The Cane Truck

Lafource Parish Council Gets it Wrong. Again.

2009-10-30T20:08:23Z

Once again the Lafourche Parish Council gets it wrong. After 33 years of having a Council-President form of government, they still think Lafourche Parish is using a Police Jury system, like our neighbors in Assumption Parish. At its regularly scheduled meeting on October 27, 2009, the council decided to push for an amendment to the parish charter that would reduce from seven to six, the number of council votes needed to fire parish department heads. The proposition, heavily pushed by District 9 Councilman Daniel Lorraine, would make it even easier for the council, which is a legislative body, to encroach on the duties of the parish president, who is the administrator of the parish. This would, in effect, change the parish government structure to a police jury system in every way but name. As a quick Cliff's Notes lesson, under a police jury system, each district is overseen by a police juror who has full administrative authority over the work done in their district. They can have projects started and stopped without having to consult with any of their fellow police jurors. This also means every parish employee has multiple bosses and leads to confusion and public waste of tax payer monies and resources since employees will start responding to the last police juror who gave them a directive. Under the council-president form of government, the council is a legislative body, much like the United States Congress, and their only authority is enact laws and tell the parish president how much can be spent in certain categories. The parish president, as the administrator of parish government, takes the broad directives from the council, and establishes an order of priority in which projects are to be completed based on the amount of monies that have been directed by the council. By consolidating all project requests, the parish president can better direct parish resources to the most pressing and optimal need. The Daily Comet quotes Councilman Daniel Lorraine saying, “This needs to be done. The deck is stacked in this charter. It's not fair, the parish president can fire a department head as she wishes, but the council needs two-thirds plus one.” Yes, Mr. Lorraine, that is correct. Department heads serve at the pleasure of the parish president, not the parish council. If the council is allowed to easily dismiss department heads, no one would ever want those positions since they would be subject to many bosses instead of just one. If a department head were truly derelict in their duties, you should not have to worry about even getting seven votes, it should be a unanimous decision. It is hypocritical of the council to put this up for a vote proclaiming, as Councilman Rodney Doucet did, “Give it to the people to decide.” This council refused to “give it to the people to decide” when the subject of term limits came up. Kudos must be given to Councilmen Phillip Gouaux and Jerry Jones for voting against this measure and shame on every other council member.

First Tuesdays: Spirituality in the City

2009-10-07T04:03:43Z

I had the opportunity today to attend the opening session of First Tuesdays : “Spirituality in the City” Co-sponsored by Jesuit Church, Loyola Institute for Ministry, and The Catholic Book Store, the sessions are “an annual interfaith series promoting dialogue and understanding on topics of spirituality” The speaker today was Reverend Henry Hudson of Trinity Episcopal Church. He had a number of quotes that I found quite intriguing and wanted to share. In the order he said them, paraphrased since I was taking notes on a PocketPC:

If you know where you are starting from and where you are ending, have the courage to make the journey.
Be doers of the word not just hearers. James 1:22
When God asks “Where are you?” how do you hear it?
Are you fishing for God or is he fishing for you?
How would you answer Jesus when he asks “What do you want me to do for you?” Mark 10:46
We don't believe there is enough to go around. The Original Sin
Have you ever prayed for someone else by name?
All things needed for salvation are non-confrontational.

Why the Homestead Exemption Must Go

2009-09-20T23:02:40Z

The Louisiana Homestead Exemption is an antiquated piece of legislation that hinders the ability of Louisiana to attract new businesses and fund government services. Created back in the days of the Great Depression, the Homestead Exemption has helped make parish assessors some of the strongest government officials within their local parish. Since property taxes were based on the value of someones home, assessors could raise or lower a persons assessed value based on political patronage. Before todays world of instant database searches into previous and current home sales, assessors could do so with almost pure impunity. Under state law, all homes are to be reassessed every four years. Once the assessor has released the new assessed value, local governments are suppose to reduce their property tax millages so that they collect the same amount of monies as they did before homes were reassessed. The idea is that homeowners should not have to pay more in property taxes just because of an increase in property values. The reality is much different. State law allows local taxing bodies to roll forward their property tax millages up to the amount that was approved with the original millage was voted on by residents. Although the monies collected in this manner are usually dedicated, the local taxing bodies often roll the millage forward, creating, in effect, a tax increase without a vote of the people. This is one of the methods used to skirt around the homestead exemption. Another method used is to collect fees from residents, often by attaching them to the water bill, and usually as a flat fee. Most local governments run their own water department, so they found the easiest way to collect money from residents is to attach a fee to the water bill. There are several problems with this method. Depending upon your perspective, it may or may not seem as an equitable way to collects monies from the people who may be utilizing the service. As an example, a garbage fee. With a flat fee, a water &ldqui;customer&rdwuo; in a single-family residence, will pay the flat fee. However, a landlord with a fourplex, is still small enough to continue using parish garbage, and he includes water in the rent he charges his tenants, so he gets one water bill for the four families living in his fourplex. Let's pretend the garbage fee is $10. That means the family in the single-family residence is paying $10 a month for garbage pickup, but the families in the fourplex or only paying $2.50 a month for their garbage pickup. On average, I think we can assume that a family in the fourplex will generate just as much trash as the family in the single-residence, but only has to pay one-fourth to receive the same service. If the fee was done based on the amount of water usage, it would more accurately reflect the usage, or the amount of services being required. Four families should use more water than one family and generate more garbage. If the garbage fee was based on property values rather than water usage, it means every property owner would pay towards garbage services, including the guy that just owns an empty lot. Although the lot is empty, he still needs to cut the grass and dispose of the clipped grass, utilizing the garbage pick-up service. This would also clean up the water bill so residents can look at their water bill and the only thing on that bill is their water usage. Another advantage is that property taxes are deductible on your Federal Income tax returns. Granted, not everyone exceeds the standard deduction to be able to take advantage of it, but that is not a reason to discount it. Another advantage is that all property owners, whether private or business, would pay their fair share in funding government services. With the homestead exemption, businesses have to pay property taxes on the full value of their property, while residents get a break on the first $75,000 on the value of their property. This means property taxes have to be higher to get businesses on the hook for the taxes that would be collected from citizens if the homestead exemption did not exist. This also means that businesses will charge more for their goods and services to make up this difference. It is almost cliché, but some people do not realize it. Businesses do not pay taxes. They are simply a conduit for government to collect taxes while placing the blame on someone else. You can see this clearly with sales taxes, it's a little harder with property taxes since the business has to “hide” the property tax inside the retail price of their goods or services. That is part of the overhead figure businesses use when calculating how much to charge. I cannot think of one good reason to continue to hold on the homestead exemption. I only hope that someday, we will elect politicians to our state offices that start taking steps to eliminate it.

Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana captured a great article from BayouBuzz.com about the recent attempts to increase the Homestead Exemption.

Alert the CDC - Maureen Dowd is Contagious

2009-09-18T00:23:00Z

Alert the CDC - Maureen Dowd is Contagious The Centers for Disease Control needs to be alerted - there's no doubt Maureen Dowd has come down with a dangerous and contagious affliction . In her latest syndicated editorial, she states Congressman Joe Wilson's blurted interruption of Obama's speech was a “racist” comment. Now, besides the “fact” that Congressman Wilson's outburst never referenced anything to do with race, you have to realize that Ms. Dowd has been victimized by contracting “Chicken Little” Syndrome. This is a terrible disease that seems to spread among liberals more than anyone else to the point where it looks like a pandamic could be starting. It would appear this disease causes well-educated adults to bypass simple common sense and logic, and jump to absurd conclusions based on little information - or none at all. So, if you were walking under an oak tree and an acorn falls on your head, then surely you would immediatley conclude the sky is falling. Likewise, if you, a white person, accuse a president of lying, who just happens to be black, then you must be a racist. This is all besides the fact that Congressman Wilson was correct in his accusation of Obama. The one thing his outburst caused was for the nation to look up and read what the Obamacare Bill (HR 3200) actually says. Upon reading it, the reader learns what the bill says is no one seeking medical care can be asked to provide proof of his/her citizenship - and once they receive any kind of care they would immediately be enrolled into the program. That means an illegal alien could walk into any hospital or clinic, not even be able to speak a word of English (to where it's obvious they are likely illegal), yet the hospital staff are forbidden by law to inquire to their residency or citizen status. So, while HR 3200 might not specifically say illegal aliens are included in the bill's medical coverage, in effect they are. And if Congressman Wilson or I am wrong, then why is it that the Senate (in their version of a healthcare reform bill) specifically states that a person “must prove citizenship” to receive care? Clearly, the Senate caught on to what the language of the bill implied. Oh, but let us not forget on countless occassion when Democratic members of Congress - many of them black - used to call President Bush a liar. Where was Ms. Dowd then? I guess Chicken Little Sydrome didn't kick in until a black man was elected to the White House. John Scurich Lacombe, Louisiana

The AARP's Attack on Truth: Debunking the AARP article on the Opposition to Healthcare Reform (HR 3200)

2009-09-06T23:57:24Z

The below commentary has been written in response to an article by Patricia Barry in the current issue of the AARP Bulletin. The article by Ms. Barry claims to be an unbiased account of what's really in the proposed healthcare reform legislation, also known as HR 3200, and how opposition to the bill is based on lies and hype to mislead the general public.

The AARP's Attack on Truth: Debunking the AARP article on the Opposition to Healthcare Reform (HR 3200)

by John Scurich

In the latest issue of the AARP Bulletin, which can be read online, Patricia Barry writes a scaving article criticizing the opposition to the Obama proposed Healthcare Reform Bill (HR 3200). Her article is titled "The Assault on Truth" - and boy is she right - but it's not an assault on truth by opponents as she would have you believe, but by the very proponents of the bill.

I could easily write a "War and Peace" in my response to Ms. Barry's article. That's because it is flawed with incorrect facts, misleading comments and outright lies from start to finish. To spare you hours of reading I'll just pick on only a few comments made by her which these alone destroy her credibility and the article by demonstrating how her article is written from a biased, pro-Obama healthcare reform position.

First, the perspective and assumption in which the article is written. Ms. Barry immediately begins her article from the standpoint that "anything" opponents say about the bill "must be" lies, hype, slurs and rumors. By virtue of the fact that she claims lies and rumors can "only" come from opposition means it is only the opposition that is "assaulting the truth" of the bill and attempting to mislead the public.

If I'm wrong about this assumption then why is it throughout her long article does she not mention once that it's possible at least some misleading information could also be coming from the proponents of the bill. In other words, she would have you believe that "everyone" affiliated with supporting the bill are perfect, little, truth-telling angels and "anyone" affiliated with its opposition are clearly evil-doing demons. Ms. Barry conveniently leaves out of her article that many members of Congress, both in the House and Senate, who strongly oppose this bill are members of the Democratic Party - it's not just those evil conservatives/Republicans who are against it and going around "spreading all these lies, hype, slurs and rumors."

