CRAZY REMARKS BY PASTOR WILL HURT OBAMA

Posted 5/9/08

Obama must be reading “The Right Stuff” or his own plummeting poll numbers in key swing states. A couple of weeks ago I wrote that I hoped Obama would keep standing behind the crazy comments of his “pastor” and continue his own comments about people in small towns in the Midwest being “bitter” and “clinging to their religion and guns” in order to help out John McCain's bid for president. However, last week Obama finally chose to denounce his “pastor.”

The critical issue is not the crazy things that Obama's “pastor” is saying. (E.g., Obama's “pastor” has claimed that AIDS was created by white people to kill black people.) The troubling issue is the mission statement of Obama's “church.” Part of the mission statement of the “church,” which you can read right off the church's website, is “to become agents of change for God who is not pleased with America's economic mal-distribution!”

Let me repeat that. The focus of this “church” is not on addressing the eternal salvation of its members and all people through faith in Christ Jesus through grace. The focus of this so-called “church” is on correcting “America's economic mal-distribution.”

This is a central theme for Obama and many national Democrats. They want to take money from you and me and give it to someone who doesn't work for a living. This is more than a “Robin Hood” strategy of taking from “the rich and giving to the poor.” There are not enough “rich” people to sustain all their “wealth redistribution” schemes. So, to make this re-distribution of wealth possible, Obama (and Clinton for that matter) plan to raise taxes on ordinary working people so they can give that money to someone else.

So, while the inflammatory remarks of Obama's “pastor” are entertaining (or frightening) clips for talk radio, the real issue is that the mission of Obama and his “church” is to correct “America's economic mal-distribution.”

If the attention of voters in the swing states is directed to these socialistic or even communistic wealth redistribution plans, these voters will vote for McCain or stay home. Either way, they are Democrat votes that Obama will not receive. The problem is that the media attention has been on the crazy things Obama's “pastor” has been saying rather than the express mission statement of Obama's “church.”

Obama's national poll numbers are fairly steady. However, national poll numbers are not the issue. The Republican nominee for president will not likely win New York or California for many years to come. Likewise, the Democrat nominee for president will not likely win in the South or the mountain-west or western plains. The critical issue is the poll numbers in Missouri, Ohio, Florida and similar swing states. Right now the “bitter” comments about people clinging to their “religion and guns” and the crazy things being said by Obama's “pastor” are driving down Obama's poll numbers in these critical swing states.

The impact of these statements is also evident in the endorsement of Hillary Clinton by Congressman Ike Skelton, who represents the Fourth Congressional District of Missouri, basically an area across the middle of Missouri stretching in a swath that begins just south of Kansas City to a little bit north of Springfield and from the western border of Missouri to a little more than halfway across the state. Skelton said he is backing Clinton “because of her support in rural Missouri, her commitment to national security, and her dedication to our men and women in uniform.”

Skelton also likely endorsed Clinton because the things Obama and his “pastor” are saying are offensive to the constituents in his mostly small town Midwest district.

(James Thomas is a leader in local Republican politics. Reach him at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)

ABOUT THOSE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS

Posted 5/2/08

In 1994 campaign finance limits were passed in Missouri. These limits restrict the amount of political contributions that can be collected by a candidate for elected offices in Missouri (federal offices have their own campaign finance laws). These limits have been adjusted for inflation over the years. Therefore the limits are now $325 per person for a state representative race, $675 per person for a state senate race and $1,350 per person for a state-wide race.

A political party committee can contribute approximately 10 times the limit to candidates for each election (the primary and general). So, a political party committee can contribute $3,350 to state representative candidates, $6,725 to state senate candidates and $13,450 for state-wide candidates. A political party committee may also make and “in kind” contribution of this amount to candidates. (The amounts are different if the candidate does not have a primary opponent).

Other political offices have similar limits based upon population. The limits for Platte County offices are equal to the limits on state representative races. To run city-wide in Kansas City you would be subject to the state-wide limits.

In 2006 the Missouri General Assembly decided to do away with dollar limits on political contributions. The elimination of the limits was tied to a prohibition on raising money while the General Assembly was in session. This prohibition was correctly held to be unconstitutional by the Missouri Supreme Court. However, in reaching this conclusion the Missouri Supreme Court incorrectly reached a determination that the removal of contribution limits was so tied to this unconstitutional prohibition on raising money during the legislative sessions that it threw out the removal of contribution limits.

Recent proposals have been made to do away with campaign contribution limits. This makes the most sense. What we need are no contribution limits, but quicker and clearer disclosures. For example, in my capacity as deputy treasurer for several committees, I give weekly reports to the campaign team on all of the money coming in and going out for the week. It would not be hard to convert this internal weekly report to a weekly report that is electronically filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission. This way the public can easily trace who is giving money to a particular candidate and how much they are giving.

There are proposals to restrict contributions from political party committees to the same limits that apply to individuals. I am adamantly opposed to such proposals. This is bad policy. The whole purpose of political party committees is to elect candidates. When done correctly, politics is a team sport. Political party committees should be free to spend as much money as they want to elect their slate of candidates. If political parties are subject to restrictions on how much they can spend their role is neutralized. Without the involvement of political parties the campaigns can become individual candidate free-for-alls.

The truth is that the Platte County Republican Party does not typically give large contributions to our local candidates. Instead, we generally use the money we raise to do things to help our local candidates. These helpful things include things like operating the party headquarters, funding Election Day door hangers and maintaining databases of registered voters and their party preferences and issue preferences. These are far more beneficial to our candidates than giving them a few hundred dollars a piece. However, the party should not be restricted in making monetary or in-kind contributions of larger amounts if the party wants to do so.

There is one good thing about political contribution limits: I can write a check for $325 to a candidate for county office or $1,350 to a candidate for state-wide office and not be able to give any more. This is contrary to the Freedom of Speech principles of the First Amendment, but it is nice for my wallet.

(Email James Thomas at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)

GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE ANSWER

Posted 4/25/08

Two weeks ago my firm sponsored a table for an event for The Children's Place, an organization that works with children who are abused or neglected. The keynote speaker was Liz Murray.

Liz began her story with her experiences as an eight year old child. Both of Liz's parents were drug addicts. The first of the month would come. The check from the government would arrive. This was an exciting family event.

The family would go down to one of those rip off check cashing businesses because they did not have a bank account. They would take the proceeds of the check and troop off to an apartment building where Liz and her slightly older sister would wait outside while their parents would go upstairs to buy drugs. Then the family would take what little money they had left and go to the grocery store. The problem is that whatever groceries they bought would have to last all month. Their purchases were usually not enough to last a week. So Liz often went hungry.

Liz's teachers would just pass her through each grade level. The family services bureaucrats came to Liz's home, but took no action. Liz's mother became ill and went for a long stay in the hospital. Liz's father could not handle the pressure and started living at a homeless shelter. Liz started living on the streets and quit going to school. After a long illness, Liz's mother died.

