New Elections Legislation in Kentucky

Now this is a piece of legislation I can fully support.

Due to various vagaries of the Commonwealth's Constitution, we apparently have elections 3 out of every 4 years in the election cycle. Senator Chris McDaniel has proposed a constitutional amendment that would move the election of "constitutional officers" (Governor, Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, etc.) onto the same cycle as the Presidential elections.

Why can I support this?

From the article at the Cincinnati Enquirer:

By combining the statewide office elections with the presidential elections, Kentucky would only have elections on even years. This would save the state $4 million to $5 million dollars in the odd years and save even more for local governments, McDaniel said.

and

The county clerks from Boone and Campbell counties said adding the state constitutional offices to the presidential election ballot would save money without causing difficulties.

The major costs associated with conducting an election are primarily labor-related. The counties have to pay the poll workers, get the machines out and set up, and collect everything at the end of the day. Those are all fixed costs. If the commonwealth can completely remove one election day from the cycle, I really don't see any downside.

I hope that it would also increase voter turnout in non-Presidential years. Voting is not an overly onerous or difficult task, but it's easy to get tired-head when it feels like there's political ads up every single year.

The one hangup? It would extend the term of all the current constitutional officers by one year. I can see someone arguing that this is just another conspiracy theory to protect some elected official. But really, the only other choice is push it out a full cycle, shorten that term, and then elect on a four-year term again. That's just asking for a lot of confusion. I think adding one year to the existing term to align the cycles is cleaner.

Also, it requires a constitutional amendment. That's not a bad thing, but I can't say that I trust the legislature to do the right thing. That being said, I'm hopeful for this one. I really don't see a downside to it at all, and it should easily pass the 60% threshold to be put on next year's ballot.

 

The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.
Numbers 6:24-26 (ESV)

Mr. President, what are your priorities?

As a new presidential term begins, attention naturally turns to the agenda and tone that he will pursue. Across the entire political spectrum, pundits are putting forth their ideas for what he should do, what he shouldn't do, and what he'd be crazy to try or leave off the table. There have been copious electrons sacrificed to analyses of his prior term and expectations for his new one.

Predominant themes are gun control in the wake of the Newtown shooting, marriage equality for homosexuals, the fiscal cliff, and religious freedoms under the Affordable Care Act. Poll 5 pundits, and you'll receive 15 different answers, depending on which tracking poll they've looked at last.

Well, here's your chance. You have been named President. You are guaranteed that your next policy or legislative proposal will receive filibuster and veto proof (of course, you're the President so why would you veto it, but let's ignore incongruities for now, shall we?) votes for adoption or passage in Congress, and it will be fully funded in the requisite budgets or appropriations bills. Let's double-down and state for this thought experiment that this legislation will remain in effect for at least the next 12 years (your entire term, and the next two presidential terms). Unfortunately, you do not know, you have zero guarantee, as to how your proposal would actually work out. This isn't complete fantasy (just a very close approximation). You don't get to override the Law of Unintended Consequences. You still have to pay the piper.

So, what would your legislative proposal be? What critical ill of the nation's would you attempt to solve? Why is that issue more important that any other? On what basis do you think you have the authority to pass that legislation?

I have gone back and forth on this. The three issues that concern me the most right now are protecting the 2nd Amendment, preserving religious freedoms, and restoring some sort of fiscal responsibility in Washington.

My three proposals would look something like this:

2nd Amendment
I would push for National Reciprocity, with a definition of civilian firearms that basically stated that if it's good enough for LEOs it's good enough for civilians, excepting weapons capable of select fire. I have Federalist concerns, but between the 1994 AWB and NICS background checks, that horse has left the barn. The Federal government already intrudes in State legislative control over those matters.

This is a Constitutional question, and the President is sworn to protect and defend that document. Now, granted, the fight would simply move on to other issues of populace thought-control, but I would draw the first line in the sand on this one.