But wait, Ms. Barry tries to provide some credibility to her position by quoting a "supposed" unbiased organization who claims to have scrutinized the proposed bill and given her (and us) their unbiased opinion. And which organization is this? None other than the Annenberg Policy Center. While this might sound all too legit and unbiased, I'll bet you didn't know the Annenberg Policy Center is also known as FactCheck.org, an organization well known for being liberal to the point of "left wing."

Though claiming to be nonpartisan, it only takes a few minutes of internet research on the organization to come across countless articles about its liberal bias - just read how they defended Obama against just about every attack during the 2008 presidential election - and you'll see they didn't even bother trying to do a good job of hiding their liberal bias. Even liberal media like the New York Times have questioned the analysis and findings of FactCheck.org. This is not surprising considering where the organization is based, the University of Pennsylvania, which has a reputation for being an extremely liberal institution of higher learning. It's an Ivy League school - need I say more?

Funny how Ms. Barry never sought an opinion from someone like the Heritage Foundation? And would it not have made sense to seek the opinion of the American Medical Association on its interpretation of HR 3200? Here we have the biggest medical/healthcare bill in history yet no medical professionals were sought for an opinion. Strange.

Next, she states Obama left it to Congress to work out the details of the reform bill - as if to imply he (Obama) really didn't have anything to do with some of the atrocious details of the bill. Yet, it has been well known for several months that the lead person who put the bill together was Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the chief health advisor to the President, as in "it came from the White House." If Dr. Emanuel's last name sounds familiar, he's the brother of Obama's White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, the former Congressman from (you guessed it) Chicago who recently made news for calling the "progressives" (blue dog Democrats opposing the Obama Plan) "f***ing stupid." Are you starting to see the dots connect here? Google Dr. Emanuel's name and you'll also come across many articles on him - most citing other reputable doctors describing Dr. Emanuel's medical beliefs from "extremist" to "down right bizarre."

One thing's for sure, we know most members of Congress aren't knowledgeable of HR 3200's contents since the supposed bill's author, Congressman Henry Waxman of California, was caught red handed during the committee hearing admitting he needed assistance from a staffer as to what various sections of the bill actually said. Yes, that's right, this is the bill's author who doesn't even know what's in his own legislation. Well, someone had to write this absurd bill - at least we know it wasn't anyone in Congress. That only leaves the White House as the guilty party, i.e. Obama.

Next, comes the most damaging blow to Ms. Barry's and the AARP's credibility with her article. She addressed the question "Will the government take over health care so we end up with socialized medicine?" Absolutely not, she says. She goes on to say "Obama has specifically rejected the idea of a 'single-payer' system, like Canada's, in which the government insures all citizens." Clearly, Ms. Barry is a poor researcher.

At this point I encourage everyone to go to YouTube. There are two video clips you need to watch. In the YouTube search box key in "Obama on single payer health insurance" and the other is "Shock Uncovered - Obama in his own words." These clips do not edit the video of Obama's spoken words. There is no scheme or plot here, as Ms. Barry might suggest of the opposition, to present Obama's very own words out of context. You get to hear what Obama says leading up to his position on "single payer universal health care" and what he says after the comment. Like I said, no editing or tricks are in this video. I can't help but wonder what Ms. Barry and AARP have to say after seeing this video - if they didn't already but was hoping the rest of America wouldn't find out about it. There are more videos of Obama supporting universal healthcare. How did Ms. Barry miss these?

Ms. Barry claims the healthcare systems in Canada and Britain are outstanding and the locals are happy with it - she also claims the same for our Medicare system saying it's "popular and successful." Let me also suggest you don't forget to Google what Canadians and British citizens think of their universal healthcare system - trust me it'll curl your hair and make you wonder why in God's creation would we ever consider such a system for the United States. You'll learn that the socialized medicine systems in these countries do in fact "ration" health services - because it absolutely has to remain fiscally afloat. This is something Ms. Barry claims is a lie promoted by the HR 3200's opponents - I say go ask a health administrator in Canada or Great Britain if this is a lie.

Not to mention Ms. Barry must not read many public opinion polls in the U.S. on what Americans think of our Medicare system. Oh well, so much for being for being popular and perceived as successful.

There's so much more I could easily correct in Ms. Barry's article, but this is long already. I will close on the following points she "fails" to talk about in her article. Ms. Barry failed to address what Obama and the Democratic Party claims to be the main reason for this reform legislation - to control the growing cost of healthcare in America. Funny, but there's not one mentioning in her article to refute both the claims of opponents and the Congressional Budget Office report that HR 3200 ("the Obama Plan") would result in a significant cost increase in national healthcare and significantly increase the national deficit for at least the next ten years. I guess I would have conveniently left out this part, too. You can read the actual letter from the CBO to the House Ways and Means Committee chairman, Congressman Charles Rangel, dated July 17, 2009.

She also forgot to clear up the supposed misconception as to whether or not President Obama is speaking correctly when he says "the AARP stands behind his plan (HR 3200)." Obama has stated this several times in public speeches, as seen on CNN, Fox, etc. This article would have been the perfect time to set the record straight. I'm glad to see we now know where the AARP stands on this - with Obama and the Democratic Party leaders.

