Career Politicians Should Step Aside

Politicians, unlike fine wine, don’t necessarily improve with age.

The US Congress is overloaded with over-the-hill congressmen and congresswomen, who should step aside, go home, and let new blood move this country on into the 21st Century.

The top three offenders of these never-go-home career senators and representatives are Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who has served over 57 years; John Dingell of Michigan, in Washington for over 56 years; and Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, over 50 years.

Former congressional lobbyist Tom Korologos had this to say about congress. “Always remember that congress does two things well: nothing and overreact.”

One of the major reasons that this statement is ‘truer’ than we would like, is because of the congressional seniority system.

This system, derived from tradition and culture, as opposed to the constitution, basically allows the members with the most seniority to yield the most power. This prevents new people with new ideas from advancing their hopes and ideas.

Generally speaking, the autocratic committee chairpersons, by virtue of their seniority, can control the congressional committees and dictate what will and what will not be considered.

In theory, all senators and all representatives have an equal vote. But, in practice, the newly elected members of congress get along, by going along, and occasionally, are thrown a few scraps.

There will be no equalization of representation and a leveling of the political playing field until there are term limits for members of congress.

Since, the senior members ‘rule’ the senate and the house, they have a vested interest in keeping things just the way they are. You might say these elected ‘foxes’ are guarding a very lucrative ‘henhouse.’

Only when those elected to office, have enough personal integrity to serve a term or two and then return home, will the original intent of the Founding Fathers be realized.

The official framework for the U.S. Government was the Articles of Confederation. Initially, the early citizens of this country feared a strong federal government and favored one, giving the individual states more authority.

The Articles of Confederation pleased most Americans by creating a ‘weak’ federal government. Their belief was that the United States as a whole was more or less, a ‘league of friendship’ between the states.

The government had no president, no capitol, no federal courts, no national currency, and no military. The government lacked the authority to collect taxes and therefore could not pay debts incurred in the War of Independence.

George Washington feared the young nation, for which, a great many had so gallantly fought, would collapse. As a result, a call went out to strengthen the federal government.

Meeting in Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, the Continental Congress issued its own call for a convention to strengthen the federal government. After much heated debate, working diligently on each point, the delegates hammered out the details of the U.S. Constitution.

Thirteen of the 55 delegates left early and did not even sign the new document. The remaining 39 signed it. These men are known as the Founding Fathers.

Each state then had to ratify the document. Rhode Island, the smallest state and the only state not sending delegates to the convention, was the last of the original thirteen states to come on board.

Of the 39 signers of the US Constitution, eight of them went on to be elected to the first Senate. Six went on to become members of the first House of Representatives.

Of the 14 elected members of the first US Congress, only two of them stayed for two terms or more.

Sure, some went on to other governmental offices, both elected and appointed, but they did not envision serving in Congress to be a life-long occupation. They went on to become judges, a state governor, a cabinet secretary, a college president, a businessman, a banker, and Robert Morris of Pennsylvania died a pauper.

These Founding Fathers served their country and then returned to their private lives. Short terms of service for elected members of congress worked then, and I think it would work now, just as well. Perhaps, we would all be better off, if our present day elected official would serve short terms and return to their homes.

21st Century Bill of Rights

In my last blog I alluded to how there were those, from the far left and far right, trying to subvert the legislative process of this country by interjecting their extreme hard core party ideology and beliefs. This results in delaying or prohibiting any meaningful negotiations or compromises.

Well, the Kentucky Senate has joined in this effort with their proposed legislative initiative, known in Frankfort, as Senate Bill 3. The bill was very partisan in committee with all 20 Republicans voting for the bill and the remaining democrats, rolling over and playing dead, by abstaining from the vote.

The bill, nicknamed the “21st Century Bill of Rights” is an assault on any perceived liberal view either from the U.S. President or U.S. Congress.

If the bill is passed by the full Senate and the House in Frankfort in this year’s legislature, it would appear before the Kentucky voters on the November 2, 2010 ballot for their consideration as a constitutional amendment.

