What happened to "law and order" Republicans?

If Republicans wonder why I vote for Democrats, the recent attack by a group of Republican representatives is one of the reasons.  It amazes me that members of the "Law and Order" party would stoop to vandalism in the House of Representatives.  Their protests were even more ridiculous because several Republicans were in the closed meeting.

See https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/us/politics/republicans-storm-trump-impeachment-hearing.html.

I would like to vote for Republicans, but only when they live up to their name: res publica (public things). Instead they seem to be working overtime to promote Redonaldcons.  I didn't care for Ronald Reagan, but Donald Trump certainly makes Reagan look like St. Ronnie!

One Representative’s take on “terrorism”

”Now we're obsessing over whether the (Nevada) carnage was 'terrorism'," he wrote in a tweet. "If we decide it is, we'll mobilize untold resources. If not, nothing.”’
Jim Times, Rep. Connecticut

“Terrorism, Race, Religion: Defining the Las Vegas Shooting”, Associated Press, reprinted in New York Times, 2017-10-02, https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/10/02/us/ap-defining-terrorism.html.

Jim Himes has also stayed away for the “prayers” for the victims of Orlando shootings.  “There would be, for the umpteenth time, a moment of silence. To ‘honor’ the victims.”
“Why I walked out of the House’s moment of silence for Orlando”, Washington Post, 2016-06-14, https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/14/why-i-walked-out-of-the-houses-moment-of-silence-for-orlando/?utm_term=.0511e903c97b.

Health care, RINO's and rhinos

I posted the following to the New York Times article "Yes, Senator, You Wouldn't Want to Lose Your Mammograms – or Women Voters".  See http://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/opinion/yes-senator-you-wouldnt-want-to-lose-your-mammograms-or-women-voters.html?comments#permid=21906167

I think we should stop calling "Republicans" Republicans.  They definitely are not the party of Res Publica (public things).  They either are corporatists or stone throwing sinners.

I always wonder where the party I once was a precinct officer of would have become if John Anderson had won the nomination in 1980.

- End of NYT submission

Around the time Ronald Reagan became President the term RINO started being used heavily: Republican in Name Only.  It was used to cast out those who believed in the "big tent" that both parties claimed to be.

But I often wonder if the term shouldn't be "RHINO", a big, lumbering mammal with poor eyesight and a willingness to attack anything it sees as a threat.  Which is just about anything that moves.

A new form of taxation

Most of us complain about taxes in one way or another.  But we almost always have our individual ideas of what government should do.  We sort of ask government to lower taxes but be sure to fund my sacred cow.

To this end, I suggest that the tax forms have an allocation schedule on which we can allocate where we want our income tax money to be spent:

Each individual cabinet level department
The office of the President
The Senate
The House of Representatives

If a person’s list doesn’t add up to 100%, then the remainder will go into a general fund to be allocated in the usual manner by Congress.  If a person’s list adds up more than 100%, then the values are adjusted proportionally to add up to 100%.
Much of text lost because deleting a duplicate deleted both.

So, if a person thinks the only business of the Federal government is war, aka defense, then he or she can stipulate 100% of their income tax go to the Dept. of Defense.

If a person thinks transportation and education are the most important activities of government, then he or she could stipulate say, 40% for one and 30% for the other leaving 30% for Congress to decide how to use.

With this plan, if only two percent of the allocation went to the military or any other function, Congress would have to use general funds, if available, to make up the difference to what it thinks is really needed.

Whatever we do, we should remember the supposed words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., "I like taxes.  They buy me civilization."

Who decides? The many or the money?

Keith Ellison, U.S. Representative for Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District, wrote a good “Counterpoint” in today’s Star Tribune - “Minnesota Values Deserve Our Support”.

My favorite line is “…the voices of the many, not the money, should govern our democracy.”

If you are a U. S. citizen, I hope you have Tuesday, November 4, 2014 on your calendar to remind you to vote.  In fact, be sure that the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November is on your calendar for every year.  Local and state officials need your electoral support, too.

One of best defenses of government

Sen. Elizabeth Warren gave an excellent speech defending the importance and effectiveness of the American government recently.  Watch her speech at

http://www.upworthy.com/a-senator-gets-mad-about-the-shutdown-and-starts-naming-names-about-time

What if Senate demands compromise on PATRIOT Act?