In closing, the only assault I see on truth taking place here is by Ms. Barry's article and the AARP. How shameful it is on their part to try and mislead millions of senior citizens that HR 3200's opposition is based on lies and hype. I've never met Ms. Barry and don't know much about her, but I can tell you one basic difference between us - I've read most of HR 3200, clearly she hasn't.

Media stories report as of late AARP has taken a serious hit in its membership. I can't wait to see how this article will make even more flies start dropping to the floor.

You are Responsible

2009-09-02T02:13:04Z

I manage an email list of current and former residents of St. Bernard Parish. Although the list is predominately about the people and events of St. Bernard, we do veer off into state and national politics. St. Bernard is a very much a “red” parish and most of the commenters on the list have problems understanding the mindset of Democrats and liberals. In a recent post, someone sent along this PDF file that uses Buddhist doctrine to teach self-responsibility. The poster even commented how things have changed within the Democratic party from the 1960's when everyone was against “the man” i.e., the government. Now the Democratic leadership wants to become “the man” while the Democratic brethren seem to want to be controlled by “the man”. [Dhammananda - You are Responsible](http://www.TheCaneTruck.com/archives/2009/09/01/Dhammananda_You_are_Responsible.pdf)

North versus South, Again.

2009-08-10T13:03:58Z

In a special election to fill State Senate District 20, recently vacated by former Senator Reggie Dupre, State Representative Damon Baldone (District 53), wants to use the difference in voter turnout between those north of the Intracoastal Waterway and those south of it.

In an interview with the Tri-Parish Times newspaper, Baldone is claiming low-voter turnout and being the only candidate from north of the Intracoastal Waterway as his excuses for failing to make the run-off election scheduled for August 29 (you would think the powers that be would have avoided using the 29th as an election date, being that it is the anniversary of Katrina).

Perhaps Rep. Baldone needs to a look a little closer at how he has responded to his current constituents.

I sent an email to Rep. Baldone on May 7, while the state legislature was in session regarding HB389. Floor debate was scheduled on May 29, the House voted on it on June 4, the Senate voted on it June 22, and send to Governor Bobby Jindal's office on June 23. The session adjourned on June 25 and Governor Jindal signed the bill on June 30.

In the six weeks from the time I sent the email until the 2009 legislative session ended, not once did I receive any communication from Rep. Baldone's office.

Today, August 9, 2009, a week after he loses the election for state senator, I finally get an email from him telling me the status of the bill.

Perhaps if he had been more responsive to his constituents, he would be out campaigning instead of waiting for the start of the LSU football season.

Thank you for writing to me concerning HB 389. This bill has passed in the House and the Senate and became ACT 206 upon the signature of the Governor. The ACT went into effect June 30, 2009. To view a copy of the ACT use the following link. http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=667494

Representative Damon J. Baldone

162 New Orleans Blvd.

Houma, LA 70364

985-876-8872

________________________________________

From: Westley Annis [westley@da-parish.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 11:20 PM

To: Baldone, Rep. (District Office)

Subject: HB 389 - Save the Tax Exemption on Educational Materials

Representative Baldone:

For the past 13 years private schools in Louisiana have had a state sales tax exemption when purchasing textbooks, computers, and audio visual materials. This exemption expires on June 30, 2009; unless the Legislature renews it.

Without either a permanent tax exemption, or the renewal of the one currently in place, our schools would have to start paying $1 Million in new taxes. They simply cannot afford to do this without impacting my tuition.

The public schools have a permanent tax exemption on these same educational materials. The private schools deserve that same permanent tax exemption.

Please vote YES in support of Rep. Hunter Greene's HB 389, which would provide a PERMANENT tax exemption on these materials.

Sincerely,

Westley Annis

Republican versus Democrat Religion

2009-08-08T19:46:42Z

In an email conversation that took place following the previous blog post, "Proposition: Would you become my slave?", it quickly turned into an argument about presidential religious practices. While answering a question, the difference between Republican and Democrat presidential religious practices suddenly dawned on me.

In a nutshell, Democrat presidents pronounce a belief in faith and openly go to religious services on a regular basis. However, they also claim their religious beliefs have no bearings on the decisions they make as president.

Republican presidents, on the other hand, not only pronounce a belief in faith and go to religious services on a regular basis, they are also truthful in stating their religious beliefs influence the decisions they make as president.

This is where the trouble starts.

No matter how much one tries, their belief or non-belief in a faith is going to influence their decisions. As much as President Barack Obama wants to claim the twenty years he spent in Rev. Jeremiah Wrights Church does not influence him, he is either lying outright or he slept through every sermon.

No other president has proclaimed his faith quite as much as President George W. Bush, with reports that he openly expressed that he was instructed by God to invade Iraq. According to a report on Beliefnet.com, Bush has referenced a higher power an average of six times during his inaugural or State of the Union speeches. Next in line behind Bush was President Ronald Reagan with 4.75 references per speech (inaugural or State of the Union).

Reagan, especially in the later years of his presidency, was found to not only believe in God but also in astrology. He was known to consult with an astrologer almost daily and it is believed that he picked George H. W. Bush to be his vice-presidential running mate based on the advice of astrologer Joyce Jillson.

Whether one believes in a God, Christian or otherwise, or believes in astrology, crystal ball gazing, or Tarot cards, you have to know the beliefs of the person that occupies the highest position of power in the free world. If that person cannot be open about their beliefs and how it influences their decisions, can they truly be open about anything else, especially things more down to earth?