The highlights of the bill include nine points. Some of which, I agree with, and some, I do not. But the controversial issues appear to have been sugar coated and lumped in with popular ideas as a take-it-all or leave-it-all proposition.

The first issue is to state that the voters deserve an ‘inalienable’ right to ‘comprehend’ the legislation, raising or lowering tax revenues and appropriations.
The proponents of this bill seem to think this could be accomplished in 48 hours.

In the case of some legislators, both Democrats and Republicans, this could take more like 48 years, but I have no real problem with this one.

Second, they are championing the need for an ‘informed’ citizenry and seem to think this will be accomplished with wide use of technology and electronic media.

Ostensibly, this is one of many ways to share and provide news and information, but, there are still a large number of households in this state with no computer access. So, this is not a cure-all, only an aid in the ‘knowledge deficiency’ of the general public.

The third point is to prevent government from compelling health care providers to participate in any health care system. This is a thinly-veiled attempt to de-rail the proposed national health care initiative.

This may be a moot point anyway, as many doctors and dentists and other health care providers, even today, fail to treat patients with Medicaid, Medicare, or CHAMPUS (military) insurance.

The bill’s fourth issue states that no health care entity should be required to perform abortion services. Even, if the ‘Obama Health Care Plan’ passes and funds for abortions services are available, it is doubtful that there would be a ‘mandatory’ requirement to provide the service. And, again, currently, there are hospitals and providers that elect ‘not’ to provide the service.

I personally am ‘against’ abortions. Unfortunately, I have to be ‘pro-choice,’ because I don’t have my head stuck in the sand, and I realize that abortions will occur, whether they are legal or not.

After working in the health care field for over 30 years, I recognize the additional tragedy when illegal abortions are performed. As well as death to the unborn child, there is the added risk of severe, permanent, injury or even death to the mother. Anytime, I’m asked about the decision or choice, I always encourage the mother ‘not’ to have the abortion.

The fifth article deals with the severing of coal, and basically deals with this state being ‘pro-coal’. I endorse this idea as long as there is also an enforceable mandate for strict land reclamation and stringent air quality provisions.

The next issue deals with there being no government entity interfering with the posting of the Ten Commandments as a part of a display of historical documents.

I have no issue with this matter, either. As a matter of fact, there is a very attractive display of such documents in the Estill County Courthouse today.

But, the over-riding concern is the interpretation of the courts concerning this matter. Citizens’ opinions matter little when they are counter indicated by the court system. Opinions have to become laws and approved as being constitutional before they are legal in the eyes of the courts.

The next issue is a ‘wordy’ phrase basically stating that no one should be prevented from doing or not doing anything because of their faith. This is probably the least thought-out of all the proposed bills. It is written solely to placate those fearing religious persecution.

The establishment clause of the US Constitution’s First Amendment has already covered this. It states: “Congress shall make no laws respecting or establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” As far as I can determine, there has been no formal establishment of a state sanctioned religion or faith.

However, there ‘does’ need to be certain laws that may ‘appear’ to infringe upon the religious rights of others. Examples include those faiths that prevent underage children from receiving medical treatment; those that don’t approve of military service; those who think polygamy is a religious right; those, whose leaders engage in sex with the youth of their church; those who believe in the use of illicit drugs in their worship; and there are others.

It is of extreme importance, that when we think of freedom of religion, we realize that the laws are not ‘just’ for Christians alone, but for anyone who professes ‘any’ faith or religion. Christianity and religion are not synonymous terms.

The eighth matter of concern is related to gun control. This is essentially a re-inventing of the wheel. It is virtually a repeat of the second amendment with the addition of the word ammunition.

The problem with gun control laws is not what is written on a document, as much as the interpretation of the laws by the courts. I am a staunch supporter of gun rights, and have a concealed deadly weapon permit.

But, as with so many ‘hot topic’ buttons, I feel this issue was added to give the “21st Century Bill of Rights” a degree of legitimacy in this ‘gun-loving’ state. Again, I think it is redundant to include this issue.