After her mother died, Liz tried to go back to school. She interviewed several places and was rejected. Then she met a kind teacher who reached out to her and set high standards for her. He pushed her to take a double course load and complete the high school course work in two years. She did this while keeping her homelessness a secret from the kind teacher and the rest of the school.

As she was completing her course work, the kind teacher encouraged her to apply to Harvard. She did and was accepted. Her homelessness was still not known to her teacher. Liz applied for a New York Times scholarship. As part of her application, she was required to write an essay that told the story of what adversities she had overcome. Obviously it would be difficult to even make up a story more compelling than Liz's story. Upon awarding her the scholarship, the New York Times published a story about Liz. Suddenly her secret was out. The outpouring of support in response to Liz's story was amazing. Anonymous donors began bringing gifts of food, clothes and money to the school. Some direct gifts were given to Liz and her sister to provide them a place to live and food to eat.

This spring, Liz will graduate from Harvard. She hopes to keep sharing her story with others. The interesting point is that she does not feel bitterness towards her parents for their addiction. She also does not tell her story from the perspective of pulling herself up by her boot straps. Instead, she talks of the kindness of one teacher, then the staff of the school and then many others that changed her life.

Government did not fix Liz's problems. In fact, government programs enabled Liz's parents to continue living like they did. Giving people money without expectations does not make their lives better. What changed Liz's life was the kindness of one teacher. This teacher encouraged her and set high standards for her. She responded. We need programs that focus on helping people in a way that gives them something to be proud of and the ability to eventually provide for themselves. The most effective programs like this are not run by government, but rather are in the private sector.

We do not need ineffective government programs that cause people to wait by the mailbox for their check from the government.

(James C. Thomas is active in local and state Republican politics. Email him at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)

OBAMA: THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING

Posted 4/18/08

I used to think that Republicans should want to run against Hillary in November. Her polling numbers show her negative numbers as high as her positive numbers. But lately Barrack Obama just keeps giving us gifts.

I was afraid of Obama. I think it would be great for America to elect a person as president who just happens to be black. It would show that we are nearing a truly color blind society that judges a person on the content of their character and the quality of their ideas and not on the color of their skin. I suspect that a lot of Americans agree with me. And that made me nervous for one reason. They might vote for Obama just because he was black and not based upon the quality of his ideas or the content of his character. I was concerned that Obama's true character and ideas might not be made known to the voters until it was too late. Obama might hoodwink the voters by talking about “hope” and “change” while providing no substance.

A few weeks ago the sermons from the “pastor” of Obama's church became an issue. This is a really serious issue. The mission statement of Obama's church is to correct “America's economic mal-distribution.”Those are mighty big words for a simple concept. Obama's church advocates taking money from hard working people and giving it to other people. Sounds like socialism or communism to me.

Obama's “pastor” also shouted racist comments. For example, he has accused white people of starting AIDS as a way to wipe out black people. What?!?

Obama tried to sweep some of this under the rug by saying that his “pastor” was like a “crazy uncle” that he did not always agree with. He gave a speech on the role of race in America. The storm seemed to have blown over. Then, Obama gave us another gift an insight in to his true character and feelings. At a speech in Pennsylvania, Obama said “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. . . . And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

This type of attitude is exactly why Republicans were able to make a run at Democrats. Missouri Democrats are generally conservative. In fact, there are many Democrats that are more conservative than several members of my party. These conservative Democrats are often pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax and anti-handouts. But, the national Democrat Party refuses to acknowledge these attitudes among the members of its own party.

I would argue that the Democrat party becoming increasingly liberal is why both houses of the Missouri legislature have Republican majorities. The Democrats have become so much more liberal than many of their members that those members have left them. But that is great for Republicans. We can continue to talk about smaller government, less spending and lower taxes. We can continue to advocate for responsible gun ownership and the rights of the unborn. And the Democrats can continue to try to sell people in places like Missouri on huge tax increases, more government handouts, prohibition of gun ownership and abortion as a method of birth control.

I used to want to run against Hillary in November. However, if Obama will keep sharing his true perspectives with the voters, maybe he will be an easier opponent than Hillary. If the voters learn how liberal this guy is, we should be able to hold Missouri in the Republican column. Maybe the Republicans should pay for him to make a trip here and give a speech. Maybe we could invite Obama's “pastor” as a warm up act.

(Email James Thomas at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)

SOME LOCAL 2008 RACES COULD BE FASCINATING

Posted 4/10/08

The fourth Tuesday in February and the fourth Tuesday in March are always big days for elected officials, candidates and party leaders in Missouri. Those days mark the opening and closing of filing for elected offices ranging from governor all the way down to county offices.

Platte County has gone from being a Democrat county to a swing county. This means that the elections are now decided based less upon party affiliation and more on the strength of a candidate's qualifications and the effectiveness of the candidate's campaign. There appear to be several interesting match ups brewing for August and November.

The two junior county commissioners are up this year. One of the incumbents, Tom Pryor (R), has followed the path of Governor Blunt and declined to seek re-election. With the death of his father and step-mother in the last two years, the related added burdens of his business (his father and step mother were involved in his business) and his commitments to his family, Pryor has indicated that he just does not have the time to continue to serve after the end of this year. For Republicans this could be an unfortunate withdrawal. Pryor had raised substantially more money than any other candidate and had a solid record of conservative fiscal management to base his re-election bid upon.

In the race to replace Pryor there are two former mayors of Parkville -- Kathy Dusenbery (R) and Bill Quitmeier (D) -- seeking the job. But, both of them have primary challenges Jeffery Jones (R) and Michelle Wilson (D). One can expect that key issues in the two primaries will be allegations of fiscal mismanagement in Parkville and issues with Parkville's sewer fund. We will have to see if the two non-mayors can overcome the name ID of the mayors to survive the primaries. Then, we can watch the survivors duke it out in November.

Jim Plunkett (R) is the other incumbent junior county commissioner. He faces a challenge by Chuck Rankin (D) who filed at the end of the filing period. Plunkett has not only the ability, but has also shown the willingness to self fund his campaign. So, unless Rankin has his own resources or some substantial backers, he is going to have a tough time in November.

Incumbent Treasurer Bonnie Brown (D) is being challenged by Michael McCormick (R). Brown has shown an inability to perform the duties of her office. However, prior to becoming treasurer, Brown served as a community outreach officer at a Democrat-owned bank. In that capacity she was active in every civic and social group in the county. So, a lot people know her and like her even though she does not have the skills to do the treasurer's job. This race will be a question of whether McCormick is able to sell his message of business experience and competence over Brown's name ID.

Incumbent State Representatives Jason Brown (R) and Jason Grill (D) have both pulled opponents. Brown will be tough to beat with the effective job he has done in Jeff City and his military service. Likely campaign issues in the Grill race are the allegations that he raped a girl after his 2006 election night party and his reputation for partying in Jefferson City.

