Carolyn McKinney - Your most important vote this November is more local than you think

By Carolyn McKinney, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire

Contrary to what many pundits will tell you, the upcoming presidential election is not the most important decision facing New Hampshire voters this November.

It’s true; a change in the presidency would at least slow our nation’s march toward an all-powerful centralized government. Yet, despite a long series of political party fluctuations in the White House and Congress, Americans have experienced no real shift in direction—and I have no confidence that we will ever see a that shift from the federal level.

The people will only regain their liberty when they use the states’ inherent constitutional power to wrest back power from the federal government. Therefore, what really matters this November are the type of people we elect to the State Legislature and, just as important, the people we elect as New Hampshire’s county sheriffs. These people—and the sheriffs in particular—can change the direction, not just of the state, but also of the entire nation.

By design, county sheriffs are supreme law enforcement officers in American counties, and their number one duty is not to transport prisoners, as some pundits in New Hampshire would have you believe. Before anything else, a County Sheriff’s job as a peace officer is to protect and defend the constitutional rights of citizens in the county from all enemies, "foreign and domestic." Accordingly, county sheriffs in New Hampshire and in the other 49 states are America’s last defense against an out-of-control federal government, which seems to be increasingly determined to take away citizens’ constitutionally protected rights.

This fact is not just my opinion, but also the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Printz, Mack v. United States (1997), which overturned parts of the Brady Act of 1993, a gun-control law. Ravalli County Sheriff Jay Printz of Montana and Graham County Sheriff Richard Mack of Arizona brought the case when federal agents ordered them to help register guns. Rather than comply with the order under a misinterpretation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the two sheriffs challenged the unconstitutional law and won.

Important in the decision, writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said: "States are not subject to federal direction." He clarified that the Supremacy Clause does not make the U.S. government the supreme authority in the United States; rather, the Supremacy Clause makes the U.S. Constitution and all laws that abide by it the supreme law of the land.

Further, Scalia said that states and their subdivisions have an equal authority to enforce the U.S. Constitution within their jurisdictions: "Our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other," he wrote. Just in case his point wasn’t clear, Scalia quoted James Madison, Father of the Constitution, in Federalist 51: "The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the Supremacy, no more subject within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere."

It is the independent authority of the sheriff, within his county sphere, that can help protect citizens from abusive federal power—or abusive state power, for that matter. His role as a peace officer is to make sure that all citizens, regardless of their status or position, are treated equally under the law. The fact that the people elect their sheriff makes his position even more powerful, because the county sheriff is accountable only to the people he serves.

As examples, consider the Lemhi County Idaho Sheriff Brett Barslou’s move to organize 500 citizens in support of a rancher who had shot a gray wolf that killed one of his calves. The sheriff’s actions forced three armed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agents to back off their attempt to serve a warrant. Contemplate Sheriff Richard Mack’s support for a local board of supervisors within his Graham County Arizona jurisdiction. Mack forced the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to back off from a threat to fine the town $50,000 a day for rebuilding a washed-out bridge without the “required” 10-year environmental impact study. The town built the bridge that year, and the town paid no fines. Also note how sheriffs throughout the State of Wyoming have told federal agents they must get permission before they do anything within their various jurisdictions. 

Voters should take comfort in a long history of county sheriffs standing up for the Constitution, not just in our early history, but also in modern times. At least two candidates running for sheriff in 2012, Bradley Jardis in Coös County and Frank Szabo in Hillsborough County, fully understand the importance of the county sheriff role, and for that reason they should earn voters’ enthusiastic support.

Carol Shea-Porter - Our Government, Ourselves

While political discourse has taken a dive in terms of civility and substance, actually something far more sinister and frightening is occurring. There are people who are actually attacking the basic structure of our government and our faith in it.   A few are even talking openly about secession because they truly do not believe in our government and our way of life. (We have always had those people, but they were not politically powerful until now.) But most are being absolutely irresponsible, trying to foment—and gain from—a deeper anger.

In our past, most politicians for office publicly supported our system of government, and believed that we could stand together and solve severe problems. Candidates tried to inspire, or at least tried to be careful to attack the opponent or the platform, not our government itself.  That has changed. The attacks are damaging an already fragile trust, and many Americans and the world have responded by becoming increasingly convinced that America’s best days are behind us. Confidence and faith in our ability to solve our problems are absolutely essential if we are to move forward, but we have irresponsible politicians (and some media and special interest groups) tearing at that faith and trust.  Incredibly, a couple of them are actually running for President of the United States.

