In emergencies, private citizens do what government cannot

The sense of panic that preceded the blizzard of ‘10 has faded and given way to a sullen frustration here in Sussex County. Many stores are sold out of such items as snow shovels and boots, not to mention milk, eggs, bread, and toilet paper. Power is still out in some zip codes, and comes and goes in others. Driveways are snowed in by piles of icy snow chunks, and all that is left for snowphobic Sussex Countians to do is sit at home and consume their stockpiles of food. Given the products of choice, one must suppose that many families are dining on French toast, bread pudding, and the like.

If there were any lessons to be learned this weekend, they are:

1. As the Boy Scout motto states, “be prepared.” Flashlights, batteries, generators, bottled water, canned food, and a deck of cards are useful in a number of emergency situations, particularly snowstorms.
2. Instruments of the state, like DelDOT, cannot be relied upon to the extent that family, friends, and neighbors can be. Those who depend on the government in emergency situations will be disappointed sooner or later.

Which is not to say that DelDOT employees are not doing an excellent job; they are, as are the National Guard, utility companies, and emergency personnel. But no government agency can replace caring individuals, nor do the power and resources of the state release us of our responsibilities to one another.

The road that I live on was plowed by a neighboring farmer on a bulldozer, who gave of his time and gasoline to clear the way for the benefit of local drivers. He did so at nighttime, risking hazardous conditions and potential accidents, in the unpaid service of his fellow citizens. The same has happened in communities across the county; most secondary roads are passable solely due to the labor of individual citizens. If not for their efforts, many would still be snowed in. During the storm, volunteer firefighters checked on the elderly in some towns. In future situations like this, a privately organized militia could be of great value to our community.

But we’re not out of the woods yet. Another storm approaches, one that could dump another foot of snow. I urge capable individuals to check on neighbors, particularly the elderly. Simple tasks like clearing off vehicles and shovelling pathways can be very difficult, even dangerous, for them. Residents lacking power will, no doubt, be exceedingly grateful for a thermos of hot coffee, or an invitation to use a shower. Batteries for radios can help to break the monotony (92.7 WGMD’s coverage throughout the storm and its aftermath has been invaluable) and those lacking wood-burning stoves will be thankful for loaned non-electric space heaters. There are countless ways to assist those that might be facing a tougher time than we, ourselves, are.

True; we cannot do everything. But let each and every one of us do everything we can.

A Lesson for Dems from Delaware’s “Beau” Biden (excerpt)

The following is an excerpt from a recent column for Liberty Features Syndicate, which I contribute to on a weekly basis. Columns are provided exclusively to editors for a week or so, which is why I do not immediately post them on this blog.

The Democrats’ future in the U.S. Senate looks even gloomier following Delaware Attorney General Joseph R. “Beau” Biden’s announcement on January 25 that he would not run for the seat vacated by his father, Vice President Joseph R. “Joe” Biden, Jr. Democrats at the national level, unnerved by a recent series of Republican victories in special elections, had looked to the younger Biden as their best hope for keeping both of the First State’s Senate seats in Democratic hands. The refusal of the vice president’s son to run for Senate in the nation’s second-smallest state says a lot about the current political climate.

Delawareans have been voting for (or against) Bidens since 1969, when 26-year-old Joe Biden ran for county council and won, only to run for U.S. Senate two years later, bypassing the usual political ladder of state offices and scoring a tremendous upset victory over Republican incumbent J. Caleb Boggs. In 2006, his son ran for state attorney general, successfully relying on family name recognition to defeat an opponent that was significantly better qualified. Of course, most followers of national-level politics probably have one question about the goings-on of Delaware: Who the heck cares?

The Obama administration cares. So does the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and Democrats across the country who see their Senate majority slipping away, one seat at a time. The fact is, Biden was their only hope to defeat Delaware’s Republican candidate, current U.S. Representative Michael Castle, a former two-term governor whose moderate status has earned him nine House terms in a strongly Democratic state. Barring a miracle for Democrats, Castle will occupy a seat held by their party since 1972. Continue reading at LibertyFeatures.com.

Notes on this week’s Laurel Star (2/4/10)

This week’s paper should have been named the Laurel Referendum, not the Laurel Star.