The Democrat religious viewpoint is one of political expediency. Pronounce a belief in faith to draw in the voters that are religious, but denounce the thought of religion playing any role in presidential decisions to draw in the atheist voters.

Everyone may not agree with the religious beliefs of Republican presidents, but you always knew what they believed in and how it guided their decision making process.

A Proposition: Would you become my slave?

2009-08-07T20:36:19Z

The following is a guest posting by John Scurich, a friend of mine from back in St. Bernard Parish.

Let's make a deal? Would you sell yourself to me? Literally, I mean would you become my slave and I your master? Here's the deal...and we'll sign legal documents before lawyers to make it all legal. You sign yourself over to me. I will own you - your legs, your arms, your head, your heart, your soul - "everything" there is to you will be my personal property, no different from the house I own or my car or my lawnmower. What you get in return: I will provide a house for you (of my choosing), I will provide work for you do each day (a job of my choosing), I will educate and bring you up to things on that which I see fit, I will provide you with complete healtcare coverage - it'll be something along the lines of what military veterans get through the VA system - and I'm sure you've heard the stories of how wonderful that medical system is. So don't worry, I will provide for you and make all decisions for you so you don't have to worry your little self about anything. You get all of this for one little, nothing of a price...I get to own you - I will own your freedom. You will in fact be my slave. So, do we have a deal? What's that? No, we don't???? Wait a second, I don't get it. Why don't we have a deal? This is really a great offer! I must be missing something here. If you don't want to accept my offer then why in the world would you want to go along with Obama's and the Democratic Party's idea of universal healthcare? In fact, why would you go along with ANY of Obama's ideas which are based moderately in socialism but primarily in communism? After all, Obama's offer is for the government to take care of you, right - just as I proposed? Use any vocabulary or terms you wish, but what it all comes down to is the good ole terms of MASTER and SLAVE. Just in case you forgot your history lessons, this is precisely the same reason our founding fathers revolted against a tyrant of a King in George III of England. So, it appears you do have some sense of right from wrong after all, don't you? Maybe you do have some sense of the difference between "liberty and freedom of choice" from that of "tyranny and dictorship." Think about it then pass this on to everyone you know. A little dramatic? Sure. Precisely right on the mark? You bet your ass it is! John Scurich Lacombe, Louisiana August 6, 2009

Who Defines Liberalism and Conservatism?

2009-08-03T02:07:03Z

As with most people who discuss politics, I group people as either conservative or liberal. But, I found that some of the folks I discussed politics often had different views of what being conservative or liberal was. Before we go any further, for those that don't know me, I consider myself conservative. If you want to get a little more detailed, I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. In other words, as a fiscal conservative, I believe the government needs to tax us for no more than what they need to spend and the federal government should only spend money on national security and infrastructure. State and local governments should worry about schools, local infrastructure, and local security. I don't believe in government welfare programs. Those needs are best supplied by charity. As a social liberal I believe the government cannot legislate morality. While I am personally opposed to abortion, I don't think it should be outlawed. If you want to smoke in your own home or car, go right ahead. So long as you are not harming someone else physically or mentally, you are free to do as you please. However, if you harm yourself doing something that you know is inherently harmful, such as smoking, do not expect me to cover your medical bill. So those are my views. How do they apply to others? And, how do they apply to the two dominant political parties, the Republican National Committee (GOP) and the Democrat National Committee (DNC)? One of the reasons I decided to explore this issue is because of how elected officials of both parties tended to vote and how the party apparatus reacted to those votes. From the outside, it appears as though the DNC doesn't take kindly to elected officials who don't toe the party line. Look at Senator Joe Lieberman from Connecticut. First elected in 1988, he was former Vice-President Al Gore's running mate in the 2000 election, but lost in the Democrat Primary for Senate in 2006 after a national effort to oust him from his seat. He then ran for the seat as an independent and won in the general election. This is perhaps the greatest example of the DNC kicking members out. Lieberman is still a registered Democrat, typical votes with the DNC party line, but there is still an effort to strip him of his committee chairs. On the GOP side, there seems to be no strong effort to hold to the values of at least fiscal conservatism. During the first six years of the George W. Bush administration, when the GOP controlled both sides of Congress, the GOP legislators were no different than their colleagues on the other side of the aisle in terms of spending in the federal budget. This was in direct contradiction to the platform many of them ran on. Couple that with the high-profile social indiscretions of Congressman Mark Foley and Senators Larry Craig and David Vitter. Not to mention the fact that President George W. Bush, as sitting President, is also the de facto head of the GOP and he pushed for a number of government program expansions and it comes as no surprise that the GOP lost the House Majority in the 2006 elections or the White House in 2008. I don't think anyone could ever make the argument that Bush 41 was not a social conservative. It was not until the first year of his second term, his fifth year as president, that he issued his first veto, which was a bill that would have lifted restrictions on funding stem cell research. I often make the joke when discussing Bush that it did take him too long to learn how to spell V E T O. (See bottom of article for presidential veto statistics.) Government in general has encroached itself into the fabric of everyday life so much that it is easy to see how the major political parties have staked out sides on practically every issue. And, of course, if we party says it is for something, the other party almost has to say it is against it such that both parties can no longer truly define what it means to be conservative or liberal. I invited several people to give me their thoughts on what defines conservatism and liberalism and I will be sharing those over the next couple of postings.