This final article is simply stating that Kentucky, under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, claims sovereignty over all powers not specifically spelled out to and granted to the federal government.

Again, this is directly addressed in the 10th Amendment where it states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it, are reserved to the states.

So, this is again, redundant. It is much ado about nothing. Those trying to discount slavery as the primary cause of the Civil War, always claim it was a state rights issue. But, it has been decided, time and time again, that state rights never supersede federal law.

To pass such irresponsible, even if well-intentioned, legislation, will open a plethora of federal law suits with never-ending appeals and a bottomless pit of legal expenses.

Wake Up America

The polarization of American politics today has gotten to such an extreme, or we might say, fallen to such a low, that there is very little that Congress can actually accomplish.

It seems the Republican Party is controlled by the extreme right-wing conservative politicians. Likewise, the Democrat Party is controlled by the left-wing liberal politicians.

There is way too much negativity on the part of both major political parties. Each only seems to be able to voice what they are against, not what they are for. This attitude prevents either party from effectively legislating for the good of the total constituency of the nation. It’s what my Grandmother used to call ‘cutting off your nose to spite your face.’

It is my firm belief that the vast majority of Americans fall in the middle fifty per cent of a ‘conservative verses liberal’ scale or spectrum. The two twenty-five percentage groups on either end of the scale are the ones currently running the show.

There is no room for compromise on virtually any issue facing America. Compromise can only occur in Congress when ‘reasonable’ elected officials, put aside petty partisan politics, and strive, their dead level best, to come up with solutions for the common good.

There is growing evidence that the American electorate is becoming less and less enamored with the current two party system. In fact there is a growing distaste for Republicans and Democrats and their hard-line inflexible ideology and unwillingness to compromise.

In fact, Independents or non-affiliated voters, outnumber Republicans or Democrats in total registration in at least eleven states. This is the fastest growing segment of the electorate in the country.

The importance of the independent vote was forcefully demonstrated in the recent election of Republican Scott Brown to fill the unexpired seat of the late Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, a state that is usually considered very liberal, where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 2-1 margin.

The most eye-opening aspect of this special election was the voter turnout. It is true that Republican Brown got most of the Republican votes and Democrat Martha Coakley received most of the Democratic votes, but the election was determined by the Independents. Yes, Independents, the middle-of-the-roaders, those with no party affiliation.

For you see, 46 per cent of the voters in Massachusetts are registered Independents, with 35 per cent being Democrats, and only 19 per cent registered as Republicans.

Traditionally, Independent candidates or ‘third party’ candidates, those who ran as neither, Democrats nor Republicans, were more or less seen as election ‘spoilers’. They could only sway enough votes to, perhaps, hurt one of the major candidates’ chances to win.

This was due mostly due to the way the national election process is set up with the Electoral College. A winner-take-all system whereby a single candidate gets all the electoral votes, at least in most states.

Only three times has a third party candidate received a significant number of electoral votes. They were when John C. Breckenridge, in 1860 received 72 votes running as a Southern Democrat; Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, received 88 electors as a Progressive candidate; and George Wallace, as an American Independent, received 46 electoral votes in 1968.

Ross Perot in 1992, running as a Reform Party candidate, received nearly 19 per cent of the total votes cast, but won no electors.

There are still several so-called third parties. They include the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Reform Party, the Constitutional Party, the Socialist Party, and a number of others.

These parties usually are devoted to one or a few special issues that are not of primary concern to the two larger parties. I don’t feel that they will make any significant in-roads in the near future.

However, nationwide, the voters are registered as approximately 43 per cent registered Democrats, 33 per cent registered Republicans, and 25 per cent Independents.

It is this 25 per cent of Independents, along with the 25 per cent moderate Democrats and the 25 per cent of the moderate Republicans that are going to win elections and govern this nation.

The sooner the extreme elements of the political party spectrum realizes this, the better off all Americans will be. There is no room for politicians that are more interested in their extreme party ideology than they are the good of America. We need elected officials who will put this country first.

To quote Gary Burbank’s redneck character, Earl Pitts: “Wake up, America.”