1. The front page story, “Referendum will come down to a February 10 vote,” reviews information about the upcoming Laurel School District referendum. In addition to stressing the necessity of the referendum, the article includes an opposing view from Mr. Ed Carmine, who focuses on the tax burden. “…what I see proposed here in Laurel is fundamentally unfair.” I have reserved judgment when commenting on this story, but will state that I believe it is extremely unfair for renters or stay-at-home college students to be permitted to vote in the referendum. It’s very easy to vote “yes” for something when one will not have to pay for it. It is my opinion that referendums should be decided by property owners.

2. On page 13 we find a full page propaganda ad for the referendum. A photo features the superintendent, a teacher, and several children (aww). Specifically, the ad encourages 18-year-old high school students “to exercise their democratic right to vote in America.” Funny; I wonder how many of those students pay property taxes. Even so, the advertisement will probably be very effective.

3. A brief piece on page 35 describes “Urinetown, The Musical,” which will be performed by the Possum Point Players on several dates in April. It is described as a “satirical comedy;” one of the ideas satirized is capitalism. How very, very American!

4. On page 51, “Inmates get second chance at life” describes the Second Chance program at the Sussex Community Corrections Center Work Release Unit. Its goal is to ease the transition from incarceration to freedom. It’s nice to read a positive piece about prisoners who are making sincere efforts to transform their lives and become productive members of society.

5. On page 53, Virginia “Mike” Barton makes the case for the school referendum, again. I find it to be interesting that the column is entitled “Vote for Laurel students,” not “Vote for higher taxes” or “Vote for new school buildings.” Either would be accurate, but the first provokes a positive emotional reaction. When a controversial issue is to be decided, one of the most effective ways to influence the outcome is by tying it to the welfare of children.

6. On the Opinion page, we read an editorial encouraging citizens to “make an informed decision.” But with phrases like “…a no vote will send the $101.4 million in state funds to another district” and “This question for voters remains: Am I willing to sacrifice if need be to provide a quality school environment for our children?” the editorial seems to be less about encouraging an informed decision by explaining both sides of the issue (there is legitimate opposition) and more of yet another biased push for “yes” votes. There are also three letters to the editor concerning the same topic.

7. Vital Stats informs us that “the [federal] debt increased by more than $48.5 billion” in the last week. Thanks, Uncle Sam. I wonder who will have to pay for that?

Coons “run against Washington” strategy is misleading and amateurish

Everyone knew that Chris Coons (D-Wilmington) would face a difficult race against Mike Castle (R-Wilmington) for U.S. Senate. Now that he has officially announced his candidacy, Coons seems to be making it even more difficult by embracing a campaign strategy which is, frankly, amateurish.

“People here in Delaware are hurting, and Congress has failed to deliver the change we voted for in 2008. I’m running to bring energy and a new approach to Washington.”

Citizens in Delaware are governed by Democrats at the state level, and represented and governed by Democrats at the federal level. Whether one agrees with that party’s platform or not, it is still a bit naive to pretend that a Democratic candidate in 2010 is anything less than a bid to perpetuate the status quo. Moderate though he may be, Castle is conservative enough to threaten the administration’s hold on Congress; Coons’s run can only be seen as an attempt by Democrats to hold on to as much of the government as possible.

Is that wrong? No, not really. Political parties instinctively try to hold on to seats and support their respective agendas regardless of the consequences. But it’s certainly wrong for Coons to masquerade as a modern-day Mr. Smith and feign a run against the establishment; if Mr. Coons goes to Washington, it will be to assist Democratic lawmakers with their present agenda.

Unless he has overestimated the number of Democrats who are dissatisfied with the current administration and who would truly see him as a potential agent of change, his strategy is utterly baseless. Even if it is based on faulty numbers or unreasonable expectations, it is still weak. His party is the majority in Washington, and therefore a run against Washington is also a run against the Democratic Party.

But Castle is already running against the Democratic Party. Despite his years in office, he is a member of the minority party, and can accurately say that he is opposed to the status quo. For Coons to make the same claim should ring hollow to anyone paying attention to U.S. politics.

State reactions to federal mandates could turn ugly

Many states have a strange view of the role of their federal representatives. In both the Senate and the House, their job is to fight, cut deals, stall when necessary, and generally do anything in their power to bring home federal funding for pet projects. They are reelected term after term for their ability to bring home the bacon. This role is certainly not based on the Constitution, and doesn’t do nearly so much good at the state level as some like to pretend.