What if the U.S. Senate demands that the House of Representatives compromises on the spending bill by removing certain aspects of the PATRIOT Act?

Let's compromise!

I'll compromise with the House Republicans.  They increase my Social Security by 50% and cut their salaries by 50%.

The Read the Bill Caucus

I've long been pondering what a viable new political party would be based on and what it would be called.  Considering all the current comments about the NSA telephone surveillance and the Patriot Act, I have considered a new solution to the rigid stances.

I forget the details, but someone challenged Congress to read the entire Patriot Act.  Only one Representative did and he voted against it.  Many Democrats in the House opposed it and only Russ Feingold opposed it in the Senate.  Many did complain that they weren't given enough time to read it, and some complained there weren't even enough copies available.

Given this "knee-jerk" voting on so many issues, rather than look around for a third party to replace one of the two current major parties, maybe we just need a new caucus open to all: The Read the Bill Caucus.

To join The Read the Bill Caucus, a Senator or a Representative need only promise to read a bill before voting for it.  If a caucus member has not read a bill and understood it, then the member will vote against the bill or abstain from voting on the bill.

The beauty of this idea is that a member of Congress doesn't have to change his or her ideology.  Members only have to understand what they are voting for instead of just following a party line or caving in to mass hysteria.

Quotes of the day – governance

"That philosophy, simply put, holds that government is necessary and can be a powerful influence in making and creating a healthy social, economic and political climate." – "Opposing view: Reinert betrays values of the left", Will Munger DNT 2013-03-11

Will, a friend of mine, wrote this in response to "Other view: Minnesota at best when colored purple" about the "Purple Caucus", an attempt by Democratic State Senator Roger Reinert, Republican State State Senator Jeremy Miller, and others to work together to get something done for the benefit of the state.

I think Will is missing the point that the Purple Caucus was formed so that government works instead of having ideological purists demand the other see things their way.

The other quote is how polarization isn't addressing what most people want.

"Most of the country, it turns out, fits the mold of moderately conservative, a place from which careful, thoughtful change comes in a logical, rational, fact-based package that remains remarkably free of sound-bite-driven hyperbole." – Michael Charney, "Unconventional Wisdom: Barbara Olschner's 'The Reluctant Republican'".

Charney, a Coffee Party conservative, wrote the above in his article on Barbara Olschner's unsuccessful attempt to get the Republican nomination for Florida's 2nd District.  She came in fifth trying to be reasonable.  She wrote "The Reluctant Republican: My Fight for the Moderate Majority" about her experience.

My question to the Purple Caucus, Charney, Olschner, and others, when will this "moderate majority" show up at election time?

Cut spending? Whose responsibility?

I can't find a direct quote, but many Republicans seem to be blaming President Obama for "runaway spending".  But is he spending money that Congress did not authorize him to spend?  I haven't seen any such criticism.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the
Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all
Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

"To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;" - U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8

"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by
Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money
shall be published from time to time." - U.S. Constitustion, Article I, Section 9

So, if President Obama is spending money or borrowing money for which he had no authorization, I haven't seen any such specific complaint.

Republicans in the House are stating that the people sent them to "cut spending".  But one could also say that the people gave the President another term and elected a predominantly Democratic Senate to "increase spending".  Either case overs implies the myriad of reasons people have for voting for particular candidates.  In fact, I would call any claim of "mandate" or a specific mission hubris.

If the Republicans are really serious about cutting spending they would simply pass a budget to their liking.  One would hope they would also cut Federal spending in their own district, but fat chance of that.  Now the next trick would be to get the Senate to go along.  If they could do that, then there would be a budget bill to send to the President.  If he vetoes it, then the House and Senate will need enough votes to override the veto.  These probably don't exist.

So, adults would determine what they can agree on and get that in the budget.  But many in Congress grandstand to please their "base" rather than do some real work for all of the people.

But we shouldn't complain too much.  The government was designed this way over two hundred years ago.

And outsiders run amok in almost every campaign

The other day I wrote about Credo Mobile, "the only phone company with a progressive agenda", "A progressive SuperPac?"  I questioned whether they would request donations or use profits to make contributions.  It matters not, they are trying to influence elections where they have no vote, just like those other bad guys.

