For Now

I don't have time at this moment to say all I want to say about the "Rewarding Illegal Aliens Act" passed by the Senate yesterday. However, I do note that several Senators who have either stated their aspirations to the presidency, or are at least known to be contemplating a run for the nation's highest office, were numbered among those who voted in favor of this abomination. I thought you might be interested in knowing who those presidential wannabes are, you know, in case it might help you determine who to support, or not to support:

Evan Bayh - Democrat - Indiana
Joseph Biden - Democrat - Delaware
Sam Brownback - Republican - Kansas
Hillary Clinton - Democrat - New York
Christopher Dodd - Democrat - Connecticut
Russ Feingold - Democrat - Wisconsin
Bill Frist - Republican - Tennessee
Lindsey Graham - Republican - South Carolina
John Kerry - Democrat - Massachusetts
Joseph Lieberman - Democrat - Connecticut
John McCain - Republican - Arizona

A Lot Of Catching Up To Do

Been a very busy past couple of weeks. I hope to catch up with posting some thoughts over the long weekend. Things on my radar screen include the House's questionable assertion of the separation of powers in protesting the FBI's raid of one its members offices, as well as the travesty of an immigration bill passed yesterday. Keep checking in.

JLH

Armed Forces Day Recap

If you're interested in reading about the Lincoln County Armed Forces Day Picnic, go here.

A Pleasant Problem? Maybe, But Still A Problem.

News out of Nashville once again brings up the question of whose money it is that the government collects and disburses.

As reported in the Tennessean, as the June 30 end of the state’s fiscal year approaches, it is a virtual certainty that Tennessee’s government will see a budget surplus of at least 37 million dollars, although it could be as high as 88 million.

So can we set aside any further talk of a state income tax?

Of course, I’m hoping that, come next January, the Volunteer State will be swearing in a first-term governor and, as has been oft-cited, first-term governors never support a state income tax. Rather, they hold that idea in their pocket until they are safely elected a second time, knowing they won’t have to fear the voters again.

But regardless of who occupies the governor’s office next year, can we not see that the state is quite capable of collecting enough revenue to meet its obligations without the income tax? Well, most of us can.

Nevertheless, there are always those who see the state’s obligations as including things not on the budget that they desperately want to put on the budget as they constantly look for new ways to take money away from the people. And these always see surplus money as something to be spent, or at least held until something can be found to spend it on.

Granted, there is the possibility that some new legitimate budget item does exist that there has been insufficient revenue to cover prior to now, but fairness to the taxpayer demands that 2006 revenues be spent on items that were understood to be state’s obligations when the 2006 budget was formulated. It may be that the new, rosy revenue picture may enable forecasters to increase the amount of revenue the state can expect in coming years, allowing for new items, but some form of tax relief that the excess 2006 funds could make possible is only right – before any new items are added to the budget.

At present, both of the most visible candidates for Governor – incumbent Democrat Phil Bredesen and Republican State Senator Jim Bryson – favor placing the surplus revenue into the state’s “rainy day” fund. And while that is not as objectionable as immediately adding new programs to the budget, it still leaves unresolved the problem that surplus budgets always present: That the government has taken more money from the people who earned it than it needed to.

My personal preference is for at least a significant portion of the surplus revenue to be returned to the people. But at the very least, the state’s tax structure should be re-evaluated to determine how, in future years, the state can do a better job of taking as little money as possible out of the pockets of wage-earners while still meeting its legitimate obligations.

The process determining of the right tax-and-budget structure is one that never ends, as situations like this reveal that adjustments need to be made. The fact is that providing meaningful relief to the taxpayer will most likely only increase the state’s revenues further. But at least that approach will allow those who want new programs to push for them in an environment of increasing individual prosperity.

Where Have I Been?

Chattanooga, actually.

The Lovely and Gracious Tanya and Myself were in the historic city last week, enjoying our first vacation with our little bloglings - Levi and Aaron. Maybe I'll share some pictures soon.

Thanks for your patience.

JLH

By Any Other Name

Today, I am inclined to once again turn your attention to a story that is told about Abraham Lincoln during his administration’s struggles with how to deal with the issue of slavery.

As the discussions among his cabinet proceeded over whether or not blacks should be afforded the same rights and privileges that the nation’s founding documents declared to be the God-given birthright of all men, President Lincoln posed the question, “How many legs does a sheep have?” Of course, all agreed that a sheep has four legs.

Mr. Lincoln then asked, “Suppose we call its tail a leg, how many legs does it have then?” When someone answered “Five,” Mr. Lincoln corrected him: “No, he still only has four legs, calling his tail a leg doesn’t change what it is.”

Folks who have talked politics with me very much know how I like to use that story to make a point about abortion and the nature of the unborn child. But there is also a broader message in this story about the unchanging nature of what anything is, no matter what we might choose to call it.