Even worse, some senators and congressmen believe it is their right and duty to whip the states into line from Washington, using mandates and federal funding (or the withholding thereof) as tools to bully state legislatures into doing their will. Officials from New York, Florida, and California have a say in matters pertinent to Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia; not only relating to matters of national security and war, but issues like education, environmental regulations, and health care.

One of the problems with the proposed federal health care takeover, which is stalled at the present, is its very nature. The federal government’s influence on health care should be, at least according to the Constitution, minimal. Fortunately, a number of states recognize this, and are continuing to fight the federal effort even as it looks like it might not occur, or at least not in the way originally intended.

According to the American Legislative Exchange Council, one of many limited government advocacy groups, thirty-five states have state constitutional amendments in the works which would ban federal health insurance mandates. It is their way of putting a foot down and saying to officials at the federal level, “Enough. Not here; this is our state, not yours.”

The trouble is that federal laws supercede state and local laws, and a conflict would probably result in a Supreme Court case. If the federal government continues to push, there could be disastrous consequences. Secession is a word already on the tips of many Texans’ tongues, and other independently-minded states could cause significant problems for the progressive big government agenda.

One must wonder, how popular will Congress be if it has to order federal troops into a state capital to enforce compliance with one of its unpopular federal mandates? God help us if we reach that point. For now, federal lawmakers play their game, while state lawmakers play another. What happens when the two clash is anyone’s guess, but it certainly won’t be pretty.

ObamaNet: The Coming Online Censorship (excerpt)

The following is an excerpt from a recent column for Liberty Features Syndicate, which I contribute to on a weekly basis. Columns are provided exclusively to editors for a week or so, which is why I do not immediately post them on this blog.

Perhaps the Obama administration and Democratic majority overestimated their ability to sell the American people on proposed radical changes to our political and economic systems, as the federal health care takeover has ground to a near halt, and an increasing number of administration officials are being exposed for far-left statists with a sinister, unconstitutional agenda.

But those in power show no signs of being bothered by something as trivial as the will of the people, and could very well continue down a planned path of disaster, moving on from health care to tackle a vital instrument of free speech. ObamaCare has turned into a nightmarish legislative struggle; will ObamaNet be the next?

Most people have never heard of Cass Sunstein, despite conservative alarm at his 2009 appointment to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The Harvard-educated regulatory czar has, in addition to proposing other ludicrous ideas, called for a hunting ban in the U.S., claimed that exposure to sunlight is unhealthy, and proposed that Americans celebrate April 15 as a sort of tax holiday. As if those aren’t enough, Sunstein is also an advocate of a federally enforced Internet “fairness doctrine.” Continue reading at LibertyFeatures.com.

Privatize NASA’s duties for efficiency, innovation

The Obama administration plans to pass some of NASA’s duties on to private companies, as part of the new budget, in a move to save tax dollars. Companies will be allowed “to build, launch and operate spacecraft for NASA and others,” according to the Associated Press. While the motivation for this policy change is, no doubt, purely financial, it will nonetheless benefit space exploration efforts, which have been stuck in a rut since the dramatic moon landing over forty years ago.

Of course, space missions are outrageously expensive. No president or other elected official can safely propose raising taxes for the sole purpose of funding, say, a manned mission to Mars. Such an incredible achievement would be meaningless to the masses, whose small world often ends within a hundred or so miles of home. But by allowing the private sector to participate, spacecraft construction and launches will become more efficient, and that spark of innovation which always seems to be missing from government programs might result in new and improved technologies.

The plans, so far, aren’t particularly exciting; astronauts will continue to work at the International Space Station through 2020. But the possibilities of privately-run space endeavors are, quite literally, endless. The only obstacles to projects such as a moon base (which could have military significance), an oupost on Mars, and even farther forays into the outer reaches of the solar system, is cost. We have the technology. It’s simply too expensive for our government to handle, particularly during a recession and approaching debt crisis. But a private company doesn’t have to worry about reelection; if it can earn or raise the money, it can pour all of its resources into a project, whether the goal is to earn profits or conduct scientific research.

Who knows what might come of private involvement? Commercial flights into space for the wealthy? Space tourism? The boundaries of space are limited, at the present, only by our imaginations. Like explorers of centuries past who feared to sail beyond the horizon, into unmapped regions where mythical nightmares were believed to walk, we who live in the first years of the 21st century have a frontier to reckon with. Like those explorers, our dreams are tempered by financial and technological realities. And, like those explorers, we will eventually succeed.