Here are some examples of how leaders in the past talked about our country and our problems.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt said at his First Inaugural, “This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper…The only thing we have to fear is fear itself…which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” It was a buoying remark, a call to hope and patriotism, helping people through the dark days of the Depression.  Remember George W. Bush’s talk to the nation after 9/11? “We have seen the state of our Union in the endurance of rescuers, working past exhaustion. We have seen the unfurling of flags, the lighting of candles, the giving of blood, the saying of prayers—in English, Hebrew, and Arabic. We have seen the decency of a loving and giving people …” On January 9, 1961, President-Elect John F. Kennedy said, “Today the eyes of all people are truly upon us—and our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state, and local, must be as a city upon a hill—constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities.”

Are these current politicians and influential public figures “aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities?”  One of New Hampshire’s members of Congress told the tea-party that the federal government was taking away all their individual freedoms.  And two tea-party Presidential candidates have also made inflammatory remarks about our government.  The Hill reported that Bachmann  “likened America to the sinking Titanic,” and said, “We have gangster government.”  Texas Governor Perry said, “When we came into the nation in 1845, we were a republic, we were a stand-alone nation…And one of the deals was, we can leave anytime we want. So we’re kind of thinking about that again.” This is not responsible leadership. These are outrageous comments, meant to denigrate our federal government. The interesting thing is that Michelle Bachmann has sought and received earmarks and Stimulus Act money from the “gangster government” (that would be US taxpayers) and Perry brags about all the jobs in Texas that actually came from United States Oil and United States defense dollars.

There are other reckless leaders. Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, got almost every single Republican in Congress to sign his no-tax pledge even though he was clear about his intention to hurt our ability to administer this great nation. “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

How can this great country recover and grow with this kind of attitude? How can we pay our bills and invest in technology, infrastructure, and medical research with this blind vision? How can we handle natural disasters like Katrina or attacks like 9/11 if we drown our government? How can we educate or defend ourselves, if we drown the major sources of government funding?  

Harry Truman said, “No government is perfect.” We the people have to keep striving, but we need leaders who encourage progress, not defeat, and confidence, not despair.

###

Former Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter represented New Hampshire’s First District from 2007-2011, she is seeking a third term in the November, 2012 election.  She wrote the proposal for and established a non-profit, social service agency, which continues to serve all ages.  She taught politics and history and is a strong supporter of Medicare and Social Security.

American Principles Project - Benko: Gold, the States, and Federal Monetary Policy

By: Ralph Benko
Senior Advisor, American Principles Project

Why are so many state legislators beginning to call for issuance of a form of gold money?

 The Constitution prohibits states from coining money but allows them make “gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts….” By prohibiting everything except “gold and silver Coin” the Constitution clearly contemplates this as legitimate.

 Legislators in a dozen states are looking at legislation about gold or silver-based currency, including, right now, Utah, South Carolina, Virginia and New Hampshire. States haven’t issued money for over a hundred years. So … why now? There is disgust by state legislators with the federal government’s promiscuously printing money. This reflects the views of those who wrote and adopted the United States Constitution.

 The transcript of the debates in the original Constitutional Convention shows the attitude of the Founders toward paper money was one of disgust. In debate one delegate, Roger Sherman, called for the insertion of an absolute prohibition against states issuing their own paper money.

Mr. Wilson and Mr. Sherman moved to insert after the words 'coin money' the words 'nor emit bills of credit, nor make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts' making these prohibitions absolute… 

Mr. Sherman thought this a "favourable" crisis for crushing paper money.

 The Founders voted to adopt Sherman’s “crushing” of state-based paper money.

 As for the federal government, the original draft of the Constitution included language permitting the federal government to issue unbacked paper money. The Founders objected strongly to this power. The objections were summed up by delegate Oliver Ellsworth:

Mr. Elsesworth thought this a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made, were now fresh in the public mind and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By witholding the power from the new Governt. more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost any thing else. Paper money can in no case be necessary. Give the Government credit, and other resources will offer. The power may do harm, never good.

 Those who wrote the Constitution decisively stripped the federal government of the power to issue inconvertible paper money. And stripped it stayed… until, temporarily, during the Civil War. Saving the Union was of transcendent importance. A strong constitutional argument exists for the legitimacy of paper money as an expedient. But it set a bad precedent.

"The American people are patient but we are not stupid.” 

Ralph Benko
Senior Advisor, American Principles Project

 For most of American history dollars were convertible into gold or sometimes silver. It is a 20th century innovation to have inconvertible money. FDR suspended domestic convertibility. And then… Richard Nixon’s 1971 suspension of the convertibility of the dollar into gold put the final nail into the dollar’s coffin. President Nixon announced this as a temporary suspension.