“Amnesty” is a term that leaders in Washington have been going out of their way to distance themselves from in the debate over what to do about the millions of illegal immigrants currently in the United States. But before we go any further, we should note why that is. It is not because the government doesn’t have the authority to grant amnesty to whomever it pleases. It most definitely does have that authority.

Rather, the reason so many elected officials want to avoid using that term to describe any “immigration reform” bill that comes out of Congress is the simple fact that the notion of amnesty is hugely unpopular with the American people. There are laws currently on the books regarding the crime of entering this nation illegally, and what is to be done with those who have done so. Americans expect those laws to be enforced – at least as well as the nation’s tax laws, or laws against driving a car too fast are enforced.

The Washingtonian crowd, on the other hand, has something different in mind. Various national leaders, including the President, are advocating variations on legislation to “reform” the nation’s immigration laws – in what, by the way, to these eyes, looks very much like an ex post facto kind of way. But what they all feature is some kind of provision by which those who are already here illegally will not face the penalties required by the law as it currently stands.

Granted, they will have to pay fines and meet certain other new requirements to stay in the country, but they will not be subject to the punishments prescribed in the law as it was written at the time they violated it – and as it is currently written. And it is true, that may not be a “blanket pardon” releasing them from any obligations to face any music because of their illegal activity. But does that mean it is not some form of amnesty?

President Bush certainly thinks so, at least based on what he says. In his address to the nation last night, the President said, “Some in this country argue that the solution is to deport every illegal immigrant and that any proposal short of that amounts to amnesty.” Of course, his position is that any position short of that cannot be considered amnesty.

But if he, as well as other Washington leaders, is advocating changing the rules so that a large group of people don’t have to play by the rules that were in place at the time they made the choice to cross our border in violation of our laws, by definition it must be regarded as a form of amnesty.

And, again, it’s not that the authority doesn’t exist for our government to grant it, it’s that the (voting) public is unambiguously opposed to it. So the assumption in Washington is that this “reform” must be called something other than what it is in order to try to convince the public that there is no disconnect between the voters and their elected leaders. Of course, there is another way to convince the public of this – actually listen to what the public is saying.

And it wouldn’t hurt to cast a passing glance at the Constitution as well. For the question of the popularity of amnesty is a purely political one. But the question of passing an ex post facto law is a constitutional one. One that I haven’t heard discussed much in the debate over this issue. (Side Note: This makes me wonder if the only way to allow the current illegal immigrants to remain is to grant amnesty, based on the Constitution’s ex post facto provision. But that’s a subject for a separate post. And I would welcome other thoughts on that matter.)

But apart from the constitutional questions that can be raised, it is distressing to see that so many, both Democrats and Republicans, are willing to blind themselves to the facts, and hope that they can blind us at the same time. It may be that many of them may be forced to face a harsh reality come November – the reality that Americans prefer that their leaders deal openly and honestly with them.

We Can Handle The Truth

Prices for everything in an expanding economy are going to go up. That’s just an indisputable economic fact of life as prosperity increases. This effect is only going to be multiplied if demand for a particular item increases at a never-before-seen rate. If we add to this mix the factor that supply is hindered by unreasonable restrictions on the production of the commodity in question, then no one should be surprised if the price for that commodity starts climbing faster than what many expect.

In view of what I have just noted, it’s really remarkable that gasoline is as inexpensive as it is right now. The reality of the twenty-first century is that there are a lot more consumers of petroleum than there were twenty five years ago – most notably in China and India, whose populations dwarf our own. These nations are now demanding this same resource that we have taken for granted for so long at a much higher rate than ever seen before. The law of supply and demand says that in such a situation, where supply is not expanding to keep up with the new demand, prices are to be expected to increase. And we can just go ahead and set aside the notion that demand is going to somehow decrease in the future.

So why not increase the supply? Well, where foreign sources of oil are concerned, we have little control what the governments of oil-producing countries (most of which are dictatorial) do with the resources in their control. And where domestic sources are concerned, there is little to indicate that the people with the ability to open up production yet feel any motivation to do so.

And I’m not talking about the oil companies here. The fact is that oil companies would love to be able to engage in more domestic oil exploration. Oil executives are businessmen, and it would be illogical for a good businessman to not want to exploit new sources of a product that is in such high demand. But they do not have the ability to ease the restrictions that hinder domestic production.

No, those with the ability to change the status quo in this regard are the lawmakers in Washington, enough of whom are beholden to the anti-capitalist environmental lobby that screams bloody murder at any hint that we might need to explore for oil, drill for oil, or even increase refinery capacity within the United States.

And heaven forbid that these politicos should actually consider giving up the revenue they make off of the sale of gasoline in anything more than a token move. The next time you hear any lawmaker, Democrat or Republican, talk about oil companies gouging the consumer at the gas pump, remember that the government’s take off of a gallon dwarfs the take of the oil companies, and then consider where the real gouging is taking place.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says, “We’ve got to help those who are feeling pain . . . as quickly as possible” (For a good conservative like myself, this calls to mind Ronald Reagan’s comment about the most feared words in the English language). But the best thing that government can do in this situation is get out of the way – as in easing the restrictions and requirements on production that make it virtually impossible to solve the “problem” of gas prices in the current circumstances.

