later, I believe we return to the same unfortunate circumstance in which our elections process fails to rise above suspicion.

I raised this issue to both Commissioner Forbes and Mrs. Goldsack, who were receptive, but certain that it was practically impossible for the Director to manipulate the outcome of an election. While I have no reason to doubt this is true, I believe the explanation falls short.

What should be of concern for the Board of Elections is the appearance of impropriety, which exists when an ordinary person, unaware of the facts, has reason to believe that something is inappropriate or in violation of the law. I believe this to be the current case. To be clear, I personally make no accusation against Mrs. Goldsack. But the legitimacy of an election, which is dependent upon public confidence, is severely undermined by such a conflict of interest, regardless if wrongdoing actually occurs.

The necessity to retain the public trust is why, for example, judges in Pennsylvania are explicitly prohibited by law from acting in ways that might even suggest unlawful or unethical activity. Unfortunately, no such regulation exists for election administrators, which prevents the state’s Bureau of Elections from intervening in this situation. Further, the State Ethics Commission is not concerned, as neither Mr. nor Mrs. Goldsack have an obvious financial stake.

So while the law might be silent, I hope voters are not. Election regulations need to be amended to prevent situations like these from occurring. And, in the interim, our County Board of Elections should fulfill its obligation to preserve the integrity of our elections, especially by taking whatever actions are necessary to retain the public’s confidence in light of this unsettling situation.

Nick Troiano
Milford, PA

Protecting and Defending...One's Party

2009-02-23T10:58:00.000-08:00

The issue of federal representation for District of Columbia is once again before the Congress. The House Voting Rights Act is scheduled for a cloture vote in the Senate tomorrow. And once again, our elected officials seem willing to violate our nation’s most sacred contract with its people for a political end. Indeed, they stand to break the oath they took when sworn into office: to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Introduced by Senators Hatch and Lieberman in the Senate and DC-Delegate Holmes in the House, the proposal would recognize the District of Columbia as a congressional district for purposes of representation, increase the membership of the House of Representatives from 435 to 437 members, and provide for resulting reapportionment. The Senate bill declares that the District would no be considered a state for representation in the Senate and requires the President to identify Utah as the state that would gain the extra seat.

The most fundamental question to this debate is not whether the people of the District of Columbia deserve federal representation, but whether the Congress has the constitutional authority to grant it through legislation. It is clear within Article 1, Section 2 that they do not.

Clause 2: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union…”

Simple logic would lead us to conclude that since the District of Columbia is not a state (and was never intended to be), Representatives cannot be apportioned to it.

There are a few ways the District of Columbia may constitutionally receive voting representation. Two certain ways are through statehood or through a Constitutional amendment. Some also argue for retrocession in which DC would be returned to Maryland or Virginia, or parts to each. This would restore the District to its status prior to the Organic Act passed in 1901, when residents voted for Congressional representatives both states.

There have been efforts to gain representation for the District through all these avenues. The Congress even passed a Constitutional Amendment in 1978 that would grant full statehood, but it failed to be ratified by all the states before expiring in 1985.

But in no conceivable way does the current proposal stand up against a Constitutional test.

What is now before the Congress is simply a way to bulldoze over the Constitution and use the current Democrat majority to grant the District representation. And there is no question why it will pass. It is in the party’s interest to do so since the potential voting member in the District would most certainly remain a Democrat.

The so-called compromise in granting Utah a member (who would likely be a Republican) is a total farce since Utah will gain a member regardless after the 2010 census. In addition, after future reapportionment, that extra member would probably be transferred to a different state and possibly switch to becoming Democrat.

If the rallying cry of “No taxation without representation” were true and sincere, there would be no need for this disgusting political jockeying.

With that, I am headed to the Hill to go watch the debate, which ironically follows a commemorative reading of Washignton’s Farewell Address in which he warns that the interests of political factions endangers this nation. No kidding.

Why I Won't Miss an Obama Event on TV

2009-02-17T16:20:00.000-08:00

While I expect to be frustrated and annoyed watching Obama public events I catch on TV (like the one today in which he, with the stroke of...5-10 pens, created and spent $787 billion), I have found myself enjoying them, if only because of the rather peculiar people that outlast their 15 seconds of fame.

Last week we met two.

The first was Julio Osegueda, 19. He is a communications major at Edison State College and spent a few minutes describing his fast-food occupation to the President of the United States, after an equally amusing and terrifying display of affection. "Oh Gracious God!" pretty much summed it up. It is worth noting, he told the CBS "Early Show" he has received two job offers since. You can watch the video here (which has over 2 million views on this single version alone):

Next up was 61-year-old Henrietta Hughes. She told the President that she and her son were jobless and homeless (later, it was uncovered this has been the case since 2004 - flashback Joe the Plumber?). The President hugged the woman and directed his staff to help her. But they didn't have to. The wife of a Florida State Representative offered them a house, and other man offered the son a job. She also got a new website.

And so that brings me to today.

At the signing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in Denver, Colorado the world met Blake Jones. He is the CEO of Namaste Solar, and, unbeknownst to the audience, a part-time comedian. Among other cracks, he called the Vice-President "Bidden" in return for his mispronunciation of Namaste. As Jones was on camera, this is what some had to say in Twitterland (many unhappy with his choice of attire):

Cfahooligan: Good lord, Blake Jones from Namaste Solar is an inadvertent Hottie.

nicktroiano: Blake Jones for President! *[That was me]

pjhanley: Note to Blake Jones: when appearing at a presser with the President and Vice President of the US, it is advisable to wear a suit.

msalien: This Blake Jones is on national TV and doesn't have enough "class" to wear a TIE - HELLO!!!!!

chrisgolden: How many job offers will Blake Jones get in the next 24 hours?

sugarmags3: OMG AWESOME!! I'm friends with BLAKE JONES!!!

mommyimhome: Blake Jones's Namaste firm put solar panels on my neighbor's roof. Hey, thanks for ruining my view, dude!

It was reported that Namaste's Web site crashed during the speech because of the rush of people with the urge to buy a solar panel. It was also reported that Jones used to work for Halliburton.

So while the President himself may no longer be as entertaining, these events certainly are.

Who are Victors of the Stimulus?

2009-02-15T10:30:00.000-08:00

Frank Rich, in the greatest tradition of the hyper-partisan snobbery he represents, writes in today's New York Times that the Republican Party is "delusional" to think they won the stimulus battle. I agree, they didn't. But I don't think anyone did, including our country.

Backing up a step, the entire premise of his Republican-bashing piece is off-base. The argument from conservatives against this bill was never, as Rich claims, that the bill would fail, but that it would be a massive waste of money and an ineffective solution to our economic crisis.

His "it passed...ha ha" rhetoric is rather childish...and pointless. He doesn't attempt to justify the largest appropriation in American history or to defend the wildly undemocratic process that led to it; his only conclusion is simply that the bill passed and, as a result, is a resounding defeat for Republicans.

He writes:

"Just as in the presidential campaign, Obama has once again outwitted the punditocracy and the opposition."

Neither the president nor the Democrat leadership "outwitted" their opposition, they simple outnumbered them! And they barely did that. They had to fly a Senator home between his mother's wake and funeral just to cast the make or break 60th vote in the Senate.

President Obama indeed lost his message, and his mandate. Out of 535 votes in Congress, he garnered 3 Republican votes. That is one-half of one percent. How is that "bipartisan" ? The entire process has been business as usual in Washington, and the only thing that has changed have been the stakes.

Some argue that Republicans were out to embarrass the new President and were acting as obstructionists. While that may be true for some members, this criticism comes from the same people who defend the congressional Democrats' inability to work with their counterparts from the beginning, repeated denial of amendments, and vote that was held less than 24 hours after the final bill, with hand-written changes that allocated tens of millions of dollars, was sent out of conference committee.

The only reason why the three Senate Republicans voted for the bill was because their position was that something needed to be done. They, and probably a lot of Democrats, would have rather voted for the Republican alternative which created more jobs with less money. But therein lies the problem: most members can't get passed the fact that one bill is the Democrat bill and the other is the Republican bill. Few care about which bill is actually better.

Mr. Rich and his ilk perpetuate this flawed notion that Americans swiftly repudiated in the last election.

Again, he goes on:

"The G.O.P. doesn’t recognize that it emerged from the stimulus battle even worse off than when it started."

Really? In the face of a President of who went to the worst-off towns in America to predict utter economic catastrophe if the bill is not passed, I think the Republicans did a good job holding their own.

The President's Chief of Staff told the Journal that "you never let a serious crisis go to waste." I concede: insofar as the Democrats loaded this "stimulus" bill with the large-government agenda they have been itching to pass for the last decade, they succeeded. But that comes at an enormous cost to American people ($3 trillion + over the next decade if the most popular 20 programs in the bill continue).

So let's chat in a few months. Though I hope this bill will work (because we simply can't afford another one), I look to history to realize it won't. And when the 59% of the myopic public who favored this bill realize they have been swindled into supporting legislation aimed at getting its crafters re-elected through irrelevant pork and an ideological agenda furthered in the midst of a crisis, it won't be the Republicans whom they have to blame.

Who's to Blame for the Economic Mess?

2009-02-14T09:08:00.001-08:00

A list of the top 25 culprits for the economic crisis we are currently in:

1. Angelo Mozilo – Co-founder and former head of Countrywide
2. Phil Gramm – Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee from 1995 through 2000
3. Alan Greenspan – Former chairman, Federal Reserve
4. Chris Cox – Former chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
5. American Consumers
6. Hank Paulson – Former Secretary of the Treasury
7. Joe Cassano – Founding member, AIG's financial-products unit
8. Ian McCarthy – CEO, Beazer Homes
9. Frank Raines - Former chairman and CEO, Fannie Mae
10. Kathleen Corbet – Former CEO, Standard & Poor's
11. Dick Fuld – Former CEO, Lehman Brothers
12. Marion and Herb Sandler – Former heads, World Savings Bank
13. Bill Clinton – Former U.S. President

14. George W. Bush – Former U.S. President
15. Stan O'Neal – Former CEO, Merrill Lynch
16. Wen Jiabao – Premier, China
17. David Lereah – Former chief economist, National Association of Realtors
18. John Devaney – Hedge fund manager
19. Bernie Madoff – Ponzi scheme orchestrator
20. Lew Ranieri – Father of mortgage-backed securities
21. Burton Jablin – Programmer at Scripps Networks, which owns HGTV
22. Fred Goodwin – Former chairman and CEO, Royal Bank of Scotland
23. Sandy Weill – Former chairman and CEO, Citigroup
24. David Oddsson – Former Prime Minister, Iceland
25. Jimmy Cayne – Former chairman and CEO, Bear Stearns.

It may surprise many that Bill Clinton is actually one slot above George Bush. While the meltdown happened during the Bush Administration, many of the policies responsible for it were put into place under Clinton.

"Among [Clinton's] biggest strokes of free-wheeling capitalism was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, a cornerstone of Depression-era regulation. He also signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation. In 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods". - TIME

This isn't how Washington should work.

2009-02-13T13:02:00.000-08:00

A great video from Rep. Price, and a great reason why every member who voted for this should be embarrassed (again, this afternoon's vote by the house did not include a single Republican). This isn't the Democratic process our Congress should be known for - this is the Democrat process:

Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics

2009-02-12T06:17:00.000-08:00

An excellent piece from the Wall Street Journal, by Peter Ferrara (who served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan.)