Religious Freedoms
I would provide that  any and all persons or organizations would be allowed to claim the religious equivalent of conscientious objector status to the mandated coverage requirements of the ACA. In fact, I would try for broader legislation that would grant this status for all persons in any economic activity. If a wedding photographer wants to limit their clientele, I believe that should be their choice. Let the nature of free market economics sort it out. If no one is willing to utilize their services, they won't be in business long. However, I don't think the government has any right to force a company to do business with someone when such a business transaction would violate their religious beliefs.

Government Spending
This would be omnibus legislation incorporating several proposals. These would include initiatives like a Balanced Budget Amendment, having the annual budget tied to GDP, and No Budget, No Pay for Congress. Something has to give, and I fear it's too late.

Yes, I'm cheating at my own game by not proposing a single initiative to push, but these are the three "biggies" on my list. They are most likely listed in order, too, but the first two could easily be flipped.

So, that's where I sit today. What say you?

The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.
Numbers 6:24-26 (ESV)

QOTD - Do Your Homework Edition

From an editorial in the Dallas Morning News comes this quote:

Better yet, do even more homework, and make sure you check on crime stats. That way, you won’t have to depend on the news media — me included — for your information. That’s always a dicey thing when it comes to gun news.

In fact, relying on mass media is a dicey proposition when it comes to any news. You should always check their sources, and be on the lookout for bias, both from them and confirmation bias from yourself.

It's a good thing to have your assumptions challenged every now and then. You just might find out they were wrong.

(h/t to FarmDad over at gunblogger_conspiracy for the link)

Brace Yourselves

Saw this on Facebook and had to share:

(h/t Squeaker)

QotD - It's all about character Edition

Today's Quote of the Day is courtesy of Ken over at Popehat.

[S]ocieties that make rules like this one, encouraging its citizens to scamper mewling behind the skirts of the government when faced with the least offense, produce people with the character necessary to take them up on the offer. It is hard to imagine how a nation run by people of that character can endure — or at least, how it can endure as anyplace you'd want to live.

Yeah. Whatever happened to self-reliance and self-determination? There's a reason it's now referred to as the Formerly Great Britain.

Quote of the Day - Local Government Edition

Steve Arlinghaus, the Judge-Executive in Kenton County gets it:

"The only people that should be allowed to levy a tax against the public is an elected official."

Can we elect more people like him, please?

Oh, and State Auditor Adam Edelen? You go dude!

Edited to fix a typo in Steve Arlinghaus' name. Silly auto-correct features.

I don't WANT this much power

The Mrs. and I just got back from voting here in Northern Kentucky. As we were leaving, I asked the polling place workers how turnout had been. The comments ranged from "better than we expected" to "but still less than 100". Now, I'm not sure exactly how many people are in this polling precinct, but the registration book they have on the table is rather thick.  If I were to guess, I'm going to put turnout at less than 15% for our area. The Secretary of State is predicting 10 - 12% voter turnout, while the county clerks in Northern Kentucky are expecting 7 - 20% turnout.

So, why does this concern me? It's only the primaries, right? First, Kentucky is a closed primary state, so there is no crossing over to vote in the other party's primary. Second, there were three races I could vote in today: Presidential, U.S. Congress 4th District, and State Senate 11th District. There are candidates from both parties in the Presidential and Congressional races. However, there are no Democratic party challengers in the State Senatorial race. This is not really surprising considering that Northern Kentucky is a heavy Republican area. In fact, my county is one of the few one by the Republican candidate in the latest gubernatorial race.

So, what does all this mean? It means that the State Senator for the 11th District will be picked by an exceedingly small minority of the individuals represented by that seat. Turnout will be less than 15%, and only a portion of that 15% (granted, a majority of it, but still) will be allowed to vote for the candidate. The winner of the primary will be the winner of the general election.

There is also a state congressional race in this area today, but for another portion of the county. Again, in that race there is no Democratic candidate. The winner of the Republican primary will be the winner of the general election.

To those who say "my vote doesn't count", I say Balderdash!!! Local and regional elections are typically more important anyways, and with the history of low voter turnouts, especially in non-Presidential election years, your vote absolutely does count.

I don't WANT this much power, but I don't dare not vote.

Making government smaller

How do we make government smaller? Is it simply a matter of putting it on a diet or a budget? If we enforce laws that limit expenditures and growth, will that be enough?