Americans Must Fly Safely

One of our son travels extensively throughout the world in his job. His family flies frequently, too. Our other son has been to Europe a few times and will soon be travelling to Costa Roca on a mission trip. Our daughter has made some trips to Europe as well. My wife and I have traveled both for work and pleasure.
We have entertained guests in our home from Korea, Japan, Zimbabwe, Latvia, Albania, Afghanistan, Denmark, Ireland and England.

Airline safety is a concern, not just to the rich and famous, but to everyone in America and the world. We live in a highly mobile society. In this 21st Century in which we find ourselves living, there seems to be two main issues concerning safety in the skies. They are terrorism by means of hijacking and airport security privacy.

Airplane hijacking goes back as far as many people alive today can remember. The first attempted hijack of a commercial US airliner took place in 1961.
Those hijackers, for whatever reason, were seeking asylum in Cuba. These relatively ‘benign’ hijackings became so frequent during the 1960’s that the phrases ‘Take me to Havana’ or ‘Take this plane to Cuba’ became part of the American culture.

I can even remember in Korea in 1968 when an intoxicated US soldier boarded a public bus near the DMZ loudly exclaiming “Take this bus to Cuba” before passing out among the Korean peasants on their journey to Seoul.
Much work was done in an effort to stop the hijackings and following the 1974 Anti-hijacking Act, the number of hijackings did, in fact, fall sharply, especially in the US.

However, in the 1980’s Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people. These hijackers were found to be from the Libyan intelligence community and were convicted of the crime. The Libyan government formally accepted the blame for this tragedy a few years later.

Hijacking reached a new ‘low’ when on September 11, 2001; Middle Eastern Muslim terrorists took control of four commercial planes with devastating results. Two of these airliners crashed into the World Trade Center in New Your City, one into the US Military’s Pentagon in the Washington DC area, and a fourth airliner, thought to be headed for Washington, was forced to crash in a rural field in Pennsylvania.

Of the 19 hijackers who directly participated in the horrific attacks on September 11, 2001, fifteen hailed from Saudi Arabia, three from the United Arab Emirates, and one from Lebanon. The masterminds of this tragedy were a terrorists group named al-Qaeda, led by Osama Bin Laden, who was born in Yemen.

Following this devastating event, the US Government transferred responsibility for airline safety from the Federal Aeronautics Administration (FAA) to the newly organized mega-cabinet entity of Department of Homeland Security, currently chaired by Janet Napolitano.

Significant strides toward safety have been accomplished. Only two life-threatening occurrences have since been noted. Once, when Richard Reid (aka Abdul Raheem) who trained in Pakistan and Afghanistan, tried to explode a bomb in his shoe. And again, when Umar Faroak Abdulmutallab tried to explode a bomb in his underclothing just recently on a flight from Yemen.

I am the ultimate champion of an individual’s rights in this country. I think we should do everything within our power to protect these rights (i.e. voting, right to bear arms, and others constitutionally guaranteed). But, I think the majority has a ‘limited prerogative’ to defend and make America safe from all those who choose to do us harm. We are in a state of war according to our former and current presidents. Not a declared war, but war, none the less.

I certainly oppose any policy that would place innocent individuals into an ‘internment situation’ such as was experienced by many Japanese-Americans during World War Two. I believe it is too easy to forget civil liberties in times of national unrest, fear, and insecurity.

I am against racial profiling, generally speaking, but when 100 percent of the 9 -11 hijackers, 100 percent of the USS Cole attackers, and 100 percent of the most recent attempted airplane explosions, are of Middle Eastern heritage, training and beliefs, it is only prudent to observe those individuals more closely.
In today’s circumstances, any law-abiding, peace-loving, rationally-thinking person of Middle Eastern descent, or any other individual for that matter, should welcome the opportunity to aid all attempts of safety for the public.

If I go to an airport and am singled out for closer scrutiny either electronic, visually, or manually, I say “bring it on.” Any right I have or even perceive as having, ENDS where it interferes with another person’s safety and right to life.