In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama said, "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified." Or as administration spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said in January, the touchstone is, "What will have the biggest and most immediate impact on creating private sector jobs and strengthening the middle class? We're guided by what works, not by any ideology or special interests."

Unfortunately, this rhetoric is not true. Mr. Obama's economic policy is following not what has been proven to work but liberal ideology.

The best way to understand this is to compare what's being proposed now with what Ronald Reagan accomplished. In 1980, amid a seriously dysfunctional economy, Reagan campaigned for president on an economic recovery program with four specific components.

The first was across-the-board reductions in tax rates to provide incentives for saving, investment, entrepreneurship and work. The second component was deregulation to remove unnecessary costs on the economy. In today's world, that would especially mean removing the onerous restrictions on energy production -- allowing drilling offshore and onshore for oil and natural gas, revival of the nuclear power industry, and construction of more electric power plants.

Third was the control of government spending. In 1981, Reagan forced through Congress not only his famed, historic tax cuts, but also a package of budget cuts close to 5% of the federal budget -- equivalent to roughly $150 billion today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan's two terms. By 1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in constant dollars.

The Opinion Journal Widget

Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.

Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which helped win the Cold War, total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 from 23.5% of GDP in 1983. That's a real reduction of 10% in the size of government relative to the economy.

The fourth component of the Reagan recovery plan was tight, anti-inflation monetary policy, which was spectacularly successful. Inflation was cut in half to 6.2% in 1982 from 13.2% in 1980, and cut in half again to 3.2% in 1983.

We know such policies work because they turned around in just two years an economy far worse than today's. We were suffering from multiyear, double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates, declining incomes, and rising poverty. In fact, what we suffer with today is not the worst economy since the Great Depression, but the worst economy since Jimmy Carter -- the last time liberals were dominant politically and intellectually.

The Obama administration's economic policies do not include any of the four Reagan components. In fact, the stimulus plan is the greatest increase in government spending in the history of the planet. Meanwhile, the Fed is furiously reinflating, sowing more havoc down the line. Mr. Obama is still promising future increases in tax rates by letting the Bush tax cuts lapse, because for ideological reasons he thinks even current rates are too low. And instead of deregulating for more energy production, he is still promising massive increases in regulatory barriers -- through global warming cap-and-trade legislation -- to increased production from proven energy sources to serve an extreme environmentalist ideology.

This is why America seems so hopeless right now, and so depressed. We are stuck going in exactly the wrong direction on economic policy because of currently dominant ideological fashions.

A natural economic recovery will begin sometime this year, not because of the president's policies, but because soon this will be the longest recession since World War II. However, thanks to the administration's retrograde policies -- cut from the cloth of the 1970s and even the 1930s -- the recovery will not be what it should be. Rather, unemployment will remain too high, and inflation will resurge, recreating the disastrous economic results we suffered the last time Keynesian policies were dominant.

The President may be correct in stating the economic policies of the last eight years (which includes unrestrained government spending) have failed and that those ideas should be taken off the table. But we have much to learn about how Reagan got us out of the last large economic disaster - doing the exact OPPOSITE of what the Congress will passing in the next few days. Democrats are going to have a tough case to make a few years from now when the largest spending packing in history fails to make a significant impact on our economy.

A Great Speech on the Stimulus

2009-02-07T14:38:00.001-08:00

My Inaugural Experience

2009-02-07T14:35:00.001-08:00

New Polling on Stimulus from Gallup

2009-02-03T06:25:00.000-08:00

From Gallup:

Implications

While the majority of Americans favor Congress' passing some type of stimulus plan, there is remarkably little confidence on the part of the public that the plan would have an immediately positive impact on the U.S. economy. Americans are also pessimistic about the plan's potential positive impact on their own families' financial situations.

This lack of optimism that the stimulus will provide a "quick fix" for the economy may reflect in large part the public's profound pessimism about the depths of the economic problems the nation faces and a general pessimism about economic conditions improving anytime soon regardless of what the government does. Still, the data show that the majority of Americans are paying at least some attention to the debate over the stimulus, and about a third appear to be concerned enough about the plan to suggest that it needs major changes before it is passed into law.

A Plea to All Young People: Oppose the "Stimulus"

2009-02-02T10:56:00.001-08:00

I know we, the Millennial Generation, voted for President Obama 2:1, and that many of us describe ourselves as a progressive generation. But we are also the most independent-minded, and, for the first time, stand to inherit a country that is in worse condition than it was for our parents. That is why when it comes to the pork-packed, ineffective, constituent-pleasing, bogus stimulus package before the Congress, it is incumbent on us, as the youngest generation, to vigorously oppose it...even if it means disagreeing with our new President.

We all know that our economy is in bad shape. There is virtually no disagreement that things are terrible or that they will probably get worse. The question before us is what to do about that. As young people, we are going to have to live with that answer longer than any politician on Capitol Hill, any pundit on TV and any lobbyist on K Street. Thus, we must put aside our politics and examine how this proposal is going to affect our country and our generation in the long-run.

The current stimulus proposal is based on the idea that massive government spending will solve our crisis. But the bill is loaded (and I mean LOADED) with spending on new and old programs that have very little to do with economic stimulus or job creation. Some of the spending might be perfectly agreeable down the road, but nonetheless, it has no place in an emergency appropriation. On the other hand, some of the spending is completely wasteful and should be voted down regardless. In both cases, many in Congress are using the panic of the American people in this tough economic time to rush a package of unprecedented proportions through the legislature so that they can go down their wish list of pet projects and causes and simply fund it all. The cost of this bill, which is now up to $888 billion in the Senate, is almost the entire amount of discretionary sending our government would otherwise appropriate over an entire year, and will tack on an additional $6,000+ worth of debt to every household in our country.

And whose money are they spending? Good question. The government will wind up printing the money out of mid-air, in which case we will have to sell our debt to foreign countries like China or to ourselves through treasury bonds. They may try to recoup some of the losses down the road by further implementing a draconian system of taxation on the 60% of Americans who do pay income tax (which essentially means this is a multi-billion dollar exercise in income redistribution where the government takes from Jack to give to Jill). The billions that remain in our $10 trillion+ national debt will be ours to figure out what to do with down the road. In addition, we'll also need to come up with a plan to deal with the massive inflation that is sure to come when our government magically creates currency.

All of this for what? If this is truly about job creation, there is a more effective way. The Republicans in Congress have introduced alternative legislation that tackles the problem more effectively. First, decrease tax rates. As we have seen, simply cutting checks for a few hundred dollars to the public accomplishes nothing since they are likely to save the money or pay down debt. We need to decrease the tax rate on small businesses and corporations so that they can continue to expand and hire. The current rates are among the highest in the entire world. Second, there needs to be greater investment in infrastructure. Less than 8% of the current bill funnels money into shovel-ready projects that are actually the government's responsibility, such as interstate transportation. Funding for these project will not only just create immediate jobs, but it will also help our nation become more economically competitive. Third, we need to pay for all of this. Repeat: we need to pay for this. We cannot afford to increase our debt. Over the next few years, government spending must be decreased to recoup the costs of this bill.

History has shown time and again that massive spending during economic crisis is ineffective. The New Deal was a giant failure since it was, in fact, WWII that reinvigorated the economy (FDR's plethora of programs could not get unemployment under 20%). Japan tried the same thing in the early 1990's and was drastically outpaced by European countries that instead decreased government spending.

We need to prevent history from repeating itself by standing against the stimulus bill, or we stand to lose the most: another trillion dollars in government debt, soaring inflation, and an awful precedent that violates many of the bedrock principles this country was founded on, to name a few.

So far, only the House has passed a version of the bill. The Senate will likely pass a different version. The final bill will come out of conference committee and be voted on in the next week or two. CALL and WRITE to your representatives. Tell them that, as young people, we won't stand for this insanity. Our future is more important than their reelection.

For those young people who are willing to betray out future and support this package as written, I'd love to hear from you - starting with how much you plan on donating to the United States Treasury Department this year.

Rep. John Lewis - Speech to ServiceNation

2009-02-02T08:55:00.000-08:00

On MLK Day, the day before President Obama's Inauguration, Congressman John Lewis delivered the speech below at a ServiceNation event. It is one of most moving speeches I've ever heard. Lewis talks about the call to service during the civil rights era.

Obama's Priorities

2009-02-01T15:12:00.001-08:00

The top three priorities for the Obama administration. Submitted for Georgetown University bookstore essay contest.

Our nation is faced with challenges, in scale and number, that are among the greatest this country has ever seen. From an economy in collapse to ongoing wars, President Obama must set clear priorities if we are to overcome these obstacles, as our country has a proud history of doing.

These priorities do not take the form of any single issue or legislation, but within the way the President should govern, as any given issue we face will be insurmountable if he does not carry on the Presidency in a fundamentally new way.

First, the President needs to bridge the partisan gap. As a champion of the notion that we are not red states or blue states but the United States of America, Mr. Obama has a clear mandate to change the way Washington works. His leadership should bring members of Congress together to seek common ground on the crucial issues we face. No longer can partisan squabbles impede progress. Only by earnestly and consistently reaching across the isle and building consensus can our government begin to solve the problems before us.

Second, President Obama needs to enlist the help and support of the American people. The most powerful tool the President has at this moment is his bully pulpit. We have seen how candidate Obama inspired millions of people into becoming active civic life. As President, he should call upon a nation that largely has a renewed hope and faith in its government to be a part of the solution, whether on a community or national level. Through a collective ownership of our country and shared sacrifice, all Americans will join together in a universal renewal.

Lastly, our new President needs to be pragmatic in his decision-making. Issues such as our energy dependence, entitlement program crisis and crumbling infrastructure, to name a few, have become massive challenges because of weak political leadership that acted according to what was most expedient, not what was most effective. The President needs to prioritize a means to problem solving that is both long-term and comprehensive. No longer can we afford temporary fixes; we need a President who will take action at the root of the problem.

If the President prioritizes these facets of leadership and governing in his new administration, I believe any issue that comes across his desk stands a greater chance of being solved for future generations.

Geithner-Embarrassment

2009-01-26T19:38:00.000-08:00

Politico says "partisanship is officially back," explaining the overwhelming opposition to now-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Really? Did all those Senate Republicans just line up to "embarrass the President?" I'm not sure I follow.

I think President Obama embarrassed himself by going through with a nominee that had such large ethical lapses, lapses that undermine the integrity of the office to which Geithner has now assumed. Maybe the only partisanship that came into play was on the part of the Democrats who would never, ever have voted for Geithner if he was appointed by a Republican.

The 60-34 was indeed surprising. It's surprising how 60 Senators could confirm Geithner when nominees in his position have sunk for lesser tax issues in the past. Not only were his complications larger, but he is going to be in charge of the agency that collects taxes from every American! Even if you accept that his not paying the first $30,000 in taxes was an innocent mistake, there is no rational explanation as to why he did not pay his additional $40,000 in back taxes until after the transition team seemingly forced him to.

While I think that the President should have discretion in whom he chooses to serve in the Executive, the Senate has confirmation power for a reason. This is one of those reasons.