I don't think so. I think we are getting exactly the government we deserve. Self-sufficiency and community have gone the way of the dodo bird. Instead of looking to friends, families and neighbors for a helping hand, we look to the State House or Washington instead.

And it's worse than that. Friends, families and neighbors frequently aren't there to help. How many of your neighbors do you know in a 2 block radius? There are ~60 families in our subdivision, and I know less than half of them. I know more people at my office than I do in my subdivision. As a society, we have crawled into holes and then pulled them in after us. We have rolled up our sidewalks, not just after 10:00 PM but all day long.

What happened to community block parties? What happened to gaggles of kids chasing each other throughout the neighborhood all day long? What happened to the days of getting home from school, dropping the backpack just inside the door and disappearing until mom called you in for dinner (and by called, I mean literally hollered from the front porch, not sent you an SMS)?

If we want to make government smaller, I think we have to make society bigger, and especially our churches. While government does overreach and inject itself where it's not needed, a lot of the intrusions start innocently, because there is a need to fill. Naturally, government thinks it can fill that need best. But what if the need was already being met, was not going unfulfilled? Then there is no impetus for government to act.

So, to make government smaller, we have to remove the need for government to act. How do we do that? We meet the needs of those around us, both physically and spiritually. Get involved in community outreach through your church. Donate food to the food bank and articles of clothing to the clothing closet. Volunteer in a soup kitchen. Get involved in clean-up teams.

And guess what? The size of the church doesn't determine how big it is. A 4,000 member megachurch that never steps outside its walls is a hovel. The 200 year old church with 50 faithful attenders that runs a soup kitchen is like a mansion. The size of the church doesn't matter as to its impact. And churches can partner together in ministry, even across denominational lines.

In short, we cannot in good conscience complain about the size and reach of the government when we ourselves are not doing everything we can to remove the need for their involvement. Hilary Clinton was right all those years ago. It does take a village. But it takes a village free of government intrusion and control.

To make the government smaller, we have to get up off our couches, get into our community, and get involved. Not because the government has told us to, but because it's what we should do as friends and neighbors, as members of a community. Because it's what God has called us to do.

Problems With The National Popular Vote Act

I really wasn't planning on getting into the National Popular Vote Act. My intent yesterday was merely to highlight similarities in though processes in very different political arenas. However, a comment was left defending it yesterday, and I wanted to highlight some of the misapprehensions.

Before starting, though, I do want to reiterate that the Constitution grants states the power to determine how they will choose their electors. So, there are no direct Constitutional concerns with the NPVA. That being said, our system of electing the President is not one of direct election. We have the electoral college. When a citizen casts a vote, it is only nominally for the candidate. In reality, it is for an elector pledged to that candidate. The NPVA is trying to do an end-run on the electoral college system. If you want direct elections of the president, then amend the Constitution. But keep in mind that the United States was intended to be an amalgamation of states with loose federal control. The House of Representatives provides proportional membership, to keep the more populous states from running roughshod over everyone else, and the Electoral College provided the same protections for the electorate.

Now, let's start taking a look at the comment that was left.

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. No voter is disenfranchised. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

Every vote, everywhere today is politically relevant. Again, each STATE is electing a slate of electors that then vote for the President. We do not have direct elections. If you feel that voters are being disenfranchised under the current system, then propose that states adopt a proportional allocation of electors instead of using a "first past the post" all-or-nothing allocation. Further, from what I can see, the NPVA does not require a majority the popular vote, merely a plurality. So even if a candidate only receives 40% of the popular vote, with two other candidates each receiving 30%, the NPVA guarantees that he will win a majority of the electoral votes. Talk about the ultimate in disenfranchisement.

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate. Talk about disenfranchisement.