Assessor Lisa Pope (R) is being challenged by Marcena Fulton (D), who works in the county clerk's office. Pope has the thankless jobs of re-assessing people's property. No one likes getting those notices in the mail saying that their assessed valuation has gone up, but Pope seems to doing the job well and in accordance with proper procedures. So, the question will be whether people are so upset with the re-assessment of their property that they want to change to a person with no experience for the job.

Sheriff Dick Anderson (R) and Public Administrator Terry Edwards (D) were two very happy people at 5 p.m. on the fourth Tuesday in March. Neither drew opponents.

(Email James Thomas at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)

PROSPECTS STARTING TO LOOK BRIGHTER FOR GOP

Posted 4/2/08

Timing is everything. No where is that more true than in politics.

Following the 2004 elections, Republicans seemed to be on a roll in Missouri. Bush won Missouri by a comfortable margin. Republicans captured the Governorship. Just two years earlier Republicans had taken control of the State House. A little more than a year earlier Republicans had taken over the State Senate. In 2004 Republicans increased their control of both of these houses. So in January 2005 for the first time in something like 84 years Republicans held control of the General Assembly and the Governor's office.

Republicans inherited a train wreck. Governors Carnahan and Holden and the Democrat controlled General Assembly had made a mess of Missouri's finances. Jobs were fleeing the State in response to an unfavorable business environment. Doctors were fleeing the state in response to excessive lawsuits. The state budget had a $1 billion (with a “b”) deficit. (Keep in mind that a “billion” in the state budget unlike the federal budget -- is still a big deal because it is about 5% of the state budget.) Holden was actually holding Missouri's school children hostage as he withheld money from schools.

Governor Blunt and the Republicans in the General Assembly cleaned up this mess. They passed tort reform and medical malpractice reform measures that caused large increases in jobs in Missouri. Republicans actually increased funding for schools. All this was accomplished without a tax increase.

Despite these great accomplishments, things started to turn sour leading up to the 2006 election cycle. The War on Terror was entering its fifth year. Some Republicans in DC started acting like their tax and spend Democrat predecessors. More and more politicians from both parties became embroiled in scandals. One Republican described the mood in 2006 as “the worst he has seen it since 1974.” (President Nixon won re-election in a landslide victory in 1972 and then resigned in August 1974.)

Two months ago, things were looking bleak for Republicans in 2008. First, we were still smarting from the narrow loss by Senator Talent in 2006. Second, our sitting governor, who had a monstrous fund raising lead over his Democrat challenger, unexpectedly chose to not seek re-election.Third, “none of the above” was heard as a very common stated preference for the Republican presidential candidate.

Then things started to get better. After the initial craziness of a potential vacancy in the Governor's office had settled down, one really good candidate Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder stepped out of the race. This still left the Republicans with two good candidates so there is still the potential for some internal party squabbles, but at least there should be less of it now.

The Republican Party has begun to coalesce around John McCain. He was not my first (or second) choice. (I had a really hard time deciding who to pull the lever for on Feb. 5.) But McCain is a heck of a lot more palatable than Clinton or Obama. I may only agree with McCain 60 to 70 percent of the time, but that is a whole lot better than the nearly zero percent agreement I have with either of the Democrats.

Then the sweetest part of all is that Clinton and Obama both seem to be imploding. It seemed like Clinton was all but out of the race, but some how she has managed to hang in there. Obama seemed to have a lock, but then the story finally broke about the racist remarks by his pastor and his church that advocates a redistribution of wealth. These events have made it clearer than ever that if Obama wins the presidency that we will all need to “hold on to our wallets,” because he will be coming for our money.

It is still seven months until November. A lot of things can change in politics in seven months. But things sure are different than they were just two months ago.

(Email James Thomas at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)

WHAT DOES OBAMA’S CHOICE OF CHURCH SAY ABOUT HIM?

Posted 3/26/08

Barrack Obama is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ. Jeremiah Wright is the pastor there and also serves as an advisor to Obama's campaign. Wright has given some fiery--and outrageous -- sermons.

The media has obtained some of Wright's sermons because they are available from this church in electronic form. Wright has made several anti-American and anti-white comments. He said the 9/11 attacks were “America's chickens coming home to roost.” He noted that three strike laws (laws that say a criminal is locked up for life after his third felony conviction) are a way that white people are oppressing black people. He also preaches a Marxist ideology of redistribution of wealth. Obama initially responded to the publication of Wright's comments by saying that Wright was like “an old uncle who sometimes will say things I don't agree with.” The crisis over Wright's comments escalated to the point that Obama was forced to give a major speech on race.

Obama took an interesting strategy. He did not denounce Wright's comments, but instead said that these comments show the need to improve race relations. This way Obama can say to the black community that he did not reject Wright's message. At the same time Obama can say to the white community that he did not embrace Wright's comments. If it works, this will prove to be a brilliant strategy. However, the white voters, which make up approximately 90% of the electorate, may not buy this “foot in both camps” strategy. We will have to wait and see.

Wright's comments are not just words of a pastor who has strayed from his sermon notes. They are part of Trinity's theological message. The mission of Trinity has been described as “black liberation theology.”

Wikipedia describes black liberation theology as “theology from the perspective of oppressed people. It seeks to interpret the gospel of Jesus against the backdrop of historical and contemporary racism. The message of black theology is that . . . African Americans must be liberated from multiple forms of bondage social, political, economic, religious.” A scary line from Trinity's own website states a part of its mission is “to become agents of change for God who is not pleased with America's economic mal-distribution.”

This whole discussion is disturbing on two fronts. First, the teachings of the Church (note the capital “C”) are being diluted by this particular church (with a small “c”). The message of the Church is not about overcoming the oppression of any race of people or redistributing wealth. This church's mission statement makes me think of the folks who on the first Palm Sunday thought Jesus had come to establish an earthly kingdom. I appreciate the fact that Jesus' true mission had not yet been made known to these people. However, in this post-Easter environment, the Church does know Jesus' mission. The role of the Church is to share the message of salvation by faith through grace and not some other social mission.

It is interesting that this so called “church” has built its whole theme around the incorrect theory that white people are out to oppress black people. It saddens me every time I hear this type of message from the black community and leads me to believe we may never end racism as long as we have to deal with these messages of “reverse racism.”

Wright's preaching is the exact opposite of the concepts discussed by J. C. Watts, a former Congressman from Oklahoma and the author of What Color is a Conservative? Watts calls for black people to work hard to improve themselves and stop blaming their problems on someone else.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that Obama has voluntarily associated himself with a church with a mission of becoming “agents of change for God who is not pleased with America's economic mal-distribution.” What does Obama's choice of church say to you about who he is?

(Email James Thomas at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)

DEMOCRATIC ADVISORS CREATING HUMOROUS SCENE

Posted 3/19/08

The Democrat presidential candidates and their advisors were very entertaining last week. First, Geraldine Ferraro, 1984 Democrat vice presidential candidate and advisor to Hillary Clinton, said Barrack Obama would not be where he is today if he were not black. The media, with encouragement from the Clinton campaign pounced on her remark and called for Clinton to renounce Ferraro.