Geithner is an embarrassment. And so are most of the mindless partisans on the Hill who voted for him.

"Tad Uncomfortable with the Whole Aristocracy Thing"

2008-12-27T08:34:00.000-08:00

We Americans are, according to Telegraph writer Toby Harden. At least I hope we are. Harden writes about the possible gubernatorial appointment of Caroline Kennedy to fill HRC's vacant Senate seat. He suggests President-Elect Obama appoint her to be ambassador to London.

The time for political dynasty is no longer. For the first time in my entire 19 years of life, there will not be a Bush or Clinton in the White House beginning on Jan. 20th 2009. It's time this country move beyond the era of brand loyalty in politics and search out the most qualified for the job. Kennedy - having never held office before and having missed out on voting in about half of the contested elections in the last two decades - is under-qualified for her seat. Sure her dad was President and Uncle Ted remains widely popular in the Senate, but those are (or ought to be) irrelevant to her consideration.

If the UK wants her to be ambassador, so be it. That's Obama's choice. But for Governor Patterson to choose her to represent millions of people in the United States Senate because she's a Kennedy, I don't think so.

Why a Secretary Clinton Would Violate the Constitution

2008-12-07T17:21:00.001-08:00

Our Constitution is the absolute bedrock of our Democracy. It was intended to be an enduring document that defined the social contract between citizen and state while establishing the framework of our government. Its contents are not suggestions, not just mere words to follow when expedient and ignore when inconvenient. More than the leaders that come and go throughout time, the text of the Constitution must be the ultimate authority.

With this understanding, and no other partisan motivation whatsoever, I believe Article 1, section 6 of the Constitution should be strictly applied to Senator Clinton's nomination. I believe that we need to reverse the legislative precedent set in the past and uphold the Constitution as our Founders wanted, and as each elected official pledged to do upon taking their oath of office.

The logic behind concluding Senator Clinton is ineligible is simple: If, according to the Constitution, a member of Congress cannot be appointed to an office whose emoluments (which includes salary) "have been encreased" during which time he or she was a member, than Hillary Clinton, United States Senator at the time when the salary of Secretary of State was increased by Executive Order, cannot be appointed. A straightforward reading of the text will produce such a conclusion, which needs not further examination or explanation. Her potential confirmation, under the current circumstance, would be a direct violation of the Constitution.

Some argue that if we were to repeal the salary increase, it would cure this Constitutional issue (this is the so-called "Saxbe fix" deriving its name from the Nixon era when it was first used). That is not so. No matter what happens after the salary has increased, nothing will change the facts that: 1). the "emoluments ...shall have been encreased" (meaning that they were at one point in time higher than another) or that 2). she was a member of Congress during said time. There is no going around how the Constitution reads. There is no need to search for intention when the clause is as unambiguous and precise as this one is. House Democrats knew this when the Saxbe fix was first used by President Taft; they realized after the pay raise became law, no subsequent action could undo the effect of the clause. The same can be applied today. Thus, the only legal remedy would be to amend the Constitution or to suspend the Senator Clinton's appointment.

This literal interpretation applies to other prohibitory clauses of the Constitution. For example, candidates for President need to be 35 years old. Congress cannot just waive that provision for office. All analogies fall short of course, but one comes close: Dean William Lorenson compared the clause to the law of automobiles having to stop at a stop sign. The spirit of the law may be that cars should stop so as to not enter the intersection when another car is coming to avoid an accident. But if a car blows a stop sign because it is early in the morning and there are no other cars on the road, that would not be a legal defense for a ticket. In other words, the literal interpretation of laws, regardless of their spirit, are already applied in every day life.

Yet, I do not believe a person arguing my position needs to concede the idea that the Saxbe fix is consistent with the spirit of the clause. Constitutional Law Professor Eugene Volokh, in his law review, states that a secondary purpose of the clause was to "limit the size, importance, and reach of the federal bureaucracy" by providing a disincentive to members of Congress to raise the benefits of civil offices or create new ones. In other words, members of Congress who may seek higher positions in government would be less likely to vote for pay raises and create new positions if that barred them from assuming those offices. This is a perfectly logical intent for the clause, and would be completely undermined, not supported, by the Saxbe fix, which would grant exceptions to members of Congress.

The most dangerous thing we can do as a democratic society is disregard our Constitution when it is expedient to do so or when we happen disagree with it. The constitution has a clear process to be amended, and that process is what must be used when we want to change it. We cannot simply mute what the law says when it is blatantly clear how it is to be enforced, even regardless of what we speculate its purpose was.

I actually think Senator Clinton ought to be able to assume the position (save for this Constitutional dilemma) if the President and the Senate deem so. But I realize it is improper and against the wise judgement of our Founders to have an evolving interpretation of the document that is supposed to mean the same to one generation as it does another. So while I am very opposed to her nomination, I would support a Constitutional Amendment that limits the clause from being applied when salaries or other benefits are raised by the Executive Branch, not Legislative, as is the current case.

President Reagan showed restraint and appreciation for the Constitution when he passed up Senator Hatch when he filled a Supreme Court vacancy during his administration specifically because he deemed Hatch to be ineligible based on this clause. He did not go the route of a legislative remedy (untested by our Courts) as Taft, Nixon and Clinton did. That is the type of judgement and leadership necessary in a President who takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. And when our President lacks such judgement, and our Congress lacks the courage to stand up for the Constitution, it is We the People's job to remind them.

Clinton: Bad (and Unconstitutional) Choice

2008-12-07T09:33:00.001-08:00

Thank you Campbell Brown for a great piece on the network otherwise known as the Clinton News Network (CNN). Brown points out the utter hypocrisy in President-Elect Obama's pick of Senator Hillary Clinton for the Sec. of State post. At one point, he mocks her credentials. Several months later, there is no one better qualified. Huh? Not only is the move politically damaging, but it raises questions about his judgement. Bill Richardson or Chuck Hagel should have received the nomination, and everyone knows it.

Secondly, I came across this release from Judicial Watch, which outlines why Hillary's potential confirmation to the position would be unconstitutional.

I bet this will be the first large misstep by the Obama administration, which has, on the other hand, done very commendable job on running a transparent transition.

Remembering My Soldier

2008-12-07T06:22:00.000-08:00

Four years ago, I was sitting in a high school classroom preparing for the day as I did every morning, about an hour before classes began. Somewhere between finishing up math homework and reading the morning announcements, the Iraq War came home to me, in a way I thought it never would.

It was over a year since Operation Enduring Freedom began. Iraq reclaimed its sovereignty in June, and elections were planned for early the next year. At the same time, the insurgency was building. November was the bloodiest month we experienced, unsurpassed to date. The illusion that this would be a quick and handedly successful war was fading. Yet the majority of this country reelected our President in strong support to continue the mission. Over half still thought we were there for the right reasons and that things are going well.

Every day I wore a red bracelet with the name "My Soldier" written on it (remember back when those rubber bracelets were the big thing?). My Soldier was a program started by an Iraq veteran that paired people at home with soldiers overseas so that, many thousands of miles away, we may write to those defending out country and support them in any way we could. On December 2nd an email came in with the name and mailing address of my soldier: SSG Kyle A Eggers D CO 1-506 IN Unit # 15146 APO AE 09381-5146. I finally had a name to connect to that rubber bracelet I had been wearing for a few weeks; I finally had a face to connect to the distant struggle that was, to a large extent, absent from the day to day affairs of ordinary Americans.

What should I write to him? I had no idea. Should I tell him how I much faith I had in him and the mission he was serving, and how I was in the middle of preparing for my high school debate on the "pro" side of the Iraq invasion? What happened if he didn't support the war, I thought to myself, perhaps I should keep it less about the politics and more about the human side of this conflict. I knew by the time my letter would reach him it would be near Christmas, and being so far away from his family, he would be lonely. I wanted to get to know him, so I asked a lot of questions about him and his daily routine. I jotted these random thoughts down on paper, sealed it in an envelop, and sent it out as soon as I could.

I don't remember when it exactly was that my letter hit my mailbox in the quaint town of Milford or when it got to its final location in the desert hell hole of Iraq, but I soon realized that it didn't matter, because Kyle was already dead.

On the 12th of December, as I sat in the classroom, I opened up my email to find a message from MySoldier, the contents of which made my heart stop.

"Dear Nicholas,

We recently learned of a tragedy involving the soldier whose name you received in connection with the My Soldier program. U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Kyle Eggers, 27, of the U.S. Army's 506th Infantry, was reportedly killed by a roadside bomb in the vicinity of Al Habbaniyah, Iraq.

The loss of Sgt. Eggers saddens us all. It makes the dangers of war all the more real to those of us who (like you) may have begun to develop a relationship with someone overseas."

By this time, the room was flooded with other students waiting for the bell to ring and get to their first class. No one knew; no one would understand, I thought. I stared at the screen, overwhelmed with a feeling that I assumed must have been only a fraction of which his family must have felt when they learned. I closed the window, turned around and tried to go on with what became one of the longest days of my life, a day that brought the war home to me - a kid in rural Pennsylvania who thought he knew all that needed to be known about war, especially this war.

I knew how many UN resolutions were violated by Iraq. I knew the threat posed by the country, how many troops were there, what kind of internal struggle there was. I knew who was in charge of what, and so on and so forth. I thought I had it all figured out. But I knew nothing, absolutely nothing, about the human sacrifice. Before December 12th, I saw numbers. Who was winning, who was losing, how much more we needed to do. After December 12th, I saw faces. Though my views on the war itself did not change for a long time after, my perspective did.

I wrote on the pages of online tributes to Kyle, saying how much I and all of us were indebted to his sacrifice. Months later I received an email from Kyle's mom who wrote:

"I may not agree with the war in Iraq but I believe that each soldier is over there doing what they are doing as that is there job and they believe in this country and what it stands for...Kyle loved this country and loved serving it. He loved being in the army and wore his uniform with such pride and gave everything he had in doing so."

I talked about Kyle during every Veterans Day presentation and ceremony I have participated in since his death in Iraq. He was one man, not too much older than myself, who answered the call of his country, served it honorably, and gave his life for it. I never got to know Kyle, but I don't think I needed to in order for the father of three to forever earn my respect and admiration, or for him to change the way I have come to see and understand war itself.

Sixty-seven years ago today, Pearl Harbor was attacked and ushered in a much larger war that saw its end in a much smaller amount of time. But the biggest difference of all was that Americans, all Americans, felt that war. Not so today; and that's dangerous. While I regret that Kyle's death was the event which changed that for me, I do not think a person needs to experience something similar to more fully understand the war, now in its 5th and perhaps last year. It just requires us all to take a step back and see the faces. Our friends and peers are in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting to this day; the least we can do is keep them in our thoughts.

The most important thing I have learned about Iraq, regardless of its timing and justification, is my certainty that for however long this country has people like Kyle, a young person with a family and promising future who gave his life for a mission because his country called on him, is the extent to which our future will rest in good hands. To be sure, our generation has carried on this most admirable and fundamental quality of citizenship through sacrifice for one's country. And although I personally am remiss in not being a part of this conflict in the way Kyle was, it is something we should all take pride in and be forever grateful.

Vets Day 2008: 90th Anniversary of WWI Armistice

2008-11-11T11:32:00.000-08:00

On this annual occasion, let us pay tribute and give thanks to those who fought and put their life on the line for what we all appreciate today in our country.