Presidential Veto Statistics

Looking back to President John F. Kennedy and only looking at the presidents that served one term or less, we find JFK (2 years) issued 12 vetoes, Gerald Ford (3 years) issued 48 vetoes, Jimmy Carter (4 years) issued 13 vetoes, and George H.W. Bush (4 years) issued 29 vetoes. You have to go back to Millard Fillmore (1850-1853) to find a president who did not issue any vetoes (James Garfield didn't issue any vetoes but he was only in office for six and half months). Find veto statistics for all presidents on Wikipedia.

Change the Law or the Legislative Branch?

2009-05-13T04:53:19Z

In one of those rare &ldgt;stream of consciousness&rdqt; moments the other day, I was thinking about an article that appeared in the Daily Comet nearly a year ago. A barber was given a citation for cutting hair on a Monday which was illegal because of a law within the city limits of Houma, La. As can be expected, there were numerous people all complaining about the citation that was issued. The local District Attorney even complained that he had to prosecute the case and was to ask the Parish Council to repeal the law because he thought it was unconstitutional. I can't really remember what triggered this story in my mind, but it brought up another article I had read years ago in Forbes Magazine. In this particular article (sorry about no link, nothing came up on Google and the article does predate widespread usage on the Internet), the author talked about how Americans will easily ignore a law that they don't agree with. While In Germany, the Germans will follow the law, even one that would set speed limits on the Autobahn. The difference is the Germans would toss out the legislators that passed the speed restrictions during the next election. Here in the United States, I think we have lost all respect for authority, therefore we would just as soon ignore the law and keep electing the same legislators that enacted the unpopular law to begin with. We American's do have another issue in that we tend to protect the legislator that represents us, seeing them as inherently much better than the legislators that represent our neighbors in the next district over. I do believe Americans have recognized this fact within themselves and that is why term limits have been enacted nearly everyplace they have been introduced. That leads me to my question, as Americans should we just ignore the laws we don't agree with, most of them are the &ldqt;petty&rdqt; ones that don't &ldqtlhurt&rdqt; anyone or should we learn to start changing the people that make up our legislative bodies more frequently? Personally, I do think we need to stop reelecting people over and over such that getting elected once doesn't turn it into a life time gig with family members believing &ldqt;someone in the family should carry it out.&rdqt;.

The Role of Local Government

2009-04-09T02:20:16Z

You're at home enjoying the evening. Suddenly you start feeling the pangs of a heart attack. Do you call 911 or check your bank account first? If you answered bank account, it's not because you're worried about a hospital bill, it's because you're worried about a 911 bill. There are certain things that each level of government is suppose to be responsible for. Federal government should handle national security and major infrastructure (interstate system, air traffic). State government should handle state security (multi-parish, counties for those of you who live in Rio Linda, crimes), state infrastructure, and higher ed. Local government handles local security (crime), fire, small roads, first response (medical emergencies), sanitation, and primary/secondary education. Notice how the closer the government is to its citizens, the more responsibility it has. Except in large cities, I would bet most people could go knock on the front door of their local mayor or council member. It gets a little harder for your state representatives and all but impossible for your Congressional delegation. Now that we can the responsibilities of the three levels of government mapped out, we need to examine what's wrong with the city of Santa Rosa, Ca. They obviously are spending taxpayer monies on things they probably shouldn't be. The City Council is now looking at a proposal to charge residents $350 to have city paramedics show up at their door. As first responders, this is one of the basic services that local government should cover. To even be contemplating this proposal means the city leaders have managed to squander money on services or other projects that were unneeded. If this proposal passes, will the 911 operators be forced to ask for a credit card number before they can dispatch the paramedics? This is a total outrage and the citizens of Santa Rosa have only themselves to blame. They elected a city council that forgot what the primary role of local government is. My only fear is that the failure in Santa Rosa has already spread to Washington, D.C. As a side note, I live in a small city (actually, I live right outside of city limits) that has a 100% volunteer fire department (Thibodaux Volunteer Fire Department). I've been in conversations with the Mayor where he has stated that under the current tax base, the city could not afford a paid fire department. To maintain a high fire rating with insurance companies so that insurance rates don't go sky high, volunteer fire departments are required to have 2-3 times as many firefighters respond to a single fire than a paid fire department (this is to ensure there is always someone available to relieve another firefighter). The Thibodaux Volunteer Fire Department gets some monies through local taxes to pay for equipment, but the majority of their funds are raised through an annual fair. Even with the city expanding in terms of housing and where those houses are being built, forcing the building of new fire stations, the Thibodaux Volunteer Fire Department is providing outstanding service to the residents of Thibodaux.

PedEgg Gone Bad

2009-04-07T18:17:49Z

We've all seen those checks come in the mail. You know the ones, usually for a couple of dollars, maybe even as much as ten or twenty. Once you deposit the check your long-distance service gets switched over to some fly-by-night company that's now charging you $20 a month and you don't even make any long-distance phone calls. At least those are usually easy to spot since there is a letter attached to it that tells you, in marketing language, what you're signing up for by depositing the check. Since more people are now using their cell phones to make long distance phone calls and land lines are going the way of the dinosaur, it seems they have a new twist on the old scam. A few months back my wife bought a PedEgg, one of those foot shaver gadgets. There was a rebate involved with the purchase. Well the rebate check came in and it got lost on my desk for a while until I finally found it, about two weeks after it expired, so I just tossed it. Last week I get another check in the mail, looks just like the first one, so I'm being totally naïve (really, I don't know what the hell I was thinking), and thought they mailed us another rebate check. It's one of those checks that's all folded up and you have to tear three sides off to open it. I see PegEgg, $8.25, I'm thinking that's what the rebate was for since I really don't know. I start adding it to the deposit slip with some other checks when I decide, let me double-check who this check is from again. That's when I finally notice it. A little box right underneath the dollar amount:

BY CASHING OR DEPOSITING THIS CHECK YOU ARE PURCHASING A MEMBERSHIP IN ID SECURE.