Instead, what is being offered by the Senate Leadership, on both sides of the aisle are what has been accurately described by House Majority Leader John Boehner as “insulting” measures. Republicans briefly floated the idea of a $100 “Gas Rebate,” as though buying Americans what amounts to two tanks, or less, would convince the public that government is doing all it can.

For their part, Democrats, while predictably criticizing Republicans for doing the bidding of oil executives, have offered up their own version of insult: Eliminating the federal tax on gasoline – for sixty days. You see, as opposed to the Republicans offer to make things better for two weeks, the Democrats offer to make things better for two months.

Both these moves beg the question: What on earth are the long term benefits/solutions to this present distress that these proposals hold out? The answer, of course, is that there aren’t any long term benefits/solutions. Both these are merely cosmetic moves intended to pacify the wrath of the slow-witted American consumer/voter (think “I feel your pain”) while requiring Uncle Sam to make no real sacrifices of his own cash cow. But the average American who takes the time to rationally think through the origin, and solution, to this “problem” can see that all the politicians are offering is a snow job (with apologies to the new White House Press Secretary).

Just once I wish the suits in Washington would appeal to our intelligence rather than our fears and ignorance. If they would be true leaders and statesmen, set aside the obfuscations driven by political motives and explain/admit to the American people what the problem really is – as gas prices are merely the most visible symptom of the real problem. Then take real action to provide real solutions: Open up domestic exploration and production, bring more refineries online, ease the financial burden placed on gasoline through federal taxes, and, yes, look for other ways – including alternative fuels and vehicles – to reduce the impact that the actions of people in other nations have on our need for energy sources.

None of these things will bring the cost of operating a car, or heating a house, down next week. But it’s time to stop looking at immediate political gain and look to real long-term answers to the needs of Americans. It’s time to stop acting like politicians, and start acting like statesmen.

No Pleasant Explanation

In trying to grasp what is driving the actions of our national leadership with regard to the immigration issue, I have tried to fall back on a basic premise that I teach my political science students at the local community college. Unfortunately, this does little to offer a rational explanation. But it does illustrate a problem just as serious for freedom-loving Americans.

Beginning with the understanding that American government is accurately termed a republic, or representative democracy, rather than a direct democracy, I note that the people of the United States elect men and women to carry out the nation’s business for them. These elected officials, once in office, will act in one of two ways.

Some elected officials can be expected to see themselves as trustees for the people. That is, they view their elected position as one in which the people have entrusted them to use their own best judgment of what is right and what is wrong when working toward establishing public policy. Others may be expected to view themselves as delegates of the people. That is, their job is to keep their fingers on the pulse of their constituency and base their actions on what they perceive “the voice of the people” is saying.

Of course, it is doubtful that any elected official falls neatly into either of these two categories. Rather, one can expect a politico to give varying weights to the value of public opinion and personal judgment, depending on the specific issue being considered, or the circumstances surrounding it. But what is maddening about the response of our leaders in Washington is that it’s difficult to see how either of these classifications describe their actions in a way that would calm the nerves of many people like me.

The American people – and by that, I mean the actual citizens of the United States who live and work here lawfully, vote in elections, and who are supposed to enjoy all the rights and protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution – have not been ambiguous on how they feel about the problem of our government allowing people who demonstrate no regard for our laws to enter the country, impair our market-based economy, and even take to the streets demanding that no one dare question their “right” to be here in defiance of the law.

Over and over again, the people of the United States can be heard to declare the need to secure our borders – particularly the southern one – and enforce an orderly system of legal immigration. And over and over again, Washington – from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other – turns a deaf ear. So much for the “delegate” theory as a means to grasp what is going on in the halls of power.

This leaves the “trustee” possibility – that the leaders have taken it upon themselves to do what they feel is right, regardless of what their constituencies say. Of course, this begs the question of what it is that defines “right” for them.

Obviously, “right” on this issue is not determined by what the people of America want. And any serious student of history – both American and world – and human nature, who is concerned with preserving the nation and its government in a recognizable form for his or her children, would have to acknowledge that “right” is not determined by the long-term interests of the United States either.

The “right” that it seems our nation’s leaders have determined to pursue in this instance is what they feel is “right” politically. In other words, it is a decision that is based on what members of either party – with exceptions, of course – believe will provide short term benefits to them and their party in their attempt to obtain, or hold onto, power – through the “opening up” of a new constituency or the appeasement of financial contributors – regardless for what it means for the day-to-day lives of working Americans, or the long-term security of our way of life. If this is not the explanation, then I invite anyone to rationally explain to me what is the explanation.

Failing the receipt of such an explanation, I have to wonder what 21st Century Washington’s reaction to this issue has to say about the form of government we have taken pride in for so long. “Government of the people, by the people, for the people” – can we honestly say this is what we’re seeing demonstrated on this issue?