I went to Arlington this morning to watch the wreath laying. The Vice-President delivered some powerful remarks, beginning by noting that once again, on Veterans Day, we are a nation at war.

"No single military power in history has done greater good, shown greater courage, liberated more people, or upheld higher standards of decency and valor than the Armed Forces of the United States of America."

"Our cause is liberty, justice, and peace, and millions breathe free today because of American soldiers who fought and sacrificed for that cause."

Election Recap

2008-11-10T13:32:00.000-08:00

Hat-tip to CG for sending along this video, a recap of the historic 2008 Presidential Election, which will go down in history for being so historically historic. I promise I'll get back to blogging soon, but the 6 hours election night webcast and all that preceded and followed put me far behind on other obligations.

What Happens Tomorrow...

2008-11-03T20:27:00.001-08:00

On the eve before tomorrow's historic election, I wanted to write how we, as Americans, not Republicans or Democrats, have already won. The McCain people, the Obama people, the undecided people - everyone. Though I have my qualms with each, our two major candidates are representative of the change that America so deeply desires. Both candidates have expressed their vision in uniting the nation and transcending political ideologies to start working on the enormous issues that face us, issues that have lied without progress or worsened these past eight years.

It is clear that people are sick of the play-to-the-base, polarizing candidates that have dug our country a deep hole over the past many years. We successfully nominated two candidates who will change that in a swift repudiation of the 50%+1 tactics that elected leaders who have tore our country in two, governed on a false mandate, alienated millions of Americans, and all but destroyed the spirit of America that calls upon each citizen to have a stake in our future.

That's going to begin to change tomorrow, no matter who is elected. I emphasize begin. I quote Doug Bailey, my old boss, who wrote this after Unity08 closed down earlier this year:

"It's important too to remember that the job's not done. No one's election to the White house will mean much if it's not accompanied by a dramatic redefinition of how government in Washington functions. An occasional compromise on a minimal answer to a crucial problem is not leadership, not change, not satisfactory.

Let's not quit now – and let's not set our sights too low. Changing presidents is not transformational in itself. That takes redefining who is in charge – Washington or the people.

Forty years around political campaigns has taught me to trust the collective will of the people more than the self-important wisdom of the "experts." While we should be excited that the people may be in the midst of teaching that lesson again, I'm sure each of us will want to help encourage them to do so."

November 5th will usher in the post-partisan era. This will be a time when we can begin rebuilding, alongside each other. This is a time when we can take our country back. It requires our participation and engagement beyond the vote. If on November 5th and beyond we can sustain the excitement, optimism, and passion to get our country back on track again as was demonstrated in the past 21 months worth of campaigning, we will have answered the call as previous generations have in the face of similarly tough times of uncertainty and distress.

Elections will come and go every four years. The act of electing a President, no matter who it is, even "The One", will not change a thing. It is that redefinition Doug talked about that will fuel our progress. And the only vote that will decide that is a vote of confidence in ourselves.

By this time tomorrow, we will know the President who will lead that effort. It is our responsibility and our duty to stand behind him and begin our work.

Economist Endorses Obama

2008-10-30T15:45:00.000-07:00

I don't want to get too much into the horse race on this blog, but the Economist's endorsement echos my own sentiments in a straightforward and articulate way. Some excerpts:

"Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead."

They laid out the argument, as I did, that McCain evolved into an unrecognizable candidate.

"The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday."

On Palin:

"The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice."

On Obama's qualities that would make him a good leader:

"He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well."

The potential:

"In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency."

The endorsement reiterated reasons for my support and reasons for my concern and reached the came conclusion. I suggest you read the entire piece.

"For Catholics Only -A Must View"

2008-10-30T12:21:00.000-07:00

Forwarded to me:

"Before you vote - Please view this message from Fr John Corapi- and forward it to all your fellow Catholics.

Thank you, http://www.fathercorapi.com/election.aspx"

On the site, there is this message:

"This is Bishop Rene H. Gracida, reminding all Catholics that they must vote in this election with an informed conscience. A Catholic cannot be said to have voted in this election with a good conscience if they have voted for a pro-abortion candidate. Barack Hussein Obama is a pro-abortion candidate."

And then there is this lovely video:

Maybe these religious bullies didn't get the memo, but political activity for religious tax exempt organizations is prohibited. This sort of theocratic warfare should be repudiated. People have the right to freely practice their religions, but the days when the Church controlled the affairs of the state are long gone.

I don't think anything bothers me more than single-issue voters motivated by their personal religious beliefs. What nerve the religious right in particular has to seek to impose their views on the entire country.

I'm pro-life, but I can justify that because it is an issue of morality to me. It's not an issue of Catholicism. For if the state were to ban abortions (which clearly is the central issue to these voters) based on the latter rational, we would be living in 17th century England again and I would no want to live here.

Three Debates, How Different?

2008-10-29T10:09:00.001-07:00

Get the latest news satire and funny videos at 236.com.

This Maverick – Asked to Resign

2008-10-27T17:51:00.000-07:00

Well, I guess it was only a matter of time. A few days ago, a colleague from the Pike County Republican Club asked for my resignation as a Committee Member for Westfall Township. Reason? I voted for Senator Obama and I wrote about it, of course. The nerve of me.

It was reassuring, however, to know that some of the reasons why I voted for Obama – for example, to unite this nation, change our politics in Washington, and get past the hyper-partisanship that stifles and inhibits independent thinking, pragmatic decision-making, and competent leadership - were pretty much on mark.

To be sure, I am a registered Republican. I align more with that particular party and believe in its conservative platform of a small government, strong defense, and pro-life agenda. I think we have a tradition to be proud of until recent times.

I joined the club back home and eventually accepted an appointment to the Committee because I enjoyed being around people who were also passionate about many of the same issues. I never had a problem reconciling my independent conservative thinking with being on the Committee because I never thought it would get to this point of being ostracized for sticking to principles. (No less, exercising my Constitutional rights to vote and free speech.)

I rationalized my active membership by thinking that my youthful voice of moderation and energy would benefit the party, even if just on the local level, by shaping it into a 21^st Century political organization that would see politics as a means, not an end – as it truly should be seen.

I constantly reflect on what George Washington said of political factions in his farewell address. He saw their utility (and to this day, they serve several good purposes) but he also recognized the poison of political factions. In the last decade or two, this poison has been responsible for much of the mess we now find ourselves in. People have been so blinded by party affiliation, and our leaders so bitter and vengeful over the same, that nothing really gets done.

So I joined the party to participate in its functions, but also to steer it the best I could in the direction it needs to be. As is painfully evident for most Republicans, the GOP is in a dire state. Without readjustment and new leadership – it’s toast. Even in this small club in Pike County, we’re being drastically outmaneuvered and overshadowed by the Democrats in a county where Bush won by 20 points in 04.

But it seems that the Committee may want to kick out one of its only members under 50 who has the energy and passion and knowledge to advance its ideas and beliefs, all because I decided to put my country above my party. And if anyone thinks that will change, well, that’s just foolish.

I have not decided whether or not I will resign. For one, the party does not belong to the partisans, especially those who seek to posture themselves by this audacious move; the party belongs to the people and I feel I am being a good representative of the people. To be honest, in a time when the Republican Party has gone back on much of what it has always stood for, perhaps I should be asking for the resignations of all those who were complicit while this was occurring.

And, two, I don’t feel I did anything wrong. What? I voted for whom I thought was the better ticket to lead our nation? And I wrote about it on my blog? OH NO!

Of course, if it is that inhospitable on the Committee when I return, I may consider resigning and reregistering Independent. Who knows. It does seem a little odd that one week before the November elections, members seemed to be more concerned with my vote than the other 50,000 in my county.

I am not alone in this sentiment, and I hope the Committee will realize its continuing of the tragic mistake of the GOP throughout the last eight years in not knowing when to put itself or their country first.

A Random Act of Kindness

2008-10-26T20:38:00.001-07:00

The American way. Thanks Facebook mini-feed and BK.

Illustrating Wasteful Spending

2008-10-21T22:28:00.000-07:00

From the Washington Post: "Behind every great man or woman in Washington there is a great painting. As the Bush presidency draws to a close, portrait artists can expect a surge in business from Cabinet secretaries and other elite political appointees who want to preserve their legacies -- and their images -- for posterity."

Officials are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on their own portraits. Outrageous.

A little goes a long way

2008-10-21T21:41:00.001-07:00

So last week, as the market climbed to record levels, I was stupid enough to buy some stock with the money I saved from working this summer. Of course, as soon as I entered the market, it fell down like a toddler on a slip and slide. In any case, I lost a nice chunk of change that I am still trying to figure out how to recoup.

It was when I was making my daily commute to work through Dupont that I remembered the few hundred dollars that got sucked into the mysterious world that is Wall Street. So after I got my customary hot dog with sour kraut and mustard from a woman who is on the corner by the Metro everyday, I tossed my $2 change into her tip jar, which was shamefully transparent. "What's another $2?" I thought to myself. You would think she won the lottery with the smile she threw back at me.

And when I passed the homeless man trying to sell his copy of Street Sense as passersby gave him the cold shoulder, I purchased one for a buck. I wasn't actually going to read the newspaper, Lord knows my google reader still had a few hundred stories to be sorted through. But he deserved it because he was making an honest effort. When I bothered to take my earphones out and buy a copy, he too appeared as though it was the greatest thing that ever happened to him. "Ya know," he said , "I'm going to be featured in the next edition." I congratulated him and continued on my walk. What's another buck, right?

So for $3 in as many minutes, I brought a little joy to two people who really needed it. If I could lose 100 times that amount in a greedy, self-interested pursuit of a quick buck on Wall Street, why couldn't I go the extra step to give back a little to those who would appreciate it? Perhaps it was my own guilt that motivated these rather unspectacular gestures, or perhaps I woke up on the right side of bed that morning. Whatever the case may be, I learned a lesson that a little indeed goes a long way.

It's something I am sure we have all seen and experienced, and something that can use a reminder every now and again. After all, just imagine if the hundreds of people before and after me did the same.

Tough Times Yield New Opportunity

2008-10-21T14:18:00.000-07:00

Warren Buffet says the key to his success is that he is greedy when others are fearful, and fearful when others are greedy. The underlying idea is that at a time of instability and hardship, potential and possibility are at their highest.

By no means do I intend to give financial advice. But I would like to suggest that in the similarly rough times we are experiencing more broadly in our country, when, like the market, confidence is low and our future uncertain, it is now the time to invest, and invest heavily.

CNN reports today, “A new national poll suggests that only a quarter of Americans think things are going well in the country today, while the rest of those questioned are angry, scared and stressed out.” Add to this the fact that confidence in our President and in Congress are the lowest they have been in decades and it becomes evident that we are in a very perilous situation as a nation - not only because of the immense issues we face, but also because our capacity to face them is severely inhibited because out lack of faith in our own government.

The unfortunate thing is that these trends can be self-perpetuating. As soon as Joe the stock trader starts selling off his assets, Jane does too. It is in this downward spiral where the smart investor goes in the opposite direction, as should the social entrepreneur, if you will. We know the market will rebound, much like our country will. So, as the saying goes, when the going gets tough, the tough get going.