Watching this brouhaha develop has been humorous. First, the comment has been taken somewhat out of context. In making this statement, Ferraro was noting that her selection as Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984 was made more based upon her being a woman than based upon her qualifications for the job. She was actually comparing Obama's rise to the national political stage to her own elevation to that stage. She was not ridiculing Obama for being black.

Second, a strong argument can be made that it is a true statement. Obama is a sharp dresser and a greater speech maker who has attended some of the most respected schools in the country, but that is not enough to put together a winning campaign plan. You have to have coalitions of voters to be successful in a campaign. One of Obama's coalitions is black voters. This is a great block of voters to have on your side. It is even more important in a Democrat primary since black voters make up such a large portion of the voters in a Democrat primary.

Early on, Clinton was leading with many demographic segments of voters. With Obama's overwhelming support of black voters, he could have a much smaller portion of the other demographic segments of voters and still win or at least stay close in the Democrat primaries. This solid base of support gave Obama a starting point for his campaign. As the primaries have progressed, Obama has begun to win in more and more demographic segments. He has recently been winning among nearly all demographic segments of the Democrat primary voters. In fact, I had to chuckle when the TV commentators said the only demographic segment of voters Hillary Clinton was winning in the Virginia primary was “poor, uneducated white people.” (It still makes me laugh every time I recall that particular report.)

The bottom line is that Obama's overwhelming support in the black community was a big boost to him early on. Some political pundits may have thought that Hillary could have inherited her husband's good standing in the black community. (As odd as it may seem, Bill Clinton has sometimes been referred to as the “first black president.”) However, any good feelings that Bill developed in the black community either did not carry over to Hillary or were trumped by stronger good feelings towards Obama, who although of mixed race certainly looks black.

Obama's strong support in the black community gave him a foundation to start his campaign. From there he has added many other segments of the Democrat Party to his support base. Obama may never have been “the black candidate.” But, his support in the black community was a big bonus to help jump start his campaign.

I actually am concerned about Obama being black. It would be great for America to have a black president to show how far we have come as a nation. The difference is I would want a conservative black man like former Oklahoma Congressman J. C. Watts, whose autographed picture hangs on my office wall -- instead of a liberal. Similarly, it would be great to have a woman president if it was a well qualified conservative woman.

Under this theme of advisors to Democrat presidential candidates providing entertainment, I was hoping to fit in this week's column a discussion of the outrageous statements by the senior pastor of Obama's church, who has also been serving as an advisor to Obama's campaign. But that topic is just too much fun (or too scary) to do in a single paragraph.

(Email James Thomas at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)

JETTON'S REMARKS UNPOLISHED, NOT NECESSARILY WRONG

Posted 3/12/08

You can always count on Missouri House Speaker Rod Jetton to say or do something brash. One of his first notable flubs was his heckling then Governor Holden during a State of the State speech.

Most recently Jetton said a lot of “lazy Missourians” could benefit from adopting the work ethic of Mexican immigrants. He went on to say he would like to “trade some of our people for some of the Mexicans who work so hard.”

Jetton might be described as a “loose cannon.” A polite way to refer to Jetton's outbursts and public statements is to say he lacks “polish.”

Some of the media twisted what Jetton said to imply that Jetton was supporting illegal immigration. He was not advocating illegal immigration. What he was advocating was the attitude of immigrants who legally come to this country and work hard to make better lives for their families.

Even though the media attacked Jetton for his “unpolished” comments, it is likely that everyone except the liberal elitists and the freeloaders in our society would agree or at least empathize with his comments.

During the construction of our house six years ago, the roofing and sheetrocking crews hired by our general contractor were made up of workers of Hispanic descent. I can only assume that these workers were legally in this country. (I sure hope the subcontractors checked their immigration status so there was nothing illegal going on, but that was up to the general contractor since I did not hire the subcontractor or the subcontractor's employees.) I went by the work site every day at the end of the day. Most days there would be no one there and I would have to close windows and lock doors. That was not the case when the roofing and sheetrocking was going on. After 6:30 they were still hard at work. And, they just weren't working. They were hustling. I was impressed. They roofed the house in two days. They sheetrocked the house in two days. Each of those jobs was a lot of work for two days.

We have lots of hard working Americans. These men and women go to work every day and do the best quality and quantity of work that they can do. I have always thought that if I ran business that required blue collar labor that I would be extremely lucky to have employees like my dad, who was a dedicated employee for 39+ years who gave his best every day. However, we have too many people who don't want to work and who instead prefer to freeload off the rest of us.

One other important caution: The frustration is not with those who have a disability (a real disability) that prevents them from working. The frustration is with the able-bodied and able-minded people who want something for nothing instead of working for a living.

It would be a rude awakening for these Missouri freeloaders if they were shipped to Mexico where they did not know the language and did not get a check from the government for sitting at home and doing nothing. It would be interesting to see how they would fare if we did swap a few of these folks for immigrants who want to legally enter our country and work hard.

The bottom line is that Jetton's comments may not have been “polished” or politically correct; however his comments probably did reflect what many people would like to say. The difference is that most people would likely say something similar while enjoying a cool beverage and watching a sporting event on a very large TV at some local business establishment instead of as part of a public speech that the media is covering.

(Email James Thomas at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)

SOME NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND OBJECTIONS ARE HUMOROUS

Posted 3/5/08

I am generally opposed to No Child Left Behind. This issue and immigration are the two major points of disagreement that I have had with President Bush's policies. However, my objections are different than those of the education establishment. My objection comes from the fact that I actually believe the Tenth Amendment (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”) should actually mean something. I would prefer that the federal government have little to do with education. It is something that the states should address.

During President Bush's recent visit to Platte County, he was asked a question about No Child Left Behind. Bush said he was pushing for renewal. He explained that as Governor of Texas he was appalled that so many students would graduate from high school and not be able to read. He began efforts to raise the standards as Governor and took those efforts to the national stage when he went to Washington.

Bush said that being sure students can read “was a Republican value.”He acknowledged that local control of schools was better than federal interference. However, if federal dollars are going to schools, schools should be expected to prove that they are performing their stated purpose of educating.

The interesting thing is that the education establishment is not objecting to federal funding. They first objected that the standards are too hard. The humorous thing about this objection is that each State was allowed to set its own standards of proficiency. Missouri used a higher standard than most States, which apparently made it harder for Missouri schools to meet the standards. The really crazy thing about this is that the standard is supposed to measure proficiency in reading in math at certain grade levels. Many good schools have only 30% to 40% of their students testing as proficient. How is this possible? Isn't “proficient” sort of a minimum standard that nearly all students should meet? Shouldn't 90+% be testing as proficient?