Politically speaking, it is almost always a good thing for the federal government to turn a duty over to the private sector. And, with the right combination of funding and genius, the results could be truly astronomical.

An Obama-Brown basketball summit? Maybe!

The recently elected Republican from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, has made it known that he would like to play a game of hoops with President Obama on the White House court. “…I think it would be a good way to kind of break the ice and show the camaraderie that he’s talking about. So, we can have our meeting on the basketball court instead of the caucus room.“

Is it likely to happen? It’s difficult to say. A “basketball summit” would not be so very different from last summer’s “beer summit” between the president, the scholar, and the cop. It would be beneficial to Obama, both in reinforcing his connection with the average American, and in bridging the partisan divide. At a time when Obama’s appearance in local special elections has been called “the kiss of death,” and Democrats are growing increasingly nervous about the approaching November election, it certainly can’t hurt Obama to put up a friendly front, and with it, some lay-ups. A one-on-one or two-on-two game might even win over some Republicans, and is certain to be attractive to young and future voters as well.

Will Obama accept the hoops challenge? We’ll have to wait and see. For now, the ball is in his court.

Tea Party Nation misses the point

The unofficial members of the tea party movement belong to the working and middle classes. The chief appeal of the movement, which is based on ideology rather than financial assets or party connections, is that it answers to no singular authority. There is no more a leader of the tea partiers than there was a leader of the punk rockers three decades ago. But with Tea Party Nation setting itself up in a position of semi-leadership, and selling $350 tickets for Sarah Palin’s speech at next month’s National Tea Party Convention, its organizers seem to have missed the point.

The tea party movement is often characterized incorrectly as a sort of third party (when it’s not being referred to with immature sexual slurs). This is not the reality. It is comprised of members of several parties (Libertarian, Constitution, Republican, Democrat, etc.) who disagree on many issues, but stand on common ground in opposing the increasing size and power of the federal government, and advocating spending cuts, lower taxes, and adherence to the Constitution. It is attractive to conservatives, but the issues it seeks to address were also problems of the Bush administration, which is why the movement must be considered a right-libertarian movement, rather than strictly conservative.

Sherry Phillips, co-organizer of Tea Party Nation, sent an email to its members criticizing the American Liberty Alliance, American Majority, and Campaign For Liberty, claiming that the lack of support for the so-called convention is a result of the groups’ apathy or outright hostility. In doing so, she alienates numerous existing and potential supporters, and burns a number of bridges.

Sarah Palin has confirmed that she will still be making her speech, though other conservative luminaries have pulled out or declined to participate. But what’s the point? The high ticket prices will exclude the kind of people that make up the heart and soul of the tea party movement. In restricting participation to those able to afford expensive tickets, Tea Party Nation sets itself up as disturbingly similar to the common stereotype of “rich Republicans,” which, factually speaking, is as false as the bizarre notion that the modern Democrat Party fights for the working man, but is nonetheless believed by many Americans, particularly in urban areas.

It is inevitable that the GOP will seek to channel tea party dissatisfaction into the election of Republican candidates, if only because the tea party movement is a grass roots reaction against the present administration’s policies. But, if the movement is to survive, it must mark a clear boundary between its ideological activism and the similar, yet entirely separate and sometimes conflicting, Republican Party interests. In many ways, the Republican Party works for its own future. The tea partiers work for the future of America.

Fortunately, Tea Party Nation speaks only for itself, and has no control over tea partiers as a group. But, given its recent mistakes, it just might have killed its own chances of having significant influence within the movement. Not to mention the upcoming primary season and general election.

Menu bill is nanny state legislation; just say “no”

I sometimes wonder how the students attending the University of Delaware in Newark manage to live on their own. After all, life is very dangerous, and most people cannot be trusted to think for themselves. With each decision lies a potential disaster. Suppose someone trips over a stone while walking unattended and breaks his neck? Or watches a biased news program and develops incorrect political views? Or eats at one of the town’s chain restaurants and gains weight?

Fortunately for our fragile, unthinking Blue Hens, they live in a county full of politicians ready to solve these sorts of problems at the state level. One such is state Senator David Sokola, D-Newark, who has sponsored a bill (now passed) that would force chain restaurants (specifically, establishments with twenty or more locations in the U.S.) to provide nutritional information about their food. How pleasant and thoughtful! Consumers would never think a greasy, juicy burger might be high in calories. Now, with the wisdom and power of government, we will be protected from our nutritional ignorance.