NPVA merely stands this argument on its head, potentially taking the voice away from the majority party voters in a state, by allocating their votes to the "national winner", even if he was different than the state winner. That's the travesty of NPVA. Again, the better way to fix this is to encourage states to adopt a proportional elector allocation. This would most likely achieve the goals of the NPVA (to guarantee that the electoral college winner and the national popular vote winner are the same) while still retaining the veracity of local votes.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

This does not mean that the NPVA is the answer. Again, not to flagellate a deceased equine or anything, but it seems the problem is more with a first past the post, winner takes all allocation of electoral votes. Fix that instead of telling me that my vote vote for a slate of electors (see, I'm not voting for the candidate, I'm voting for electors) could be rendered meaningless by a high-population state.

I will have more to say about some of their numbers-based arguments once I have a chance to pull together some statistics. But, work calls and I have to pay the bills first.

Whither Democracy?

According to Wikipedia, 8 states and the District of Columbia have signed on to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The gist of this compact is that ALL of the electoral votes for participating states will be given to the candidate that receives the most popular votes nationally. Granted, states are free to allocate their electoral votes as they see fit, under Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution.

I have no issue with the legality of this Compact.  What bothers me is that it has the potential to invalidate the decision of that state's electorate. Your state voted for the Vesuvian candidate, but the Martian candidate won the most popular votes? Too bad, so sad. The State is going to stand for the Martian. Talk about the ultimate in voter disenfranchisement. Yet all the Right Thinking People hold this up as the ultimate in direct democracy.

Over in California, an experiment in direct democracy resulted in the passage of Proposition 8, which reserved the use of the term "married" for the union of 1 man and 1 woman. Setting aside any personal feelings about who should or should not be allowed to marry (or use the adjective 'married'), the people spoke, with 52% supporting amending the state constitution.

Yet Right Thinking People everywhere decried the result as a miscarriage of justice, and it was overturned in the courts.

Once again, we see that the will of the people is only to be respected when it aligns with the Correct Results®.

Well there's your problem, Sen. Kathy Stein, D-Lexington

The Cincinnati Enquirer has a blog post up about Kentucky legislators signing on to a brief in opposition to the constitutionality of the ACA.

I don't this lawmaker quite gets it.

Sen. Kathy Stein, D-Lexington, said the Republican lawmakers opposition to the reform could strike a blow at a health care law that benefits many in Kentucky, including families who can now keep their children on their workplace insurance plans until they reach 26 years old.

“It kind of makes me crazy when Kentucky legislators in particular rail against the federal government and what it does,” Stein said. “Don’t thy [sic] recognize that we’re not a donor state to the federal government? We receive. We get lots of money back, more than the taxes we send in. And until folks realize that, I don’t believe we can have an intelligent debate about it.”

(emphasis mine)

Yes, they do recognize that Kentucky is a recipient state. That means that we have effectively robbed other states to line our coffers. The Federal government is overspending revenues, which means we go more and more into debt every single day.

But because we are a recipient state, it's okay? Because we're doing better than the other guy, it's okay? Because other states have fewer funds to support their own residents, it's okay?

Well guess what, Senator Stein. I DON'T think it's okay that Kentucky is a recipient state. I DON'T think it's okay that because of programs like the ACA, the Federal government is spending money faster than it can rake it in. Something's got to give. We either get our fiscal house in order, or we'll soon see the local coal industry crater because it will be cheaper for everyone to burn their paper currency for heat.

The future of the Kentucky energy economy?

A closer look at Santorum

Ramesh Ponnuru thinks Santorum is Romney's toughest primary challenger by far.

Unlike Perry, Santorum is articulate. Unlike Cain, he has political experience and knowledge of public policy. Unlike Gingrich, he has a personal life that seems to be above reproach. Romney has no advantage over Santorum in any of these respects.

Romney has cited his victory in a statewide election in a blue state to make the case that he can appeal beyond the party’s base. That’s something neither Perry nor Cain nor Gingrich could say. Santorum, on the other hand, won statewide in Pennsylvania (BEESPA), which hasn’t voted for a Republican presidential candidate in 24 years. And he did it twice.

 Please read the whole thing. I know that a number of people are put off by Santorum's strong social conservative streak, and worry that he will try to regulate the bedroom from Washington, D.C. Personally, I don't think that's a valid concern. Granted, I tend to agree with him in general on those issues at a personal level, but I don't think it's any business of fed.gov.