The most recent objection is somewhat humorous. Some in the education establishment have complained that the efforts to improve their students' math and reading skills are distracting from teaching in other areas. Really? Are these schools so bad that they can not teach the kids to be proficient the minimum standard -- in one area without hurting other subject matters?

The education establishment does have one legitimate complaint. NCLB expects the standards to be met in all sub-classifications of students. They have all sorts of categories like free and reduced lunches, special education, English as a second language, etc. I would be in favor of cutting the schools some slack in some of these areas. I would not let them off for the free and reduced lunch students. (The less economically fortunate students need an education as much, if not more, than the wealthy students.) But, it would make sense to provide some breathing room when testing students with limited English skills and those with learning disabilities. These students can not be abandoned, but they have real issues that might make meeting the standards much more difficult.

My preference would be to adhere to the Tenth Amendment and keep the federal government out of the primary and secondary education business. If that is not possible, the federal government should be limited to gathering testing information from all the schools in the country. For that testing information to be comparable, it really needs to be based upon the same standards nationwide. And, while we need to keep the pressure on the schools to no longer graduate students who lack basic reading, writing and arithmetic skills, the standards should provide a little slack--but not a lot-- for students with learning disabilities or who have English as a second language.

(Email James Thomas at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)

SEVERAL WAYS COURT PLAN COULD BE IMPROVED

Posted 2/27/08

Most Missouri counties elect their local judges. However, judges in the larger counties like Platte, Clay and Jackson Counties and the appellate level judges are selected by a plan call the Missouri Plan.

Under the Plan, a Judicial Selection Panel nominates three candidates for the governor to consider. The governor then selects one of these three nominees. If the governor refuses to select one of the three nominees, the Panel appoints one of the nominees.

The Panel is made up of an equal number of lawyers chosen by members of the Bar and lay people appointed by the governor and a judge. Since the judge is a lawyer, a majority of the members of the Panel are lawyers. The Panel will meet in secret and afterwards announce the three names to be submitted to the Governor for consideration.

Through the last several Governors, the panels have been willing to put forth bi-partisan nominees and give the sitting Governor at least one nominee acceptable to him despite the fact that a majority of the Panel members were appointed by a governor from the other political party. The Plan has come under substantial scrutiny because of a perception that the process is dominated by plaintiff lawyers.

The Bar adamantly defends the Plan, but it has several flaws. The most notable flaw is that the Plan resulted in the selection of a lawyer to the Supreme Court who flunked the Bar Exam twice or who at least was not admitted to the Bar until after the third offering of the Bar Exam after he finished law school. This same lawyer also fell off of the three year track to finish law school supposedly for academic reasons. You guessed it, plaintiff friendly Democrat lawyer appointed by a Democrat governor.

The Plan is flawed for several reasons. One of those is that a majority of the panel is made up of lawyers. All of these lawyers except the sitting judge are selected by the lawyers themselves. Unfortunately, the lawyers that tend to vote in these elections tend to be dominated by members of the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys who actually only make up about 10% of the lawyers. This flaw could be fixed by adding to the panel two additional lay people chosen by the governor. This way a majority of the panel would be non-lawyers.

A second necessary fix is the actual selection process. Applicants for the last Supreme Court opening filled out a short questionnaire and appeared before the panel for a secret interview of approximately twenty minutes. What a joke! Our firm spends more than twenty minutes to interview secretarial candidates. Surely the process of selecting someone to sit on the Supreme Court deserves a substantially longer interview process.

Furthermore, the interview process should not be held in secret. This is an appointment to an important position in government. Selection of the three nominees should be a public interview process.

The governor should also have the ability to reject an entire slate of nominees and tell the Panel to go back and try again. This rejection process should not be allowed to go on forever, but the governor should not be forced to pick the least bad of the nominees that are sent to him or be faced with the Panel making the selection.
Finally, the Plan should apply everywhere in Missouri and not just in select counties.

I am outraged at the official position of the Bar. The Bar has adamantly defended the Plan as not being subject to any possible improvement. I could not disagree more. The leadership of the Bar should engage in the legislative process to encourage modest improvements of the Plan. This process would give the Bar more direct input in to the changes than a complete overhaul of the Plan through the initiative petition process, which is what the Bar is liable to get if they refuse to discuss minor changes to the Plan.

(Email James Thomas at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)

CHRIS BENJAMIN PULLS A CHRIS KOSTER

Posted 2/20/08

I just finished a great book, American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic by Joseph J. Ellis. It covered many historical events from 1775 to 1803, but one event that intrigued me was the development of the political party system.

It was interesting that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, who so vocally opposed the concept of political parties by their public statements, were really at the very center of the creation of the political party system that has existed to this day. The two-faced conduct of Madison and Jefferson prompted me to think more about some recent party switchers.

The party switching by Chris Koster last August was not a complete surprise. I was a little surprised that he would abandon the party on whose ticket he ran for prosecutor three times and State Senator once. But, I always saw Koster as an opportunist who put his own self interest above any ideology. It was not hard to figure out that Koster would have a rough time in a Republican primary. Southwest Missouri and St. Louis play a significant role in Republican primaries. Koster's likely opponents were both from St. Louis. Koster's aggressive advocacy for cloning was going to make it difficult for him to win in southwest Missouri. Faced with these political realities, Koster went to the extreme of leaving the Republican Party in hopes of winning elective office.

The most recent defection is more of a surprise. Chris Benjamin, former chief of staff to Speaker Rod Jetton and former campaign manager for Eric Zahnd, has left the GOP to run as a Democrat for a State Senate seat.

I never trusted Koster. But, Benjamin is someone I have “been in the trenches with.” We have run door-to-door delivering campaign literature. We have worked phone banks together. We have given the best we had for our Republican candidates.During our working together, I was never aware of Benjamin's disagreement with the Republican agenda. I did not know he wanted higher taxes, excessive and burdensome regulations on businesses, more government handouts to people who are too lazy to get a job, amnesty for illegal immigrants, restrictions on gun ownership by law abiding citizens and abortion on demand as a method of birth control. But, a few weeks ago, Benjamin held a press conference in which he said the Republican Party did not represent his values. So, I can only assume that he must really want these things if he felt he had to leave the Republican Party.

My concern is three-fold. First, I am concerned that Benjamin so effectively hid his true feelings from those of us who worked so closely with him to advance the Republican agenda. Second, I am concerned that as the Speaker's chief of staff he has been at the center of many strategy sessions for the 2008 campaign cycle and is now “playing for the other team” with all that inside knowledge. Third, and this is the worst, prior to his party switch, Benjamin was serving as campaign manager for the Republican candidate he is now running against.

It will be interesting to watch Benjamin as he campaigns. I do not believe he will abandon conservative values. I suspect that in reality he was simply disappointed that he was not the favorite candidate of the Republican insiders so he “pulled a Koster” and switched parties to avoid what would likely be a difficult primary.