I see young people as being “the tough.” Now is not the time to be discouraged, but to dream. Now is not the time to sit back, but to stand up. We have seen two national leaders attempt to capitalize on the hope and change that every American deep down desires. What is clear to me is that neither hope nor change can be peddled as commodities in America. These are qualities that are innate in all of us, and things that we, ourselves, need to start acting on, through dedicating our time and talent into self-improvement.

Reiterating the Democracy 2.0 Declaration, we as citizens are called to be the leaders of today. If the Millennial Generation is able to take advantage of these tough times and start investing in our communities and taking action to address societal problems, then we will stand to gain a lot, as both a generation and a as country.

As those who stand to both lose and gain the most, depending on the direction we take, young people ought to be the catalysts behind a ground-up reawakening of American dream. It is in these tumultuous times that we find the best opportunity to do so.

*Written for Mobilize.org

Liberal = Anti-American?

2008-10-20T15:47:00.000-07:00

Though a tad long, the interview is worth watching because we need to recognize and repudiate this sentiment on the right that liberals should cause us to be suspicious that they are anti-American.

As Matthew's points out, we closed that chapter in American history. Let's not reopen it.

Hitchens on Obama

2008-10-20T13:33:00.001-07:00

Some Reaction

2008-10-19T21:26:00.000-07:00

As I anticipated, there was some strong reaction today regarding the below blog about my vote. I mean, thanks to facebook, my phone started ringing literally seconds after I posted the link. This is the world of Democracy 2.0, after all.

I am not presumptuous enough, though some might disagree, to think that my blog will sway votes. But I felt it was important to broadcast this because I broadcast so many of my other opinions. Why should I feel ashamed for something I have thoroughly thought through and believe in deeply? As a close friend of many McCain supporters and even as a member of the College Republican Executive Board and Republican Committee back home - it was not easy to accept my conclusion. But it was necessary.

Generally, most people understood, and I believe most will understand. My casting a vote for what I know is right deep down, that seems irrational and plain crazy on the surface, was "respectable" to most people. That's the America I want to live in. And it reminds me of the part of Obama's convention acceptance speech that really drew me in:

"What has also been lost [these last eight years] is our sense of common purpose - our sense of higher purpose. And that's what we have to restore.

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers.

This too is part of America's promise - the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort."

Why I am Not Voting for McCain/Palin

2008-10-19T12:08:00.000-07:00

I have looked forward to voting in a Presidential Election for a long time. A very long time. This election cycle has been extensive, exciting, and absolutely unpredictable. So unpredictable, in fact, that my absentee ballot was sent out today with a box filled in aside the next President of the United States, Barack Obama.

OK, take a deep breathe. I know, it’s a shock. I can’t believe it myself. Sure, it was unimaginable a year ago. But so was how disappointing and dishonorable the Republican ticket turned out to be.

So I was a McCain supporter. I always have been. He represented all that is great about bipartisanship and getting things done. He was authentic, spoke truth to power, had conviction, and, to borrow a term, put his country first. He has great experience and could have been an effective president. His story of service was also one of incredible inspiration. I remained supportive of his candidacy, along with Mike Huckabee’s, for a long time throughout the primaries. That is, until he started to win and abandoned all that truly defined him.

McCain 2008 is not McCain 2000 (or McCain 2007 for that matter). That is abundantly clear to most people. McCain 2000 would win this election. Eight years later, he’s set to lose by a landslide. He has run an embarrassingly negative, untruthful, and ineffective campaign. He has turned into an erratic, disgruntled, and self-righteous candidate. He seeks to appease the base over what he knows is right. He has been hijacked by a desperate campaign machine that resorted to tactics and attacks that stand against everything the candidate himself was supposed to stand for. For a long time, however, that still would not sway my vote. But then something happened August 29^th that changed all this: Sarah Palin.

I don’t think this even needs much justification because she is objectively unqualified, inexperienced, and unworthy of representing you or me as our Vice-President (heaven forbid as President). It was a political move that was downright insulting and immensely irresponsible. For who would be the oldest man to assume the Presidency, McCain had an obligation to choose a running mate who would be able to take the reigns of this country in a heart beat. Is that person a self-proclaimed hockey-mom? Categorically no. Simply put, John McCain put his country last. And I refuse to vote for the ticket just so the party can pander to women voters and Joe six-packs. She is an angry ball of vitriol on the campaign trial, and she single-handedly is responsible for my vote changing.

Palin made me rethink everything over the last month. So what if Obama gets elected? Worst-case scenario seems to be that 95% of Americans will have their taxes cut and 47 million American may get health insurance. Hmm. We’ll get a balanced budget, a real plan to improve public education, reinvestment in our infrastructure, and an ambitious national service agenda. Most importantly, we’re going to have a united America again, with millions more brought into the democratic process who are starting to take ownership of their country. We’re going to be hopeful in our future, and inspired by genuine and pragmatic leadership. And we’ll have a great Vice-President who actually knows what he’s doing.

Nothing in the last three debates convinced me that McCain could redeem himself or his campaign, in fact they proved quite the opposite. His handling of the economic crisis was embarrassing, and his campaign “suspension” was another ploy to play games with voters (sort of like the gas tax holiday). From Ayers to Acorn, he is continually skirting the issues and throwing mud. This was not the way to win back those alienated by the Palin pick. McCain is a great patriot who has served his country honorably, but he will not be a better President.

Make no mistake, I oppose the economic ideas of Obama. I oppose his healthcare plan. I oppose his judicial philosophy. I am against his positions on energy and social security reform. Why in the world would I ever vote for him, then? Because I cannot vote for McCain/Palin.

Sure, I’m concerned about what will happen in Iraq, the prospect of a liberal Supreme Court justice nomination, and the establishment of a big-government political agenda. I’m concerned that Obama has held public office for a little over a decade and has not really accomplished anything significant. I’m wary to vote on someone’s rhetoric more so than his or her record. But the alternative is simply unacceptable.

So in many ways my vote in 2008, albeit insignificant in the grand scheme of things, represents a lesser of two evils for me, but in other ways, I am honestly excited about how transformative a term of Obama/Biden can be. I believe he will change our politics and our country, and both for the better. The pros simply outweigh the cons. And that is what voters must decide in every election.

The person I look up to most in politics who ran dozens of moderate Republican campaigns across the country in his lifetime told me that in this last debate, “On stage, I saw a President and a very old man.” I think that pretty much sums it up. McCain lacks the temperament and Palin, well, lacks everything. It is a ticket bound for failure, much like our country is if we don’t start tackling the largest challenges we have ever faced as a nation: economic stability, energy independence, fiscal responsibility, etc.

Obama is sharp. He’s contemplative. He listens. He can use the office of the Presidency to renew the American spirit in a way McCain never could. I believe Obama has the potential to be one of the greatest Presidents in our history. I have rooted for his candidacy since the beginning on the Democratic side, second only to who turned out to be his running mate, Joe Biden. I have faith in them, and more importantly, faith in our country given their kind of leadership.

As conservative essayist Christopher Hitchens wrote recently, “It therefore seems to me that the Republican Party has invited not just defeat but discredit this year, and that both its nominees for the highest offices in the land should be decisively repudiated, along with any senators, congressmen, and governors who endorse them.” He joins many other Republicans in rejecting McCain’s dishonorable campaign, abandonment of core values, and, of course, Sarah Palin. Four years from now, if and when conservatives can get their act together, we will meet again on the national scene. Until then, I’ll join the ranks of the most recent addition of Obama’s supporters, Colin Powell.

At this momentous time, in this defining election, the most risky and dangerous thing we can do, as the candidate often suggests, is fall back on the dogma, the partisanship, the scare tactics, the conventionality, and the cynicism that got us here in the first place. We need a new kind of leadership and a new direction. The potential of an Obama presidency is so enormous that I am certain that if I am talking to my grandchildren one day, I would regret informing them that when America was at the crossroads it is today, I settled for McCain/Palin. So I, for one, am putting some policy differences aside and putting my country first and voting Obama. I hope you will do the same.

Powell Endorsement

2008-10-19T11:30:00.001-07:00

Beyond the Politics with Bill Bennett

2008-10-13T11:54:00.000-07:00

For the past two weeks I have been fortunate enough to catch CNN's special programming called "Beyond the Politics." It is hosted by conservative radio talk show host Bill Bennett and tackles substantive issues in this election and moving forward in our country. There's little partisan squabbling, no attention the the horse race minutia that infests other programming this time of year, and a real intelligent discussion on important matters from level-headed guests. Bennett is brilliant. He is a former Education Secretary and a very talented host.

I'd like to think they got the idea from this blog! But really, I think this show is a great example of media doing its part in creating a discussion about things that actually matter, as opposed to the likes of Roland Martin and Rick Sanchez and Jack Cafferty (let's not forget Keith Olberman and even Bill O'rielly).

And while I am on a usual rant about the media - watch on Thursday (as I think Politico correctly predicts) for a coronation of Barack Obama after the last presidential debate by the mainstream media. Journalism is at a low at a time when modern technology has he potential to make it so much better.

To sum: More shows like Beyond the Politics and less hot air from jounal-losers.

Approval Ratings

2008-10-07T07:11:00.000-07:00

Politico Playbook: Katie Couric called it “Meltdown Monday” -- CBS News Poll: wrong track, 77 percent; Bush approval, 22 percent (same as last week and lowest of presidency); Congress approval, 15 percent; bailout -- approve 31 percent, disapprove 51 percent.

Can Obama or McCain be the saving grace for a discontented and cynical society? I think we know the answer to that. Perhaps that is why he is leading in all 8 swing states in recent polling.

Savings

2008-10-06T19:21:00.001-07:00

Student Voting Rights

2008-09-25T21:33:00.000-07:00

I had the opportunity today to wander up to Capitol Hill and sit in on a hearing on Student Voting Rights conducted by the Committee on House Administration. I plan to blog more extensively about this when I have more time, but I just wanted to share my initial reactions given the testimony by bot experts and students alike: how do we live in the best democracy on Earth and have such a convoluted electoral system?

One thing is for sure, to reiterate what many said today: voting for young people is perhaps their first experience of interacting with our government and democracy - if they feel disfranchised or frustrated doing that, we've probably lost them forever. We need to get our act together and streamline the process.

Restoring our Nation’s Public Sector

2008-09-25T21:30:00.000-07:00

(For my American Opinion Journalism class, we had to write an Op-Ed about something. Below is mine, written about the United States Public Service Academy).

By Nick Troiano

What do our energy crisis, economic meltdown, and botched responses to national disasters all have in common? A rapidly failing public sector.

For example, we’re exporting $700 billion a year because government leadership failed to facilitate our energy independence over the last three decades, with little hope in sight. The government oversight committee reports that in the response to Hurricane Katrina, in addition to the large costs of human life, as much as $10 billion was wasted in fraudulent contracts. And most recently, the taxpayers will be subsiding a trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street companies because, among other reasons, the Securities and Exchange Commission failed to do its job of providing adequate oversight in the financial markets.

And if you think it could not get any worse, think again. In the next decade, some 60% of the federal workforce, including 90% of upper-level managers, will be eligible for retirement, according to a recent study. Thus, over the next couple of years, we’ll be left with a smaller group of incompetent government officials handling increasingly tougher problems, a true recipe for disaster.