President Nixon made certain promises to America when he suspended convertibility of the dollar. August 15, 1971:

“I have directed Secretary Connally to suspend temporarily the convertibility of the dollar into gold ….

Now, what is this action--which is very technical--what does it mean for you?

Let me lay to rest the bugaboo of what is called devaluation.

If you want to buy a foreign car or take a trip abroad, market conditions may cause your dollar to buy slightly less. But if you are among the overwhelming majority of Americans who buy American-made products in America, your dollar will be worth just as much tomorrow as it is today.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Well. The dollar today is worth less than a quarter was worth in 1971.

Ralph Benko
Senior Advisor, 
American Principles Project

The American people are patient but we are not stupid. We have noticed the steady erosion of the dollar’s buying power, that fact that our dollars are worth 80% less than the day of “the Nixon shock.” We have noted the bankruptcy of the assurances we were given.

Yet Washington has been curiously unresponsive to the suffering brought by its failed promise. Why? Washington has itself been a primary beneficiary of monetary depreciation.

The federal government spent $15 billion from 1789 – 1900. Not $15 billion a year. $15 billion cumulatively. Uncle Sam will spend $10 billion a day in 2011. The federal government spends more every two days than it did altogether for more than America’s first century. Although these sums are not adjusted for inflation they give a correct impression of the magnitude of the change from what our Founders set forth and our early statesmen delivered.

How does Washington get its hands on so much money? Three ways. Taxing us, on which it is maxed out. Borrowing — deficits — to which there is a growing massive resistance. And there is a third and even more pernicious way: printing dollars. Washington prints money – such as Chairman Bernanke’s massive $800B+ “quantitative easing.” Wildly printing money erodes the value of the dollar. It will damage every American’s hard-earned savings.

The power to print money at whim is wrong.

It is toxic to our personal and national wellbeing.

And it is unconstitutional.

So legislators in twelve states are exploring gold-based currency. It is reprehensible for national elites to deride those who are doing so. Whatever objections one might have to the mechanisms being considered the impulse is legitimate and even noble. State legislators are challenging the federal abuse of an unconstitutional power, challenging the issuance of unhinged paper money.

Federal officials should take these state initiatives as a cue. Federal officials have sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Let them take their oath seriously and restore the convertibility of dollars to gold.

T-Paw Op-Ed: "Repealing ObamaCare, State by State"

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/18/repealing-obmacare-state-by-state/

Repealing Obamacare, state by state

BY TIM PAWLENTY,

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2010

After a historic election reflecting six in ten voters wanting to repeal Obamacare, the question now facing conservatives is how.

As long as President Barack Obama holds his veto pen, undoing this misguided piece of legislation will not be easy. But we can make progress. While Congress takes important steps toward eventual repeal, governors can use their authority to stop or delay implementation of Obamacare. It must be fought not only in Washington but in state capitols.

In Minnesota, I issued an executive order directing state agencies to reject participation in Obamacare unless required by law or consistent with existing state policy. I also joined the federal lawsuit that challenges Obamacare’s individual mandate and invokes the 10th Amendment in defense of states’ rights and a proper view of federalism. Newly elected Republican governors should consider taking similar actions.

Fighting Obamacare, however, is not enough. Merely restoring the status quo of skyrocketing costs, narrowing access, and structural dysfunction would be a mistake. Our health care system needs to be more effective and affordable. Reforms should feature timeless conservative principles applied to the challenges and opportunities of our time.

The great tragedy of Obamacare is not only that we know it will fail, but that we have not implemented health care reforms that we know will succeed.

In recent years, Minnesotans have embraced innovative, conservative health care reform. We focused on improving quality and containing cost, not just expanded access. We made it easier for consumers to use HSA plans (Minnesota is second in the nation on HSAs). We provided online cost and quality information for the 100 most common health services. We passed tort reform to curb frivolous lawsuits. And we engaged the private sector as a partner, not as an opponent.

Today, Minnesotans enjoy one of the finest health care systems in the country. We continue to have some of the healthiest people in the nation and one of the lowest rates of uninsured. We have learned through trial and error what works, and we know what doesn’t.

We know that we need to give people more power over the use of their health care dollars and decisions. Today, six of every seven health care dollars is spent by someone other than the person receiving the care. Health care today is like an open bar. When someone else is paying the bill, people behave differently. For decades, this open bar approach has encouraged wasteful spending by individuals and providers rather than a sober assessment of costs and benefits. But our struggling economy and deficit-ridden budgets are flashing warning lights that closing time is near.