Flip the check over to read the back side and the real danger lurks:

I authorize ID Secure to bill the annual membership fee after my risk-free trial. I agree to a thirty-day trial offer in ID Secure. I understand that the $139.99 annual membership fee will be automatically charged to my credit card on file with PEgEgg unless I cancel my membership by calling 1-866-667-9508 before the end of the trial period. My membership will be automatically renewed and I will also be charged every year thereafter at the then-current fee unless I call to cancel for a refund of the unused portion of the current year's fee. By cashing this check I authorize PedEgg to securely transmit my credit card information to ID Secure for enrollment, billing and benefit processing.

So, by cashing the check, you get a measly $8.25, meanwhile, they're going to starting billing you $140 a year unless you call an 800 number which you're not going to copy so you won't have the number to call anyway. Totally bad karma on PedEgg and ID Secure. I can't say anything about the PedEgg product itself, other than I don't see my wife actually using it, but I will say, if you want one, don't buy from their web site. Go get one from Walgreen's or Walmart and don't worry about no stinking rebate.

What Can Liberals Learn From Doggy Poop and Swimming Pools?

2009-03-09T19:11:25Z

One of biggest goals among liberals is to drastically change, if not outlaw, the right to own guns. The number one argument is that if you outlaw guns then criminals will not be able to own guns meaning they won't be able to use them to further their criminal pursuits. What these gun control advocates fail to see is that there are already numerous laws on the books that outlaw gun ownership by outlaws. The problem is in the cost, or anticipated jail time, to the criminal of being convicted of crime while using a gun. As it stands now, in most states and on the federal level, the cost to the criminal of being convicted of a crime with and without a gun is negligible. A gun is a formidable weapon and can be seen as an equalizer, especially when the chances of your adversary having a gun is high. Let's put guns aside for a second and look at something that is equally troubling to society, but maybe not quite as dangerous. Doggy poop. On their blob, Freakonomics, economist Steven D. Levitt and journalist Stephen J. Dubner asked why do some citizens of New York City pick up after their dogs and others don't.

One million - estimated dog population
1978 - Year New York City enacted its "Pooper scooper" law
$50 - Fine for not scooping your dog's poop on a first offense
471 - Number of dog-waste citations issued in a 12-month period between 2004-2005
20% - Amount of cleanliness failures in city parks attributed to doggy poop
102,004 - Dogs licensed in 2003
$8.50 - Cost of an annual dog license in 2005
68 - Summonses issued for no dog license

What can we surmise just from these numbers? First off, the cost, in terms of actual dollars for not following the pooper scooper law is minimal. Second, your chances of receiving a citation is minimal, almost bordering on the same odds as winning a high-dollar lottery. If the New York City Parks department is classifying a fifth of its cleanliness failures on doggy poop, you would have to guess that significantly more than one person per day is not following the law. Just using the numbers above, the amount of citations amounts to 1.3 citations per day, so clearly there is an enforcement issue also. Levitt and Dubner proposed a radical system to accomplish two goals: increase the number of dogs licensed and decrease the number of people not cleaning up after their dogs. Their system is based on incentives and penalties with an ulterior motive, collect DNA samples of all dogs. The incentive was to change how doggy tags were issued. Even though the cost was already minimal, make it free and maybe even pay the owner. The penalties, however, would be much greater. Stepped up enforcement of licensing laws, akin to former Mayor Rudy Giuliani's broken window crackdown. Higher fees for not having a dog license. Now, you may ask, why did they want to collect a DNA sample of all dogs? Once there is a large enough DNA database, the city can begin running DNA testing on the doggy poop found in the parks and on the streets, match it to the dog and the rightful owner and issue a citation by mail. When the chances of being caught go up, as well as the monetary cost of the fine, the economics of leaving the doggy poop and picking it up will shift, hopefully leading to more “law-abiding” citizens. On a side note, the city of Petah Tikva, Isreal is implementing this plan. It will takes a few years to see if it will actually work or not. What correlations can we draw between the doggy poop and guns? As Levitt and Dubner stated in their article, people love their dogs and they love their guns, so you cannot effectively outlaw either one. Instead you need to outlaw the bad behavior. The offered one method for dealing with bad dog owners. How can we apply that to bad gun owners? There has been a uptick in recent years of “right-to-carry” laws, namely the right to carry a concealed weapon. Most of these laws require that applicants go through an approved gun safety class as well as submit to fingerprinting and background searches and register their guns with the local law enforcement agency. The cost for this is high and is usually born by the applicant, which means only those who truly have a deep desire for one of these licenses goes through the process. What if the cost was reduced to a bare minimum, or, as in the doggy case, the right-to-carry license was free or you were paid to get one? It can be expected that more people would apply for the license, which would allow law enforcement to learn more about the gun ownership in their jurisdiction. Since a gun would now be more easily traceable, thefts of guns would be reported quicker. It may also help in reducing the sale of guns to criminals. Right now, it is a very common, if unlawful, practice for people who can pass the current quick background checks required when purchasing a gun from a dealer to purchase a gun and then turn around and sell it to a criminal. If the dealer records the sale to a right-to-carry license holder, that person will know that that gun is linked to him. If it is found to be used in a crime, he will then be linked to the crime. If he reports too many guns as being stolen, he will raise a red-flag among law-enforcement that he may be aiding and abetting criminals in the illegal possession of fire-arms. This will help to reduce the number of guns that criminals can get their hands on. The next step is to increase the penalties for committing a crime while in possession of a fire-arm. In recent years we have seen a number of new “hate crime” laws enacted. These laws increase the penalty for a crime if it can be determined one of the motivators was hate (if a criminal mugs a Jewish person and says any type of anti-Jewish epitate, the mugging becomes a hate crime with greatly increased prison sentences). Why can't gun crimes be raised to the same level, if not higher, as hate crimes? When the cost of committing a crime using a gun is raised high enough, it will have a positive effect in reducing the number of crimes committed with guns. The title of this article mentions swimming pools, so I'm sure you are wondering how swimming pools come into play. Swimming pools are mentioned to make you forget about conventional wisdom.