To fill this gap and to restore an effective and capable government workforce, public service needs to become a higher priority in postsecondary education.

A remarkable proposal to do just that is currently before Congress (H.R. 1671) and calls for the establishment of a US Public Service Academy. Modeled after the military academies, the USPSA would offer a four-year degree to students free of charge in return for their five-year postgraduate work in the public sector. The diverse body of 1,300 students who would graduate from the academy every year would take jobs in government, education, law enforcement, or other public service fields.

The cost? About $205 million a year, or about 70 cents per American. It seems like chump change when compared to what we’re spending because of repeated government failures and lack of leadership–the same type of leadership this academy would instill in every one of its graduates.

Too often when we think of serving our nation, we only envision brave soldiers conquering an island and erecting a large American flag on a hilltop. While military service is noble and courageous, many would argue that so is applying to the IRS (especially during tax time). To be sure, serving one’s country does not necessarily mean taking up arms; it can also come in the form of young people advancing the public good with their great talent, passion, and intelligence.

Consider also that two million more teachers will be needed in the next decade, and even today, some 80% of the nation’s law enforcement agencies are currently reporting they cannot fill positions for lack of qualified candidates. Our public sector is in crisis, and this proposal is one step forward in solving it.

This vision of a national public-service institution, now championed by two Teach for America alumni is nothing new. It is similar to what George Washington and Thomas Jefferson desired in their time. We are way overdue for an institution that would yield leaders in the field of public service to get our government working effectively and efficiently, and most of all, fill jobs that are in desperate need of filling.

Some college presidents and other citizens are hesitant, even outright opposed to the idea, however. They argue programs like the ones the academy would offer already exist at many universities. Other critics hold their positions because of the price tag of the institution.

Perhaps it is an issue of job security for the academics, or perhaps these critics under estimate the value and symbolism of having a national civilian institution dedicated to public service that will serve as a cornerstone of our great democracy. Whatever the case may be, our nation’s young people are telling a different story.

With skyrocketing college costs, students are leaving even the best public affairs institutions with massive student loans. The last place they are looking for a job, for the sake of their own financial future, is in the public sector. The academy would change that.

We are on the edge of great advancement in the national service movement in our country at the present time. Young people are becoming more civically engaged than ever before in our history. With so many challenges facing us as a nation, we need to make a clear call to service to this generation, one that has demonstrated its overwhelming desire and capacity to answer it.

With the next president already having pledged to expand national service opportunities, the establishment of the United States Public Service Academy could not come at a better time.

And for the money you will save by forgoing the extra topping on your next pizza, we can start saving the future our country.

The author is an undergraduate student at Georgetown University, studying government. He currently serves on the USPSA’s Pennsylvania Youth Advisory Council. He can be reached at troiano.nick@gmail.com.

A Message from Mike Huckabee

2008-09-24T19:25:00.000-07:00

I would not normally do this, but I'm going to repost a long message to let the world know why Mike Huckabee should be the Republican nominee right now and why he's one of the few left in this country to have any real hope in.

From an email just a few moments ago:

Dear Huck PAC family,

I ask 2 things of you right now:

First, read this email completely. I’m including my thoughts on the “bailout bill,” and I believe you will find them of interest. Second, if you agree with what I have to say, support my efforts at Huck PAC so we’ll continue to have a strong voice and we’ll have the capacity to support conservative candidates all across the nation who will stand and fight for our conservative principles … especially in times of crisis like we are facing as a nation today.

Frankly, I’m disappointed and disgusted with my own Republican party as I watch them attempt to strong-arm a bailout of some of America’s biggest corporations by asking the taxpayers to suck up the staggering results of the hubris, greed, and arrogance of those who sought to make a quick buck by throwing the dice. They lost, but want the rest of us to cover their bets so they won’t be effected in their lavish lifestyles as they figure out how to spend their tens of millions and in some cases, hundreds of millions in bonuses and compensation which was their reward for not only sinking their companies, but basically doing the same to the entire American economy.

It’s especially disconcerting to see the very people who pilloried me during the Presidential campaign for being a “populist” and not “understanding Wall Street” to now line up like thirsty dogs at the Washington, D. C. water dish, otherwise known as Congress, and plead for help. I thought these guys were the smartest people in America! I thought that taxpayers like you and I were similar to the people at the U. N. who have no translator speaking into their headset - that we just needed to trust those that I called the power bunch in the “Wall Street to Washington axis of power.”

The idea of a government bailout in which we’d entrust $700 billion to one man without Congressional oversight or accountability is absurd. My party or not, that is insanity and I believe unconstitutional.

Will there be far-reaching consequences without some intervention? Probably, but we honestly don’t know since we’ve really never seen this level of greed and stupidity all rolled into one massive move. But may I suggest that letting “Uncle Sugar” step in and bail out the billionaires who made the mess will be far worse and will start a long line of companies and individuals who will demand the same of the government---which last time I checked means that they will be demanding it out of YOU and ME. This is not money that Congress is risking from THEIR pockets or future, but ours. Many if not most of us have already experienced lost value on our homes, retirement accounts, and pensions. Now they’d like for us to assume some further risks so they won’t have to.

What happened to the “free market” idea? Is that only our view when we WIN and when we LOSE, we ask the government to come in and take away the pain?

If you are a small business owner, is this the way it works at your place? When you have a bad month, a bad year, or face having to close, can you go up to Congress and get them to write YOU a fat check to take away your risk?

Some of what contributed to this disaster is too much government in the form of Sarbanes/Oxley. Some is due to the tax structure that created the hunger for companies to “game” the system. Some is the common sense that was ignored like loaning money to people who can’t pay it back.

Wall Street has become Las Vegas east, but at least in Vegas, people KNOW they are gambling and they don’t expect the government to cover their losses at the tables. In Wall Street, they do. And the American taxpayer burdens the responsibility.

If Congress wants to do something, here are some suggestions:

1. Eliminate ALL capital gains taxes and taxes on savings and dividends right now. Free up the capital and encourage investment. This is the kind of economic stimulus the Fair Tax would bring and if Congress is going to lose money, let them lose it with lower taxes, not with public dollar bailouts of private market mistakes.

2. Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley. It has failed. It was supposed to prevent this. It didn’t. Kill it.

3. Demand that the executives who steered their ships into the ground be forced to pay back the losses of their companies. Of course, they can’t, so let them work and give back to the government and they can live like the people they put on the streets or kept there. It makes no sense to put them in jail—that’s just more they will cost you and me. I’d rather them go out and earn money—just not get to keep so much of it this time. I’m not talking about limiting CEO salaries---just those of the people who now are up in Washington begging for help because they ruined their companies.

Attempts by Democrats and Republicans to blame each other is nonsense. They are both guilty and ought to own up and admit it. They all lived off big campaign contributions and the swill of the lobbyists who strong armed them into permission to steal. Enough of blame. Fix it!

This would be a start. If we don’t hold these guys responsible, we are all finished.

Your support today will send a strong message to our Party Leadership in Washington that we are fed up with “business as usual!” And it will give us the resources to support strong conservative candidates who are campaigning hard for election this November. Those folk who share our beliefs and who will fight …not bail … on our principles. Please make an immediate contribution of $25, $50, $75, $100 or more to help make certain that the “business as usual” of Washington politics stops in January.

Thank you for your continued support and God Bless

Mike Huckabee

Address from President Bush - Summary

2008-09-24T18:03:00.000-07:00

Live Presidential Address:

"The problems today have developed over a long period of time."

Easy credit, and faulty assumptions of rising home values led to bad decisions, he said.

He described a domino effect that could result in a financial panic if immediate action is not taken. Millions could lose jobs, people will have difficulty in obtaining credit, etc.

"Fellow citizens, we must not let this happen."

Principles of this plan are widely agreed on, he said.

"Democratic capitalism is the best system ever devised...we have overcome challenges before, and we will overcome this one.

Elected officials will rise to the occasion, and we will show the world we can tackle the problem head on, he added.

Electoral College to Date

2008-09-24T15:33:00.001-07:00

Meet Sam Rasoul

2008-09-24T14:56:00.000-07:00

This is Sam Rasoul. I had the pleasure to meet him this weekend during a conference on campaign finance reform. He is the youngest candidate for Congress in the country. This is his 21st month on the campaign trail in Virginia, running against a Republican who has been unopposed during every election in the last decade. Sam is a moderate democrat running on a "change congress" pledge. Among other things, he hasn't accepted a dime from the DCCC, PACs, or lobbyists AND he has pledged to end the corrupt earmark system. We need people like Sam to run in every district and give Washington a swift kick in the rear. His site.

What he said:

2008-09-24T14:44:00.001-07:00

From the Crypt blog:

Add Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe to the growing list of Republican skeptics on the administration's bailout plan.

“I simply cannot support providing a blank check to the secretary of the Treasury,” Inhofe said Wednesday in a statement.

“The massive proposed bailout is being rushed through Congress and there is no question this plan would punish the American taxpayer by forcing them to pay the price for the poor decisions made by large investment firms. Supporters of this program admit as much. As a fiscal conservative, it is my belief that this approach is not the answer to our problems.”

"Historically, massive federal interventions do not have a successful track record, and I’m skeptical that this will do more good than harm," he said.

More ugly news

2008-09-24T14:21:00.000-07:00

Some troubling things I am reading about today:

1). The Bailout Package

While it looks unlikely Paulson's proposal will get adopted as it stands, it seems certain the American taxpayer will be in debt for several hundreds of billions of dollars before the markets open on Monday. I have to echo all that Congressman Paul said on this topic and why burdening the taxpayer for the faults of the greedy and irresponsible is a horrendous thing to do and why it will set an awful precedent.

2). Executive Pay Caps

Part of the plan, which Bush reportedly agreed to, will be to cap executive pay in corporate America. Are CEOs being paid way too much? Yes. Should government determine their pay? SHOULD THAT EVEN BE A QUESTION!?

3). Palin and the media

While the Alaskan who can see Russia from her house stumbles upon the United Nations for a meeting with some world big shots, the media was not allowed full access. CNN's Campbell Brown thinks it is sexism. MSLCD's Rachel Maddow (whose ratings have been increasing lately, somehow) thinks its like living in North Korea. I think it is plain wrong. If the campaign thinks the hockey mom is ready to be President at the blink of an eye, feed her to the wolves of the press corps like every other candidate.

4). Biden thinks paying taxes is patriotic

I am a few days behind on this, but it boggles my mind that a ticket that so blatantly supports the most un-American idea of income redistribution would dare to call paying an excessive amount of taxes "patriotic." Wake up Obama-Biden! Sure financially supporting the operation of government is a civic duty, but questioning why we have a bloated massive government that runs so many billions of dollars in deficit every year is anything BUT unpatriotic.

5). The negative attacks continue.

Props to Joe Biden for telling Katie Couric the ad (below) mocking McCain's computer inaptitude (because he was tortured for 5 years, mind you) was "terrible" and that he would have never done it had he known. That's straight-talk. Too bad when the Obama machine got a of him he back tracked on the comment. The campaign is getting too ugly.

Our Civic Health

2008-09-22T19:39:00.000-07:00

Released today by the National Conference on Citizenship: the Civic Health Index of 2008.

Things are looking good.