Obamacare was a missed opportunity to fix this systemic problem and the new law only made matters worse by taking control away from people. In fact, the new law allows the government to eventually control over half of all health care spending. True reform must turn our government-run system right side up, giving patients control over their health care dollars and decisions, while subjecting providers and insurers to the competitive forces of a real market.

Giving Americans more choice, ownership and responsibility will bring about greater efficiency and lower costs. Making this shift from the government to purchasers will not happen overnight, but here are some ideas for Congress to get us moving in the right direction.

Congress should change the tax code to end the bias against people who purchase their own health insurance. People who buy insurance through their employer get a tax break on the value of the benefits. Individual and group purchasers should be treated the same.

Congress should allow individuals to shop across state lines for health insurance. Doing so would dramatically increase insurance choices and cut costs through better competition.

Most importantly, Congress should back off and give the states latitude. If states can demonstrate a better way to reach policy goals, Congress should permit states to do what works best. A one-size-fits-all approach has not and will never work in a country as diverse as ours. This is what federalism is all about.

Obamacare is one of the most misguided pieces of legislation in the modern history of our country. A 2,000-page, trillion-dollar, politically driven takeover of one-sixth of our economy, Obamacare is both too complicated to succeed and too broken to repair. Voters this year sent a strong message that they want it stopped. The newly elected Republican governors gathering in San Diego this week have an opportunity to do just that.

Pawlenty is in his second term as governor of Minnesota. He is vice chair of the Republican Governors Association, which is meeting this week in San Diego



My Questions for the 2010 Candidates

Dear NH Insider,  

As a NH voter, I compiled this list of questions to send to the 2010 NH House and Senate candidates.     I would like to share it with all NH voters, and I challenge ALL NH candidates to answer my questions in detail - posting their responses on NHInsider.com for voters to read.   

Let's show candidates that they will need more than sound bites to get out the vote in their favor this November!  

Sincerely, Kylie of Nashua    

NH 2010 Candidates Questionaire

 

1. Many candidates running in the New Hampshire 2010 elections state they are "for spending cuts".  If you are such a candidate, how, specifically, would you propose to cut spending at the federal level?  Please state the names of budgets that would be cut, and give a brief justification for each choice.

 2. How does your policy of cutting spending square with your desire to improve education in the public schools? 

 3. Are you aware that the United States imports 80% of its seafood from Southeast Asia, yet the FDA only inspects 2% of this seafood before it enters the United States?  This has led to port-shopping by importers to get around what inspection stations do exist, and - by extension - serious safety issues with our seafood. The FDA states it does not have enough money to properly staff its inspection stations.  If elected how would you address this issue?

 4. Recent studies show that there may be a link between health problems and food-related additives and chemicals.  Still, many officials and lobbyists push for no regulation of these additives and chemicals until further proof of their harmful nature is available.  How much proof of harm would you require before you would be willing to regulate food additives, chemicals or genetic manipulation? 

 5. When George W. Bush was President he began the practice of using ethics waivers in order to declare persons with conflicts of interest fit to serve in government policy-influencing capacities.  President Obama has continued this policy, and used it to his advantage as well.  If elected, would you oppose the use of ethics waivers and fight to cleanse both our high government positions (such as Secretary of the Treasury) and our regulatory agencies of conflicts of interest?

 6. What is your stance on US involvement in foreign wars, like those in Iraq and Afghanistan?  Would you support US involvement in an additional war with Iran?  Why or why not?

 7. Politicians of every political affiliation state their opposition to the banker bailout.  Yet, many politicians have received money in election cycles past and present, from huge corporations - including large Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse and JP Morgan.  If you (Bill Binnie, Paul Hodes, Kelly Ayotte, Jim Bender, Katrina Swett, Richard Ashooh, and Robert Bestani) received large sums of money in this election cycle from corporations that benefitted strongly from receipt of the bailout funds, how will you resist their lobbyists calls for continued bailouts, or deregulation of the financial industry once elected?  Do you support an audit of the Federal Reserve?  If not, why not?

8. Relatedly, what is your stance on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (which was a repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933)?  If elected, would you vote to reinstate Glass-Steagall, in order to allow the United States to reduce its massive deficit? (Glass-Steagall would separate speculative from commercial banking, making it possible to write off the bad speculative debt create by the TBTF banks, and passed on to American taxpayers by the TARP bailout.) 

9. What is your opinion on the methods currently being used to deal with the environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico? 

10. What, if anything, would you have added or removed from the recently-passed Financial and Health Care reform bills?

11.  Name two pieces of legislation that have come before the 111th Congress which you would have co-sponsored, and tell us why.

12.  Finally, New Hampshire has a large number of voters who are strong supporters of the 10th Amendment.  What statement would you like to make to these voters?