To quote from Levitt and Dubner in their book, Freakonomics (the book led to the blog):

Consider the parents of an eight-year-old girl named, say Molly. Her two best friends, Amy and Imani, each live nearby. Molly's parents know that Amy's parents keep a gun in their house, so they have forbidden Molly to play there. Instead, Molly spends a lot of time at Imani's house, which has a swimming pool in the backyard. Molly's parents feel good about having made such a smart choice to protect their daughter.

But according to the data, the choice isn't smart at all. In a given year, there is one drowning of a child for every 11,000 residential pools in the United States. (In a country with 6 million pools, this means that roughly 550 children under the age of ten drown each year.) Meanwhile, there is 1 child killed by a gun for every 1 million-plus guns. (In a country with an estimated 200 million guns, this means that roughly 175 children under ten die each year from guns.) The likelihood of death by pool (1 in 11,000) versus death by gun (1 in 1 million-plus) isn't even close: Molly is far more likely to die in a swimming accident at Imani's house than in gunplay at Amy's.

In other words, don't base your decisions on headlines alone. On a side note, there are a ton of other things that Levitt and Dubner contradict conventional wisdom and I highly recommend reading their book, Freakonomics.

Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans

2009-02-25T00:28:42Z

A quick note before reading the main text: This is more of a ramble than anything else. I haven't linked to any articles like I usually do, mainly because I'm still trying to overcome a sinus infection. There are a bunch of tangents in here and over time I intend to tackle each one and flesh it out a bit more.

After exchanging emails with a devout Democrat for the past two years and watching the coronation of Barack Obama, I have learned several things about political labels. Number one among all of them is that Democrats are Democrats first and foremost. Everything else, including being a liberal, is secondary to being a Democrat. Proof of this can be seen in how the Democrat party treated Senator Joe Lieberman in 2006. Sen. Lieberman dared to have an opposing view on the war on terror than the leaders of the Democrat party. For that view, the party launched a massive effort to remove Lieberman from his Senate seat. All they accomplished was to make Lieberman an independent. Being a liberal, Lieberman still votes with the Democrats the majority of the time, but he has been kicked out of the party and if the Democrats did not need him to gain the filibuster proof majority they so desperately want, they would not even give him the time of day in the hall way. Republicans are just the opposite. No matter how liberal you vote, the Republican party will always welcome you. That is why you often hear about someone being a RINO, a Republican In Name Only. Although Republican's are considered conservatives, the recent excesses of the Republican party over the past eight years, and continuing, are ample proof that not all Republicans are conservatives (look at Arlen Specter and Olympia Snowe). Even both Bush's, George H. W. and George W. tended to look liberal on a fairly regular basis. One of the rally cries you often hear from the RINO gang is that conservatives need to be more open to change, more willing to compromise. You never hear this from the Democrats. Why is it that only conservatives need to change? When you look at the history of the United States, especially over the past century when liberalism and big government really had a chance to flourish, you can see that all of liberalisms promises have failed. And the only answer the Democrats ever have is "we didn't spend enough money or the wrong person was put in charge to make it happen." Democrats can succeed at failing because they always have those two excuses and when that is not enough, they pull out the trump card: because they care. It doesn't matter if a program is actually good or not, so long as it can be perceived as caring about the well being of some persons or entity than that is all that matters. How could you be so cruel as to be against welfare to feed the hungry? How could you be so cruel as to be against ever larger minimum wages for those just entering the job force? How could you not want everyone to have the ability to own a house? Just because both parents make over $40,000 year, how can you not want the government to ensure their child has health insurance? A free education is now a right. Not just through high school but into college as well. With federal intrusion into what was a local issue, education has become a mess. From high dropout rates to students graduating that can't read, write, or do math at the most basic elementary level, every attempt by the federal government, usually at the urging of Democrats, just brings the education system down another notch. At what point can we say stop and get the federal government out of education? At what point can we say stop and get the federal government out of our lives completely? If the federal government was to scale back and only take on the responsibilities for which it should have, namely national security and infrastructure, our taxes would diminish greatly and so would the size of government. One can only hope that over the next two to four years, we can hold on long enough for a new enlightenment to take over and bring the expanding federal government to a halt.