They have added Michele Bachmann to their target list, "Dem super-PAC adds Bachmann to target list" Cameron Joseph, The Hill, 2012-08-23.  I don't care for Michele Bachmann for a laundry list of reasons.  But whether she stays in office or not is for the voters in her district to decide, not people who have no right to vote for or against her.  Think of my objection as an extension of the prohibition against foreigners contributing to U.S. campaigns.  See "Illegal political contributions from multi-national corporations?"

Congress - disciplining all for the sins of some

The "No bill, no pay" bill is gaining traction in Congress.

Essentially, no member of Congress shall receive any pay if some members of Congress refuse to pass all appropriations bills, and none shall receive any back pay once all the appropriations bills are passed.

In other words, if 200 Representatives vote for any given appropriations bill and 235 vote against, then not only will the 235 nays not get pay but the 200 yays will not get paid.

Also imagine the mischief one Representative can do by somehow getting to the floor an appropriations bill that nobody supports.

This makes me think of an incident at a Y-camp that I call "poop in the pool management".  I attended a Y camp when I was about ten years old.  Everyday we got time in the pool.  One day feces were discovered in the pool.  Instead of having pool time, we all had to sit in the dining hall until somebody revealed who left his poop in the pool.

So dozens of kids who were completely ignorant of what had happened had to sit until somebody 'fessed up.  I would guess the culprit didn't care about the rest of us; why do what he did?  Besides, why get a worse punishment by confessing.

So, dozens of Congress people who have been intransigent on getting appropriations passed want to punish other members of Congress for their own sins.

Beware of labeling Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts

I'm taking a class called "Congress: A Messy Democratic Body" at University of Seniors at the University of Minnesota, Duluth. The instructor, Marv Heikenen, asked us to profile some Senators and Representatives. I chose Scott Brown, Sen. from Massachusetts because I think he is more independent than many think he is.

In a mostly Democratic state, he beat Attorney General Martha Coakeley to replace the late Ted Kennedy. Tea Party groups gave him support. However, "when told that at various times he has been labeled a conservative, moderate and a liberal Republican, he responded 'I'm a Scott Brown Republican.' According to Politifact, while Brown was a Massachusetts legislator, he voted about 90 percent with the state Republican leadership; however, Republican Leadership in the Massachusetts legislature is generally considered far more moderate than the national Republican Party."

He has praised some Democratic senators and said he is willing to work across party lines and has taken positions "at odds with some of his fellow Republicans and Tea Party conservatives" as well as "Glenn Beck other prominent conservatives."

"According to the Washington Post, Brown voted with the majority of Republicans 80% of the time. In the same poll, '56% of Massachusetts voters believed he has kept his promise to be an independent voice in the U.S. Senate.'"

As a pre-1980 John Anderson Republican, I think it's great to see that not all Republicans are Roboticans.

Quotes are from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_brown.

PROTECT-IP, SOPA, and corporate interests

I sent variants of the following to Sens. Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN8).

Have you read Senate 968 (or the House equivalent ) in its entirety? Do you understand every statement in the bill? You can find an easier-to-read version at http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/01/text-of-protect-ip-senate-bill-968.html.

Are you aware of the ambiguity of the subtitle? What are the "other purposes"?

Are you aware that there is at least one grammatical error in the bill?

Are Republicans aware that this bill is more regulation on businesses and that it expands the bureaucracy?

Is this bill in the interests of corporations or in the interests of people? For example, can I simply write a letter to the Attorney General stating that a certain site is using one of my copyrighted pictures? Or will I have to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars for a lawyer to make a complaint on my behalf?

This bill does give service providers a standing for denying service to those they deem acting inappropriately. But doesn't it also give a "hunting license" to companies that will go after any company or person they deem aiding and abetting inappropriate sites. For example, might these "hunters" give a long list of sites they consider inappropriate to ISPs or domain name servers? And then won't these latter have to spend resources vetting that list and acting on their findings?

This bill requires various agencies to give Congress an annual report not only an assessment of the bill's effectiveness, but a list of each instance that the Attorney General took action enforcing this bill. See Section 7. Guidelines and Studies. Will all these agencies be given sufficient resources to do this work? And will that not require more taxes?

So-called "Democrats" handed another U.S. House seat to the Republicans

Republican Bob Turner had "an upset win" over Democrat David I. Weprin in the Ninth Congressional District of New York. Many who call themselves Democrats just didn't show up! According to the Associated Press it was a "light-turnout election". I haven't seen any exact figures yet, but I would guess that it was way less than fifty percent. Yet here are three times as many registered Democrats as registered Republicans. Supposedly, many Democrats were dissatisfied with President Obama and didn't vote. Don't these people realize that a no-show is really a vote for the opposition?