DOWn by 504 points

2008-09-15T21:14:00.000-07:00

CNN: "Wall Street sees worst day in 7 years, with Dow down 504 points, as financials implode."

The only good news is that: Speaking in the afternoon, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said that he hasn't ruled out additional government bailouts for the future. He also said that the banking system is sound.

$60 billion in bad real estate = 158 years down the drain and 60,000+ jobs gone. That is where unregulated greed takes us. Unfettered capitalism, like Dobbs warned, is a real danger.

This Must End

2008-09-15T21:08:00.000-07:00

For the sake of what was promised to be an honorable and positive campaign this (below) must end before it even begins. Negative ads are one thing, but this is another. Obama needs to condemn this.

Fiscal Insanity

2008-09-14T20:02:00.000-07:00

The government said the federal balance sheet through August shows a budget deficit of $483 billion - expected to decrease to $407 billion by the end of the fiscal year this month. Still, that is DOUBLE the $161 billion deficit in 2007. What is going on!?

Today, the national debt is $9.6 trillion. If you divide that among every citizen, that is $31,793 for each of us. This just is not sustainable. That's not even counting the unfunded liabilities such as Social Security and Medicare (then that number will go over $50 trillion)! Our dollar is taking a beating. Inflation is going to skyrocket. China is buying more and more of our country. The problems go on and on unless we get spending under control, get our economy back on track, AND have some serious tax reform. Getting rid of the corrupt earmark process, while necessary, is only a tiny bit of the solution.

This debt is being passed on by the incompetent leaders in Washington to my generation. Who runs a household like that? Or a business? This is insanity. And with more bad economic news tonight, it is only going to get worse and until we get more pragmatic. We can't fight two wars, cut taxes, bail out large companies, send large checks in the mail for economic stimulus, and increase government spending dramatically all at the same time!

Whoever the next President is - good luck.

Oil Drops Below $100

2008-09-14T20:00:00.001-07:00

Futures of tomorrow's crude oil price indicate it will be just below $100. This is good news. Yet how much progress have we made since the crisis of hitting $140? I'm not sure. There has been a lot of talk and little action.

Drill, baby, drill made headlines coming out of the RNC, while Democrats talked up alternative energies...but no significant progress on either.

Serve America Act

2008-09-14T19:55:00.001-07:00

One of the highlights of the ServiceNation summit that I just got back from, was the introduction of the Serve America Act of 2008 by Senators Hatch (right) and Kennedy. It is outlined here. The act will expand national service opportunities for all Americans.

As one of the speakers at the summit said, service ought to be a national civic right of passage for all young people in this country. I wholeheartedly agree. My generation needs to sacrifice some and feel a sense of ownership. And in these times, our communities and countries can also benefit from that.

Ron Paul Endorses 3rd Party

2008-09-10T11:38:00.000-07:00

The eccentric Ron Paul today urged voters to reject McCain and Obama and cast a vote for a third party candidate, of which there are four main candidates.

This comes only a few days after an interesting article ran in the Wall Street Journal declaring that the Party's Over. It is a good read and sheds a lot of technical insight on why the party system is, and ought to, be in decline.

Lip Stick and Pigs

2008-09-10T11:18:00.000-07:00

As the 2008 race for the white house spirals down the tubes, it seems the words of the candidates to make this election above the petty partisanship of the past, well, baloney.

ServiceNation

2008-09-06T14:32:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow, I head off to New York City to attend the ServiceNation summit. The idea behind it is the need to encourage, fund, and facilitate voluntary nation service - something that is particularly appealing to my generation. I was invited to blog about this experience, which you can read here.

I highly suggest you take the time to read TIME's cover story on this idea. In fact, it was this article that inspired the name of this blog.

Lieberman Drives it Home

2008-09-02T20:52:00.000-07:00

Joe Lieberman drove home the point of bipartisanship tonight (even so much as complementing Bill Clinton...and getting applause...from republicans...at their convention).

Some words:

"But when they look to Washington, all too often they do not see their leaders coming together to tackle these problems.

Instead they see Democrats and Republicans fighting each other, rather than fighting for the American people.

Our founding fathers foresaw the danger of this kind of senseless partisanship. George Washington himself -- in his Farewell Address to our country -- warned that the "spirit of party" is "the worst enemy" of our democracy and "enfeebles" our government's ability to do its job.

George Washington was absolutely right. The sad truth is -- today we are living through his worst nightmare, in the capital city that bears his name.

And that brings me directly to why I am here tonight. What, after all, is a Democrat like me doing at a Republican convention like this?

The answer is simple.

I'm here to support John McCain because country matters more than party.

I'm here tonight because John McCain is the best choice to bring our country together and lead our country forward.

I'm here because John McCain's whole life testifies to a great truth: being a Democrat or a Republican is important.

But it is not more important than being an American."

Of course, then he makes a good point in saying that Obama talks about, but McCain has practiced it.

Props to Obama

2008-09-01T13:27:00.000-07:00

It may not be very often when I agree with Senator Obama, but the second half of his acceptance speech at the DNC proves to be that rare example. I, like many others, was attracted to the Obama candidacy early on because of his promise for a new era of politics, an era that will no longer inhibit progress on the large issues we face or so alienate young people from becoming engaged. Though it is debatable whether Obama's actions match his rhetoric (i.e. flipping on public financing, dwelling McCain's houses, etc.), the essence of his message is one I, too, am passionate about.

From his speech:

"What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose - our sense of higher purpose. And that's what we have to restore...This too is part of America's promise - the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort."

He cites some examples:

This sort of new-age pragmatism is necessary to overcome the hyper-partisan do-nothing nature of Washington. Obama pleads his case that this can only be accomplished by his candidacy, while McCain argues the same thing about his. The good news is that both, in my opinion, want to achieve this end. For the most part, both are mavericks of sorts, both value working across the aisle, and both want to take a new approach to carrying on our democratic traditions that reawaken the American spirit. Either way the tally falls on November 4th, in this respect, I think we will be better off.

Back in Action

2008-09-01T13:20:00.001-07:00

When the Maryland Gazette went on hiatus because of the Stamp Act, it wrote "it is not Dead by Sleepeth." Much was the same case for this blog for the past month. While I have been doing everything but sleepeth, I have not had the time to dedicate to daily postings. Luckily, I haveset aside time for in my schedule, now that I am settled into college. So check back often. This blog shall endure.

Nader and Election Reform

2008-08-02T17:01:00.000-07:00

I have a lot of respect for Ralph Nader, Independent candidate for president, perhaps more than I do for most other politicians. While I may not agree with him on many issues, he is a man who sticks to his convictions, is committed to his vision, and is talking about issues no other candidate is. One of those issues happens to be election reform. You would think in the world's leading democracy we'd know how to run an election. But the process in much of American is dysfunctional to say the least. Heck, we even hard time picking our last President.

Ballot access is at the core of a democracy. It pains me to see how the two parties, which have a stranglehold on our political system, will go to any length to limit our choice on the ballot. This was best exemplified in 2004 when they got Nader kicked off the ballot in my state of Pennsylvania, using the courts as pawns in their despicably political game. So it is with much optimism and new found hope that I report to you that as of yesterday, Ralph Nader is on the ballot in Pennsylvania. We should hope it stays that way.

On the ground at Unity08 I often heard of the spoiler argument. But I think Ralph said it best on CNN when he replied to Wolf Blitzer with something like, "Aren't we all spoilers? I mean, we're all trying to take votes from each other, right?"

Keep on chuggin Ralph. You won't get my vote, but you have my support.

Let 'em Vote, Pelosi

2008-08-02T16:49:00.000-07:00

I applaud this amusing demonstration of House republicans who would not go home when Speaker Pelosi shut down congress. They demand a vote on whether or not to tap American oil reserves. Whether you agree with the proposal or not, a vote is what the American people deserve. What disdain our congressional leadership is displaying for the Democratic process.

Tomb of the Unknown

2008-08-02T13:22:00.001-07:00

This is from an e-mail my aunt sent me I found quite interesting. Think about how much things have changed since 1930, and then think how 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year since then, these gaurds patrol the tomb of the unknown soldier. This says a lot about how this nation honors those who serve it in uniform, something that should never change, or fade:

On Jeopardy the other night, the final question was "How many steps does the guard take during his walk across the Tomb of the Unknowns?" ------ I am sad to say-----All three contestants missed it.

Tomb of the Unknown Soldier Facts

1. How many steps does the guard take during his walk across the tomb of the Unknowns and why?

21 steps. It alludes to the twenty-one gun salute, which is the highest honor given any military or foreign dignitary.

2. How long does he hesitate after his about face to begin his return walk and why?
21 seconds for the same reason as answer number 1.

3. Why are his gloves wet?
His gloves are moistened to prevent his losing his grip on the rifle

4. Does he carry his rifle on the same shoulder all the time and if not, why not?
He carries the rifle on the shoulder away from the tomb. After his march across the path, he executes an about face and moves the rifle to the outside shoulder.

5. How often are the guards changed?
Guards are changed every thirty minutes, twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a year.

6. What are the physical traits of the guard limited to?
For a person to apply for guard duty at the tomb, he must be between 5' 10" and 6' 2" tall and his waist size cannot exceed 30." Other requirements of the Guard: They must commit 2 years of life to guard the tomb, live in a barracks under the tomb, and cannot drink any alcohol on or off duty for the rest of their lives. They cannot swear in public for the rest of their lives and cannot disgrace the uniform {fighting} or the tomb in any way. After two years, the guard is given a wreath pin that is worn on their lapel signifying they served as guard of the tomb. There are only 400 presently worn. The guard must obey these rules for the rest of their lives or give up the wreath pin.

The shoes are specially made with very thick soles to keep the heat and cold from their feet. There are metal heel plates that extend to the top of the shoe in order to make the loud click as they come to a halt. There are no wrinkles, folds or lint on the uniform. Guards dress for duty in front of a full-length mirror.

The first six months of duty a guard cannot talk to anyone, nor watch TV. All off duty time is spent studying the 175 notable people laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery. A guard must memorize who they are and where they are interred. Among the notables are: President Taft, Joe E. Lewis {the boxer} and Medal of Honor winner Audie Murphy, {the most decorated soldier of WWII}.

Every guard spends five hours a day getting his uniforms ready for guard duty.

In 2003 as Hurricane Isabelle was approaching Washington , DC, our US Senate/House took 2 days off with anticipation of the storm. On the ABC evening news, it was reported that because of the dangers from the hurricane, the military members assigned the duty of guarding the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier were given permission to suspend the assignment. They respectfully declined the offer, "No way, Sir!" Soaked to the skin, marching in the pelting rain of a tropical storm, they said that guarding the Tomb was not just an assignment, it was the highest honor that can be afforded to a service person.

Profit a bad thing?

2008-08-01T13:49:00.000-07:00

I baffles me how in a free market capitalist nation we can have such disdain for companies that turn a profit on the good or services they provide. Most recently, people are going crazy over Exxon's announcement that it set another record for quarterly profits.

I understand gas is expensive and that the price of it is crippling middle and low income families and causing all sorts of inflation. But we truly only have ourselves to blame for that - not a company that is in business to make money like every other company in America. I look at that graph posted here and I see a successful company, despite not being one that I necessarily care for.