Political parties are an interesting creation. There is not and never will be complete agreement amongst all of a political party's members. However, there is enough agreement on core principles to form the foundation for an alliance for promoting a legislative agenda. Therefore, the most important vote that a legislator casts in the furtherance of that legislative agenda is the vote for the Speaker of the House or the President Pro Tem of the Senate.

(Never a suspect to switch parties, our right-hand man can be reached at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)

BUSH WILL BE REMEMBERED AS A REALLY GOOD PRESIDENT

Posted 2/13/08

I almost didn't go see President Bush when he was in town recently because it always takes so much time out of my day. But I went because I was not sure if I would get another chance to see the President in person. I am sure glad I went.

Bush is great at Republican and informal small group events. I saw him at the White House in the spring of 2002. He was relaxed and informal. He was on a similar roll earlier this month at the home of John and Twila Wilson. Bush was relaxed, gave a lot of comments and took a lot of questions.

I am more convinced than ever that Bush has a clear vision for America on many issues and especially on the challenges presented by the Middle East. I sleep better at night hearing Bush describe his appreciation of the risks presented by the terrorists and his proposed response to those risks. He is committed to doing whatever he can to support our military's mission of hunting down the terrorists. This is a president who, unlike his predecessor, has not ignored terrorist attacks on America. He has responded by unleashing the best trained and best equipped fighting force in the world to take the fight to the terrorists and sought to remove roadblocks to our various law enforcement and intelligence agencies sharing information about the enemies of America.
Bush also has a vision of democracy. He is seeking to harness what he calls the “transformative power of liberty.” His vision is that creating a democracy in Iraq not only makes Iraq a better place, but also adds stability to the whole region.

Bush talked about a very real example from just two generations ago. Bush's father was a pilot who fought the Japanese in World War II. The attack on Pearl Harbor and the brutal struggle over the next several years left a great deal of animosity towards the Japanese. However, after the war America planted the seeds of democracy that led to a flourishing Japan. The prime minister of that democracy is now someone the son of that WWII pilot calls one of his “greatest allies” in the war on a new terror in the world.

After his speech, Bush took questions from the audience. There were many good questions, but I only have space for one this week. One woman noted that in the Democrat response to the State of the Union, Governor Sebelius said we should not ask anything of the American people. (This is just the opposite of JFK's famous quote of “Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country.”) The woman asked if Bush would ask anything of the American people and, if so, what? Bush's response was “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (I recall someone else saying that.)

Bush emphasized that we should not wait for the government to find a solution to someone else's suffering. We, as individual and participants in the many social benefit organizations, should strive to help our fellow man. Bush noted that on his travels around America he recognizes a volunteer at each city he visits in order to promote this philosophy.

Bush has taken a lot of hits in the press and the polls. However, I am convinced that history (albeit maybe 20 or 30 years from now) will remember him as a really good president or at least the right person at the right time. His strong position on terrorism and Iraq will go down in history as the right thing to do. Bush is thinking about what is best for America in the long run not just what is best for just the next election cycle. I admire him for that.

(Email James Thomas at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)

WE NEED ANOTHER REAGAN TO UNITE CONSERVATIVES

Posted 2/6/08

I have always had an interest in dates that mark the anniversaries of historic events. One of those dates is Feb. 6. Feb. 6 is not just the eve of my oldest daughter's birthday, which is obviously important to me. It is also Ronald Reagan's birthday. That alone is a big deal to me since Reagan is my favorite president, at least of my lifetime, and possibly of all 43.
But Reagan's birth is not the most significant event for me that is tied to Feb. 6. A more significant event is a speech that Reagan gave to a group of Republicans in New Hampshire on Feb. 6, 1977. This speech has been dubbed as the speech which inaugurated “The New Republican Party.”

Reagan's speech discussed that a majority of Americans identified themselves as conservatives. He acknowledged that there were those who might only be social conservatives or fiscal conservatives. Reagan called for a unification of all conservatives “. . . to create a political entity that will reflect the views of the great, hitherto [unacknowledged], conservative majority.” He also called for an inclusion in the Republican Party of those people who may be in the Republican Party, but who may not identify themselves as conservatives. This was his vision of the “New Republican Party.”

The full text of the speech can be found at http://Reagan2020.us/speeches/The_New_Republican_Party.asp.His speech inspires me every time I read it and expresses why I am a Republican.Reagan emphasizes that conservatism is not an ideology that is derived from ignoring incongruent facts like Marxism, but instead conservatism “. . . is the antithesis of the kind of ideological fanaticism that has brought so much horror and destruction to the world. The common sense and common decency of ordinary men and women, working out their own lives in their own way -- this is the heart of American conservatism today. Conservative wisdom and principles are derived from willingness to learn, not just from what is going on now, but from what has happened before.”

Reagan says “The American new conservative majority we represent is not based on abstract theorizing of the kind that turns off the American people, but on common sense, intelligence, reason, hard work, faith in God, and the guts to say: "Yes, there are things we do strongly believe in, that we are willing to live for, and yes, if necessary, to die for." That is not "ideological purity." It is simply what built this country and kept it great.” Reagan says “our task now is not to sell a philosophy, but to make the majority of Americans, who already share that philosophy, see that modern conservatism offers them a political home. We are . . . members of a majority. Let's act and talk like it.”

And most importantly, Reagan's focus was always on what was best for America and all Americans. This vision for America is reflected in his closing line of his speech where he states “Then with God's help we shall indeed be as a city upon a hill with the eye of all people upon us.”

America and the Republican Party were at a crossroads in 1977. They both are at similar crossroads as we enter this presidential election season.

Reagan united conservatives under his vision for a better America and led us forward. We need that again. Maybe someone will restate those common sense conservative principles that Reagan stated so eloquently on the night of Feb. 6, 1977 and lead us on to a better future.

I sure hope there will be a positive and historically significant date from 2008 to add to my personal list of dates to celebrate.

(Email James Thomas at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)

BLUNT MATURE, NIXON IMMATURE

Posted 1/30/08

I have never been a fan of Jay Nixon. I have never been convinced that he has strongly defended Missouri laws when those laws are not to his political liking. I am irritated that Nixon gave millions of dollars in legal fees from the tobacco settlement to his political cronies. But, Nixon's reaction to Governor Blunt's declining to seek re-election shows his immaturity. Blunt said he was resigning because he had accomplished his goals and he wanted to spend more time with his family. Nixon responded by holding a press conference and saying his campaign “had a lot to do with” Blunt's decision to not seek re-election.

Blunt campaigned for Governor with a detailed agenda to address wasteful spending, tort reform, job creation and other important issues. Blunt has done an exceptional job of accomplishing those goals. In fact, nearly all of his goals were accomplished in his first few months in office.

Blunt had the benefit of a Republican legislature, but he did not inherit a good situation. Under Carnahan and Holden, government hand outs had expanded to a point that they were overwhelming the State's budget and were destined to bankrupt the state if not addressed. Missouri faced a $1 billion (with a “B”) shortfall. Holden had even gone so far as to withhold budgeted money from our schools!