When did we go wrong?

"THE THIRD charge against the House of Representatives is, that it will be taken from that class of citizens which will have least sympathy with the mass of the people, and be most likely to aim at an ambitious sacrifice of the many to the aggrandizement of the few. Of all the objections which have been framed against the federal Constitution, this is perhaps the most extraordinary.  Whilst the objection itself is levelled against a pretended oligarchy, the principle of it strikes at the very root of republican government. The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust."

- Alexander Hamilton or James Madison, Federalist No. 57, "The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many Considered in Connection with Representation", New York Packet, 1788-02-19

"Public good" or "common good" appear 26 times in the Federalist Papers.  "Business" appears 26 times but almost always in the context of the business of government.  "Corporation" appears seven times, but only twice in the sense of business.  One is that the King of England has authority to establish corporations but the President of the United States does not.  The other is how laws have not become perfect, including the law of corporations.

Now we have for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and the most virtue to pursue, the private good of corporations.

So much for following the intent of the "Founding Fathers".

Is Gov. Charlie Crist really an independent?

Given that the National Republican Senatorial Committee has been leaning towards Marco Rubio for the upcoming Florida Senatorial election, Gov. Charlie Crist is considering filing as an independent.  As one who would like to see the Republicans behave with more of the individual freedom that the Party espouses, I would be very interested to see Crist run as an independent.

But how independent is Crist?  If you look at his campaign contributors, I would say not very much.  Open Secrets lists several corporate contributors as giving him more than $30,000.  In contrast, Marco Rubio has two contributors giving more than $30,000.

My wife pointed out that if I believe people who can't vote for a candidate shouldn't contribute, then should I comment on people who I can't vote for.  OK, dear!  I'll make some comments about candidates closer to home, especially an Independence Party candidate.

Tim Olson was elected by the Eighth District Independence Party Convention to go against long-time Democratic Representative Jim Oberstar.  See http://www.timberjay.com/detail/6813.html.  From what Timberjay reported of his speech, he sounds more like a Tea Party candidate than a person with some independence.

I went to Open Secrets to check on Olson's campaign contributions.  He is not listed, but Oberstar and some Republican contenders are listed.  Oberstar really takes the cake for non-voter contributions.  Six of his top ten contributors are unions.  Granted, some of the union members can vote for Oberstar, but what portion of the membership of the contributing unions are they?  In the top twenty of his contributors are the PACs for American Waterways Operators, American Council of Engineering Companies, and Associated General Contractors.  Do I smell pork?

I think I'll be casting a blank ballot for Congress this November.  It's the only way to vote for none of the above.

One of my favorite economists is running for Congress

I've enjoyed reading Charles Wheelan's column's on Yahoo Finance and I enjoyed reading his book, The Naked Economist. He always struck me as writing common sense rather than dogma. That is, nothing is as simple as we would like it to be, but here are some guidelines to help us getting the results we really want.

He has now decided to put his economic knowledge and common sense into being a U.S. Representative from the fifth district of Illinois. See "Goodbye Yahoo! Finance, Hello Congress?"

I wish more in government were as interested in looking for solutions as he is rather than posturing for stature. For more on his campaign, see Wheelan for Congress website.

Where have all the Iron Range jobs gone?

In the Grams-Oberstar debates, one of the arguments is the loss of jobs on the Iron Range. Most of the blame seems that a U.S. Representative should be held responsible for this loss. However, there are technical and economic reasons for a smaller work force.

The biggest technical reason is productivity. One has only to go to the Tower-Soudan mine and compare it to modern open pit mining. The Tower-Soudan mine employed 475 men working three shifts with picks, shovels, and explosives. They loaded the ore into small cars to be hauled to elevators. It closed in 1967 because other techniques were less costly. See Pioneer Mine. Open pit mining involves huge electric shovels loading trucks holding 240 tons of ore. That is less than the fifth of a day's production from the Tower-Soudan mine. See the size of equipment used in "The Taconite Breakthrough".

One economic reason for the reduced Iron Range smaller work force is competition from other sources. Mini-mills produce steel at less cost from scrap metal than the taconite process.

I wonder if a single person in Congress can control forces like these.