While at first glance, $11 billion may seem like a lot, consider that the company's gross revenue was $138 billion (amusingly about the GDP of Hungary). That's only about 8% profit. (When I used to have my hot dog truck, I was bringing in 35-40% profit of gross revenue. No one complained to me and demanded that we nationalize the hot dog business.) Even further, Exxon paid an astounding $32 billion in taxes in this same quarter. For every one dollar of profit exxon made, Uncle Sam made $3. In the grand scheme of things, you tell me who is ripping who off.

We're paying through the roof for gas because we are dependent on foreign supplies of oil and demand is skyrocketing globally. If we had a sustainable policy as we said we would starting in the 70's, we would not be in this predicament. So stop raining on Exxon's parade, and go buy a Prius.

Pickens Plan

2008-07-30T11:36:00.000-07:00

One of the great things about America is that we don't need to look to government to solve our most crucial problems. Private enterprise has been the engine behind American innovation. So while our elected representatives twiddle their thumbs in Washington, along comes T. Boone Pickens, a billionaire oil man, with his own plan.

He spent millions of dollars in TV ads to get the word out about his plan, and now he is touring the country to talk to experts as well as ordinary citizens about putting it into action. The plan calls for increased wind power technology and utilization of natural gad in transportation. This, over a short period of time, would reduce our $700 addition to foreign oil and corrupt governments to about $300 billion.

This would the window in which we would research, develop, and bring to market new technology to rid out dependence altogether (like we were supposed to do quite a while ago under Carter).

Above you can see the map of wind energy distribution that led Pickens to call the United States the Saudi Arabia of wind energy. Let's get going on it.

Scandal Sours the Senate...Again

2008-07-30T07:21:00.000-07:00

The Senate's longest serving republican member, Ted Stevens of Ohio, was indicted for not reporting an alleged $250,000 in gifts.

The Politico's David Rogers: Like him or not, Sen. Ted Stevens is an institution, and the news of his indictment is another blow to the Senate, not just because of the man but also because of the nature of the alleged crime.

Stevens, 84, maintains his innocence. That, assuredly, won't make much of a difference in Congress' dismal approval ratings, which now stand at an estimated 23.5% according to pollster.com. Chart shown below:

"Shift Happens"

2008-07-29T19:18:00.000-07:00

They played this at a recent school board meeting. It's certainly worth watching if you have ten minutes to kill. Puts things in perspective. Such as why I know so much calculus but had to figure out on my own how to start this blog to share ideas and information.

A lesson from Bob Potenza

2008-07-29T18:04:00.000-07:00

I attended the Pike County Republican Committee meeting this evening. That usually entails, as it did tonight, sitting quietly as the audience, whose average age quadruples my own, pick nits at little things. Tonight, for example: should the annual pig roast be on a Saturday or Sunday!? Should those who have missed three meetings be sent a letter asking their intent or just removed from the committee, and if the letter is sent, what should it say!?

Don't get me wrong, these are some of the best folks you'll meet. They show up to these meetings because this is their way of staying involved and civically engaged. Its not their fault that our Republican committee happens to be extraordinarily unproductive - that's our fault, as young energetic people who have the time and resources to do amazing things. But so far, it is just me and Zach Pearce.

In any case, I was very much entertained by one older man, 82 to be exact, who stood up and gave a good 10 minute rant about gas prices. His passion and vigor were commendable. "We must let Congress know this can't stand! We need to call them, like I have been!" And with that (I summarized to an enormous extent there), he handed out tiny pieces of paper with the phone numbers of Speaker Pelosi and our Congressman (Chris Carney) on them. At 82, Mr. Bob Potenza hand wrote dozens of these little notecards so that we can call our leaders and get them aware and acting on this issue.

Here is man without a facebook page, without a cell phone, not even an email address - but he probably spent a couple hours, simply making little pieces of paper with phone numbers on it. That's a task you or I could do in 45 seconds tops, and then distribute it to hundreds of people instantly on top of that.

But then again, what did you do today - about the oil crisis? about our national debt? about the flawed social security system you're paying into?

By God, if Bob Potenza can spend hours fiddling with pieces of paper, with that same energy, young people should be able to conquer the world. Ok time to go update my facebook status...

Unity Ticket - Possible?

2008-07-29T07:29:00.000-07:00

While my idealistic fascination/obsession with Unity08 died when the organization did in January, I still very much believe that electing a bipartisan ticket to the White House will be an extraordinary feat for this nation and its political system in this time of hyper-partisanship.

As the VP process is coming to a close, am I so disillusioned to think this is actually a possibility? Obama has been seen closely lately with Senator Chuck Hagel and Former Senator Sam Nunn (both of whom were large contenders for the Unity Ticket back in the day.) On McCain's side, everyone knows about his close friendship with former vice-presidential candidate and Democratic, now Independent, Senator Joe Lieberman. Both candidates are not afraid, as it seems, to engage and work with the other party. (As with most issues, McCain has a recored of doing this, while Obama likes to talk about it).

Forget all of this business about does he need someone older/younger, smarter/dumber, conservative/liberal, northern/southern, senator/governor. Let's unite this county, both parties together. Face it: winning a war, balancing a budget, increasing alternative energies, securing our border, etc. - these are all issues that don't require guidance by an ideology other than American. But they do require that we work together. Nothing will so strongly demonstrate this than a bipartisan team leading this nation for the next four years.

Death Penalty Marches On

2008-07-29T07:15:00.000-07:00

A story from CNN this morning reads that President Bush, for the first time since 1961, approved the death sentence of an Army private. The private was convicted of murder and rape and has been on death row for 20 years.

When this prisoner eventually gets executed, to whom will the 137 countries that already outlawed this system of punishment look to as the shining city on the hill? Certainly not the United States.

I don't much enjoy the company of China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. I do not take satisfaction that at least 124 people in the last 35 years sat on death row while innocent (those are the ones exonerated and freed - who knows how many were executed before new evidence like DNA testing cleared their records). The arguments against capital punishment are many, but just take a look around and ask yourself if you are the least bit proud to be one of the last civilized nations on the planet to continue to use this means of so-called "justice."

I don't buy in to what many refer to as "evolving standards of decency." I think the death penalty was wrong in 1789 and I think it still wrong today. America is supposed to be the moral conscience of the world. How do we maintain that while we continue to deprive people of something no man has any inherent right to take from another when his own is not in imminent danger - his life?

Ending the Pork Must Begin Somewhere

2008-07-28T21:33:00.000-07:00

I often talk with a good friend of mine about the congressional race in my district. I think the Republican Party has a great candidate in Chris Hackett, a man who is deeply committed to what he believes in. He personifies integrity (perhaps because he's never been a politician before).

But what I really like about Mr. Hackett is that he signed a pledge not to ask for or accept a single pork barrel project if elected to Congress. Imagine that: a candidate turning down one of the greatest reelection tools ever known to mankind.

His opponent in the primary, Dan Meuser, refused to take the same pledge. And the current Democrat incumbent has been gladly taking and voting for them.

Meuser's supporters, including the friend I mentioned, continually suggest that to be a successful representative you have to play by the game. This means, you vote for other members' projects, and they'll vote for yours. Never-mind the billions of dollars in wasted taxpayers dollars or the fact that special interest groups often benefit from these projects. This is how the game is played I am told, and if Hackett excluded himself, he will lose and so will we, the people of the 10th district.

I beg to differ. Change needs to start somewhere. I'll be proud if it starts in my district, when we elect a man of strong conviction to stand up to a corrupt system that is bankrupting my generation.

The Town Hall Meeting and Our Democracy

2008-07-28T21:04:00.000-07:00

This past week I had the great opportunity to see Senator John McCain at a town hall meeting in Wilkes-Barre, PA. He began by welcoming the community to the meeting, which he described as the essence of American democracy. I could not agree more.

As his opponent galavanted across a different continent, the Senator was having intimate talks with people. He spoke for a few minutes and then just opened it up to questions. In a time when the cameras are always rolling and the smallest sound-bite can ruin a campaign, he still chooses to open it up to all possibilities because he obviously deeply values honest, open dialogue with the American people. At certain points he challenged a questioner to respond to his answer to offer a rebuttal. This was amazing to witness.

As President, McCain said he would entertain the idea of

going before the Congress to have a similar open dialogue much like the British Prime Minister does in the House of Commons (who doesn't love watching that on CSPAN??).

This is a great way to reengage the public at a time when cynicism about American politics and government is extraordinarily high.

American in America

2008-07-28T14:58:00.000-07:00

As the repeats continue on CNN of the network's newest documentary, "Black in America," I continue to be concerned with the popular perceptions of race in our country. It has certainly received a lot of press since Barack Obama became a viable candidate for president. What does it really mean to be black in America? I couldn't tell you nor will I try. But I will attempt to share what it means to be an American in America.

I can tell you that being an American in America means having equal rights and protection under the law. Being an American in America means being free from government and oppression (including excessive taxation), having rights to property, and allowed equal opportunity to pursue one's own happiness, whatever that may be.

So whether you're black, white, brown, red, or anything else - you're an American. And as long as each of us are guaranteed that which it means to be an American (above), than I don't much think we should be sounding an alarm that race in our county is still a major factor that disadvantages millions of people.

I believe our Constitution is color-blind, and I believe every law and policy that is crafted by our government should be also. The truth is that we will never get past whatever race issues do exist if we keep perpetuating them in our society by means of government or the mainstream media.

Justice Thomas, a black man who has a seat at the highest level in our government, holds a similar opinion and likes to frequently quote Fredrick Douglas, the famous black American abolitionist, when issues of race come before the supreme court (such as questions of affirmative action and race considerations in college admissions).

Douglas said: "The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us...I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! If the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall. ... What I ask for the Negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice."

I thought of that when I got into a discussion with a friend recently while this Black in America program was on about reparations. I oppose that. I also oppose telling people as I was told while on an interview for an Ivy League school that "if I was a minority, I would be better off." We are in the year 2008. When can we move past this? I think, as a recent poll showed, it will only fade with time and successive generations of Americans.

So I don't care what it is like to be Black in America or White in America - I do care what it is like to be American in America, and right now it's not the best it can be. But being of minority status, I would argue, is not one of the reasons why. Thinking that it is - is.

First Post

2008-07-28T09:38:00.000-07:00

I intend to use this blog for your satisfaction as well as mine. I always have something to say in reaction to something I see or hear during the course of the day and hope to now air some of those thoughts as they pertain to our country and our future. We are blessed to have what we have here. As good old Mike Huckabee always says- "I'm glad to live in a place where people are breaking into and not breaking out of."

I hope it stays that way, but all of the issues we face, and more significantly, how we have (not) been facing them, indicate that there is a pretty tough road ahead for our country and my generation if things are not dramatically changed. These "things" include reengaging American society in the political process, getting the youngest generation to take some ownership of this country, changing how the game is played in Washington, ending the paralyzing hyper-partisanship in our government, and tackling the issues, not each other. These ideas will be a common theme, at least I hope, in all that I will have to say.

I am a proud American and independent conservative. I am a member of a generation that has the potential the place this country back on track, and I know that if we fail to do so, our best days are certainly behind us.

I hope to bring in a team of other young politically active young people to join this conversation about our future - regardless of political persuasion. If you're interested, let me know.