I think Santorum is the better all-around conservative candidate, and will display better fiscal discipline than Romney.

But you know the nice thing about elections? We all get to make our own choice, and there's this wonderful thing called the secret ballot.

All I ask is that you show up and vote your conscience.

Working to your own demise

I am currently reading "In the Grip of Grace" by Max Lucado. The book is a study of God's grace as revealed in the book of Romans. Lucado has identified three personalities that reject God's grace, and try to do thing their own way: the Hedonist, the Judgmentalist, and the Legalist.

Chapter 3 is about Godless Living, and includes a section titled "We Lose Our Standard." Lucado quotes Dostoevsky: "If God is dead, then everything is justifiable."

Members of the Occupy movement and the Progressive movement would have us believe that corporations are  evil and the root of all the world's problems. At the same time, they rail against the Church, and God, and His teachings, claiming there is no place for Him in our society.

I would argue that corporations are NOT evil. Rather, the rejection of God has allowed for the acceptance of the hedonistic, judgmental, and legalistic lifestyles. The behavior of some corporations (which are nothing more than an association of people) is a direct result of that. The answer is not to do it again, only harder, by piling on more regulations and more punishment.

Instead, a return to first principles is what is required. A fundamental shift of the mindset of this country is needed. If individuals would take care of themselves first, and their neighbors second, this bloated monstrosity we currently have in Washington, D.C. would no longer be needed. Then comes the hard part: killing the monster.

But that's a discussion for another day.

The Hubris of Politicians

Well, well, well. I saw part of a blurb on the news crawler this morning about Gingrich petitioning lawmakers in Virginia to change the law. Curious, I went hunting for information.

Gingrich failed to qualify for the primary ballot in his home state of Virginia

His campaign manager lamented that "only a failed system excludes four out of the six major candidates seeking access to the ballot". The campaign doubled-down on the stupid by saying that "[...] the analogy is December 1941: We have experienced an unexpected setback, but we will re-group and re-focus with increased determination, commitment and positive action."

Pearl Harbor? Really? That's what you want to compare the mismanagement of your campaign to? How many soldiers, sailors and airmen lost their lives in that event? Now, how many lost their lives because you've known for MONTHS about a Dec 21 filing deadline and couldn't meet it.

The rule of law is the rule of law, Petitioning lawmakers to change the law because you messed up, and to give yourself a mulligan is the worst sort of political hubris. It merely reinforces the notion that politicians think they are better than themselves and that the laws of the land only apply to the little people.

Please go away now.

So, explain something to me

I don't get the hypocrisy amongst the "new media" conservative commentariat.

Their thinking goes something like "Greed is good, capitalism is the best solution, the government should get out of the way and let businesses do their thing, and a properly free market will self-adjust". I understand this theory in general, and tend to agree with it.

But here's the part that puzzles me. Why, when it can be used to score cheap political points, does this self-same group of individuals turn around and decry the fact that a liberal politician went on holiday, or stayed at a $10k/night hotel, or did some other extravagant thing.

To cop a phrase, let me be clear. The only time I would care about where a politician stayed or how much they spent on something is if they did it on the public dime. Have the cash and want to buy a Lamborghini with your own funds? That's great, and good luck trying to drive it in the craziness that is D.C. traffic. Want to go on a "fact finding" junket on the public dime, and take your family with you? Then I start having problems.

I am sick and tired of the totality of the Us v. Them mentality that has set in. Compromise is not a dirty word, and can be done with compromising your principles. Especially in the Senate, the legislators need to remember they are their to govern the country. Obviously, in the House they have more local concerns, and should properly look out for their electorate first, but after that again, work to the good of the country.

These are not hard concepts, and all of these lines in the sand and bright-line tests merely confuse the issue.

There is only one bright-line test I care about: Is it Constitutional?<sup>1

1</sup>And now let the arguments regarding the definition of "Constitutional" commence

QOTD - Not Getting It edition

I was reading an article in the Denver Post this morning about how the Balanced Budget Amendment fell 23 votes short in the house yesterday.

It's full of the usual diatribes and complaints about how Congress can't afford to limit itself, how we have to be able to spend more than we collect in tax revenues each year.