Blunt with the help of a good staff and other Republican officeholders -- turned the budget deficit in to a budget surplus. He did this without raising taxes. He even did this while increasing funding for our schools and cutting taxes. The bottom line is that Blunt delivered on the commitments made in his campaign and cleaned up the mess created by 12 years of tax and spend policies.

I respect Blunt's desire to spend more time with his family. We have a saying in the legal profession that “The law is a cruel mistress.” The practice of law like the pursuit of any career or business venture requires a lot of time. Sadly, I have known many lawyers who have let their dedication to their law practice destroy their marriage and family. You can take the strain on your marriage and family that a commitment to a profession causes and multiply it tenfold when it comes to campaigning for state-wide office. For the next eleven months Blunt was faced with not only the heavy burden of managing the affairs of Missouri, but also spending all of his remaining waking moments raising money and campaigning around the state. Blunt's son is now in those wonderful toddler years. To run for re-election Blunt would miss nearly all of the next 11 months of his son's life.

The time commitment of a statewide campaign does not even consider the strain on your family of being constantly criticized by the often misinformed and usually biased media and usually intentionally hateful media supplement of the blogging world. As the spouse of a former state-wide candidate, I can tell you that this kind of stress is often harder on the spouse than it is on the candidate. I respect Blunt for not wanting to put his wife through this.

Blunt was well positioned for beating Nixon. Blunt's record of delivering on his campaign promises and his monster fund raising lead over Nixon put him in a strong position. Nixon had a lead in a few polls, but the only poll that matters is the one taken on Election Day. Once Blunt used his campaign resources to overcome the biased liberal media and share with the voters the real facts about his delivering on his campaign promises, victory was not guaranteed, but clearly achievable.

Few politicians ever walk away from a good prospect for re-election. Blunt's willingness to do so has increased my respect for him as a husband, a father and a politician. Nixon's reaction to Blunt's very mature decision demonstrates how immature Nixon is.

(Email James Thomas at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)

WILL THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION BE LIKE 1976?

Posted 1/23/08

A few months ago, one of my Republican friends predicted that the presidential nominee might not be chosen until a heated political convention. That is not practical in today's political environment, but it sounds like fun to some political junkies who have studied political convention history -- like the 1860 convention that selected Lincoln as the nominee after three ballots.

This is a historically significant presidential election. Not since 1928 has there been a presidential primary election in which a sitting or former President or Vice President was not on the ballot. (You might say “What about 1952?” But, if you remember, Harry Truman participated in the early presidential primary process in 1952 before deciding to not seek re-election.) The lack of a clear front runner or “heir apparent” to the nomination has created a wide open nominating process in both parties. (Although Clinton's former residency in the White House may make this a little less true on the Democrat side.)

Many of my Republican friends have expressed dissatisfaction with our field of candidates, but Jack Cashill, a Republican activist, writer, documentary producer and sometimes radio host, has a different perspective. Cashill believes this is the most qualified collection of presidential candidates he has seen in decades. The Republicans have a diverse group of candidates. They range from Rudy Giuliani, who is fairly liberal by modern Republican standards, to Ron Paul, who is a libertarian-type candidate. In between there are a couple of guys namely Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson -- who are claiming to be the “Reagan candidate.” Then there are Mike Huckabee, who is a populist on many issues, and John McCain, who has always been somewhat of a maverick.

The nominating process has been severely compressed this year. The Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary were held in early January. By the end of the day on February 5, more than half of the states will have held their presidential primaries or caucuses. This compression of the selection process has prompted a new strategy that I am not aware of having ever been tried before. Giuliani has chosen to run a February 5 strategy where he counts on wins in big states like New York and California to give him the nomination. However, this approach has caused Giuliani to forego the momentum that can be gained from winning in early states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Romney has followed the more traditional model of trying to compete in each state and win as many as possible. Romney seems to have the money to keep up this strategy longer than some of the other candidates. This strategy has also given him an early lead in the delegate count. Despite a “shoe string” budget Mike Huckabee attracted a lot of conservative support in the last few weeks leading up to the Iowa caucuses. His win there gave his campaign new strength. Fred Thompson probably has better conservative credentials than any of the Republican candidates, but his campaign has not seemed to ever get on track. Then there is John McCain. McCain's positions on campaign finance and illegal immigration are disturbing to many conservatives. However, no one can question his dedicated service to his country both in the military and now in the U.S. Senate. McCain's campaign appeared to be dead last summer. McCain's wins in New Hampshire and South Carolina have given his campaign new life.

Not since 1976 have the Republicans gone to a nominating convention without already knowing who will be the nominee. Depending on how Feb. 5 turns out, this might be the year that happens again.

(Our right winger James Thomas is active in Platte County and Missouri politics. Email him at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)

EARMARKS NOT THE PROBLEM--SPENDING IS THE PROBLEM

Posted 1/16/08

Last week I told you why “earmarks” are not necessarily bad. It is very important that our elected leaders be the ones to decide how to spend federal money. An “earmark” allocates federal money to a specific project. Without an “earmark” the decision of how to spend certain federal money is often left to unelected bureaucrats. By “earmarking” money, Congress is using its authority as our elected representatives to decide how to spend our money instead of just giving it to someone else to decide how to spend.

The earmark process is not perfect. Reforms are needed. The biggest problem is that Congress is spending way too much money. The problem is not that Congress is saying “Spend the money this way.” The problem is that Congress is spending more than we can afford. Besides cutting overall spending, we need a system that provides clearer attribution and public disclosure of earmarks and a mechanism for challenging individual earmarks.

No earmark should be allowed unless one or more Congressmen or Senators accepts responsibility for it. Some earmarked projects make perfect sense (e.g., fixing a particular bridge). Other projects are just stupid (e.g., studying the impact of cow flatulence on global temperatures). Clearer attribution is needed so that when there is a stupid project, the particular Congressman can be subjected to appropriate ridicule and eventual removal from office by the voters.

Public disclosure of earmarks should be required before they are approved. One survey showed that 69% of Americans -- 71% of Republicans, 68% of Democrats and 73% of independents -- favor requiring Congress to post the details of all earmarks on the internet at least 72 hours before they can be voted upon. With that kind of bi-partisan support, this is something we should definitely do.

There also needs to be a mechanism for challenging individual earmarks. Earmark reform legislation has been proposed by Republicans in Congress. However, Speaker Pelosi has not allowed it to come up for a vote. My preference is that every earmark be subject to a “Yea” or “Nay” vote. I am not sure if this would be practical. However, by at least having the ability to challenge individual earmarks, many of the bad spending decisions could be stopped. Fighting for reforms of the earmark process is what is needed instead of our elected representatives adopting a policy of not supporting any earmarks. We elect our representatives to fight for our interests. Examples of those interests as expressed by multiple local government and civic organizations -- are improvements to 45 Highway and additional river crossings of the Missouri River. Both of these projects have been the subject of earmarks.