If there is a good side to this legislation, it’s that it only targets chains, and will not foist yet another financial burden onto small businesses. And, I suppose, it’s a good step forward for anyone who wishes to increase the role of government in our daily lives. I have no such wish.

The menu bill has two goals.

1. To discourage consumers from purchasing fast food. The idea is that if they see all of those calories represented numerically, they’ll eat elsewhere. Or at least buy a fruit cup or salad. Supposedly, this will result in weight loss.
2. To use the power of the market (ironically) to force chains to alter their menus. If customers start eating at restaurants with healthier menus, it will force those with unhealthy menus to reduce the number of calories and unhealthy ingredients in each menu item, right?

Perhaps. But these goals, which seem logical and rational enough at first glance, contradict two truisms that are even more logical and rational.

1. It is not the government’s role, at the federal, state, or local level, to discourage consumers from purchasing any legal product, whether it’s a pack of cigarettes, gas-guzzling SUV, gallon of grain alcohol, or a Big Mac. When government attempts to make choices for consumers, or influence those choices through legislative action, in the interest of health or happiness, it oversteps its bounds. Like a mean-spirited pitbull, government is not satisfied with its boundaries, and claws at its cage. If it escapes it will almost certainly, eventually, do harm. At that point it will be too late to return it to its cage; it will have to be put to sleep.

2. It is not the government’s role to regulate privately owned businesses in this way. I say it is ironic for the menu bill to rely on the power of the market to effect healthier menus, because if government truly understood the power of the market, it would get the heck out of the way. If one chain, like Subway, chooses to provide its nutritional information, and another does not, it will eventually result in health-conscious consumers choosing to eat there, while those who don’t really care about calories and saturated fat will continue to eat at the less healthy establishment. A lack of nutritional information will not dissuade them; it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that most fast food is unhealthy. This is precisely why lawsuits claiming that “McDonald’s made me fat! I didn’t know I would gain three hundred pounds and develop a heart condition from eating every meal there!” are, or should be, frivolous. But I digress.

Do we have politicians in New Castle County who truly do not understand the proper role of government? They call us “Slower Lower,” but I begin to question their intellect. It is strange to think that any individual would think himself qualified to serve in public office without having read the writings of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and other advocates of limited government, who helped to create a brilliant legal system intended to operate upon the accurate premise that less government is better. Our present-day politicians are like amateur painters, looking upon the Mona Lisa and saying, “I can fix it! I can make it better! Fetch my dollar store watercolor set!”

Even more disturbing; one of the chief objections to the menu bill has been that a federal mandate will be passed eventually, so Delaware might as well wait. Senator Tom Carper proposed the Labeling Education and Nutrition Act in 2008, which is now part of the infamous health care reform bill. This is even worse than Delaware’s menu bill. It is bad not only for all of the same reasons, but because it would infringe upon states’ rights, overstepping the clearly established boundaries of the Constitution. The federal government has no say whatsoever in this matter, and no twisted interpretation of the “commerce clause,” or any other vague provision, can change that.

Returning to Dover, failure to provide nutrition facts would result in a monetary fine. Of course. More money for the state. State Senator Sokola’s new menu bill passed the state Senate, and is expected to be considered in the House sometime this spring.

Let us hope that this overreaching legislation is voted down; not because it is a sensational, passion-provoking issue, but because it is yet another small step in our government’s never-ending quest to increase its own power and interfere in matters better left to private businesses and individuals. Both restaurant owners and consumers can think for themselves. Big Brother’s assistance is neither wanted nor needed.

When it comes to such efforts, a knee-jerk negative reaction is appropriate. Just say “no” to the nanny state, for surely, once we begin walking down that path (which in so many ways, we are already on) there is no end. There is no point at which the government says, “Okay! We’ve passed enough laws and regulations! Paradise is achieved!” No. Each generation of politicians will see their constituents less as intelligent, capable individuals, and more as children or sheep, fit only to be coddled and herded in a government-approved direction. I envision, one day, perhaps a century from now, a society where each citizen has his own government-assigned drone or imbedded microchip, monitored 24/7 by the omniscient state. Total protection. Total decision-making. Total control.

Sounds far-fetched, I suppose. But I have a feeling that, one hundred years ago, Americans would have thought the idea of government imposing such requirements on privately owned eateries to be far-fetched, too.