But here's the quote that jumped out at me:

Democrats overwhelmingly opposed the proposal, arguing that such a requirement would force Congress to make devastating cuts to social programs.

 Um, well, yeah, that's sort-of the point now isn't it. We need to make cuts across the board, as we're spending roughly twice what we collect, and we now have a federal debt of over $15 TRILLION. Calling them "devastating" is just the usual verbal scare-mongering that is sadly used by members of both sides of the aisle. I remember when we would have to say "billion with a 'B'" to distinguish from "million with an 'M'". Sadly, the only time we hear the word 'billion' anymore, it's related to amounts that are usually prefaced with the word 'only'.

It brings to mind the old saw about government spending: A million here, a million there, and pretty soon we're talking about real money. Billions of dollars in spending are now part of the noise floor, and don't even make us raise our eyebrows.

It's like this, Congress. If you don't start making "devastating" cuts to the entire Federal budget, the impending economic collapse will aptly be described as devastating, and we won't even have to use scare quotes.

For great safety

or great revenue?

The city of Denver is using it's red-light cameras to issue tickets to drivers whose wheels cross the white "stop" line. (h/t to Drudge)

I would be interested to know what the authorizing legislation for those cameras said. If it just addressed red-light violations, I fail to see how they can issue citations for stopping over the line.

I think this is just more evidence that the cameras aren't intended for safety, but more for revenue generation.

Ruling by Fiat, or Preparing to Fail, Again

President Obama is signing yet another executive order to implement by fiat what he cannot get Congress to implement via valid legislation.

This particular executive order concerns prescription drug shortages and the potentials for price gouging.

“The shortage of prescription drugs drives up costs, leaves consumers vulnerable to price gouging and threatens our health and safety,” an administration official says.

The order apparently directs the FDA to "take action" to help prevent drug shortages. Oh, and it expresses support for bipartisan legislation intended to do the same thing. One of those pieces of legislation is Senate Bill 296. What does this Herculean feat of legislative legerdemain accomplish? It "require[s] a prescription drug manufacturer to notify the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) of a discontinuance, interruption, or other adjustment of the manufacture of the drug that would likely result in a shortage of such drug."


Are you kidding me? You've added a regulatory burden which can be used to bludgeon Big Pharma, and that's IT?!? What is HHS or the FDA going to do? Tell a drug company that they can't discontinue a drug line any longer? This is yet another case of picking winners and losers, and trying the failed Communist experiment of centralized management of industry.


You know what would work better? Remove some of the tariffs and import barriers and allow drugs to be imported from Canada.


Oh, wait, I forgot. Big Pharma went on a successful rent-seeking expedition and got the competition excluded from the marketplace.


So now we see the results of rent seeking and crony capitalism. Drugs are artificially scarce, they're too expensive, and now the government is going to stick its nose into a situation that will only be made worse by their intrusion.


Can we please get something approximating a free market back?

I'm mad too, but for a different reason

JayG goes off on the biased coverage from CNN.

I agree with him mostly, but I'm just as frustrated with Perry.

If we knocked Obama for not having a plan, then shouldn't we be as up in arms at Perry, or Cain, or any other candidate that doesn't have their ideas fleshed out. This is not something you make up as you go along. Even though I don't agree with a lot of it, at least Romney has a plan out there, and has given it thought, and has had a chance to tweak it (whether or not it's what he'll actually do once he's in office is another question entirely).

But for Perry to say "I've only been working on it for 8 weeks" is flabbergasting. How long have you been Governor? I'm sure you've thought about running for President for quite a while. It would be nice if you'd fleshed out your policy positions a bit more during that time.

Gov. Moonbeam sees the light

From an AP article over at Yahoo! Finance:

Gov. Jerry Brown will propose sweeping rollbacks to public employee pension benefits in California, including raising the retirement age to 67 for new employees who are not public safety workers and requiring state and local employees to pay more toward their retirement and health care, according to a draft of the plan obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press.

Color me shocked, but it definitely provides some vindication for the Scott Walkers and John Kasichs of the world.