By Sen. McCaskill not participating in the earmarking process she is actually hurting Missourians. In funding bills like the transportation bill, there is a mechanism for creating an allocation of the money among the states. Some earmarks come out of the total pot of money before it is allocated to the states under the allocation formula. By not participating in these earmarks, Missourians actually end up with less money for highway projects.

The money that Washington is “giving away” is our money. So, we should not let our local interests prevent needed reforms. We need to demand that Congress not spend more than it takes in. We also need to require all earmarks be (1) attributed to one or more sponsors (2) publicly disclosed prior to approval and (3) subject to individual scrutiny.

With these types of reforms, we can keep spending decisions in the hands of our elected representatives instead of unelected bureaucrats, cut down on overall spending and have a mechanism for challenging bad earmarks.

(James C. Thomas III is an active participant in Republican politics in Platte County. Reach him at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)

EARMARKS ARE NOT ALWAYS A FOUR-LETTER WORD

Posted 1/9/08

Some believe “earmarks” are a four letter word in politics. My first thought was to agree. But, as I thought about it more, I realized that the answer was, “It depends.” For that answer to make sense, you need to understand how many projects are funded. Road and bridge projects are a great example to consider.

Many road and bridge projects are funded with 80% federal money and 20% local money or some similar mix of federal, state and local money. In some cases a “block” of federal money will come to a state or local organization (e.g., the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT)). MoDOT will then have broad discretion on how to spend this money. Or, the federal money will come as an “earmark” so that it has to be spent on a specific project. The Missouri Highway Commission -- with a great deal of input from MoDOT staff -- decides how to spend the discretionary federal money. Public hearings are held at which various associations (e.g., the Northland Chamber or Platte County Economic Development Council), organizations (e.g., a school district, city or county) or even individual citizens will make presentations to MoDOT on why their projects are more worthy for funding than other projects. Then, MoDOT will make its own decision on what to do with the money.

In some case, certain organizations, such as the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC), have a great deal of influence over the allocation of these resources. Sometimes there is a massive cooperative effort to fund a specific project. Many local organizations such as the Northland Regional Chamber, Platte County EDC, MARC, etc. may unite to say, “This project is important to us. We want it funded.” In some of these cases the organization will seek a Congressional “earmark” for their specific project. Occasionally, the pursuit of a Congressional earmark is done with the cooperation of MoDOT. For example, during the long negotiations that led up to the last federal transportation bill, MoDOT sent its own representatives to Washington to generally participate in the process and fight for specific projects.

There are several local projects where such cooperative efforts have been employed. One such example is the improvements to 45 Highway. Another example is the Paseo Bridge expansion. Other times a particular local project does not have an impact that is far-reaching enough to get support from far beyond the local area so smaller alliances are formed to pursue an earmark for the project. An example would be the Liberty School District and the City of Liberty joining forces to get a federal earmark for what they call the Flintlock Flyover to address safety for children on the way to school and traffic congestion in and around Liberty.

There are two reasons why “earmarks” are not always bad. First, most earmarks occur after local government and civic leaders have cooperated to determine what are the most worthy projects and then they have joined forces to convince our elected representatives in Washington that the particular project is so worthy that it should be the subject of an earmark. Second, when federal money is not designated for a specific project, unelected bureaucrats have a great deal of influence over how these resources are allocated. Doesn't it make sense that our elected representatives in Washington have the ability to designate how these resources are allocated by “earmarking” these funds instead of leaving these critical decisions up to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats?

(Reach local Republican activist James Thomas at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)

FEAR A GOVERNMENT THAT TRIES TO RESTRICT YOUR CHOICES

Posted 1/3/08

I am always amused by the way a saying on a t-shirt can sum up an important concept so concisely. I saw a good one the other day:

I love my country. It’s the government I’m afraid of.

I get more afraid of the government every day.

Just last week Congress adopted increased gas mileage standards for auto manufacturers. What?!? Why is this even a subject of government action?

A car's gas mileage is one factor to consider when purchasing a car, but it is not the only consideration. Other factors include cost, safety, reliability and passenger comforts. The consumers (and NOT the government) should decide whether gas mileage is more important than other factors when considering the purchase of a car.

Some experts predict that the new standards will significantly increase the cost of cars. One expert predicted a price increase of $6,000 to $8,000. Ouch!

The increased cost is disturbing, but not my biggest concern. I am more concerned with safety and the availability of a car that I want to buy.

My wife drives a Suburban. I was opposed to buying it because it cost so much money; however, I conceded because of the safety it provides. (Also, like all good husbands, I caved because it was what my wife wanted.) At over three tons it is a beast. A few weeks ago someone ran in to the back of the Suburban. The impact did nothing except scratch the trailer hitch. The other car a little car that probably gets great gas mileage -- needed a new front end. The safety of my wife and kids is important to me.

But safety is just one factor. The Suburban offers a great deal of comfort for up to eight passengers and still leaves plenty of cargo space. We take the Suburban when we travel around Missouri or when we go somewhere with my parents. Although I didn't originally want my wife to buy it, I am now convinced that it is the perfect vehicle for our family. (I became thoroughly sold when I finally got to drive it a couple of times during the 2006 campaign.) I would trade in my Buick for one if it wouldn't set off the height alarm in the parking garage at my office everyday.

I fear two effects of these new gas mileage standards. First, I fear that manufacturers will strip even more steel out of the vehicles and add more plastic. My wife's 65 Mustang probably has more steel in it than the Suburban has now. I can't imagine what will happen when they try to make it lighter to achieve greater fuel efficiency. That is a safety risk. Second, I fear that they might stop making the Suburban and leave you with only “baby SUV” choices. (The “baby SUV” is a description my daughters came up with a few years ago. They saw our Suburban from above parked next to an Explorer, an Expedition and a Tahoe and exclaimed, “Look Mom. Baby SUVs!”)

Freedom is the ability to make your own choices. I fear a government that wants to restrict my choices. If the American people want more fuel efficient cars, they will purchase those types of cars. This will force the auto industry to change its available choices. It is my understanding that this process has already begun with SUVs now being less popular with consumers. The government should just stay out of it and let supply and demand work. Consumers (and not the government) should determine what choices we have.

(Get more mileage out of The Right Stuff every week. Email James at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)

TIS THE SEASON

Posted 12/28/07

This time of year people are more generous than usual and often think a little more about giving to others. That is great!

I am a strong advocate for charitable giving and doing things to help other people. But, that does not mean I am generally in favor of the government taking the money of the citizens to do those things.

A strange coalition has been developing in a few places -- the joining of forces of the double liberals (both socially and fiscally) and fiscal liberals who are socially conservative. What I am talking about are people who read their Bibles (people the double liberals would normally insult with labels like “Bible Thumpers”) and interpret Matthew 22:37-40 and Matthew 25:34-46 to say that God wants us to raise everyone's taxes and give it to the less fortunate.

I am not a professionally trained theologian, but I couldn't disagree more. When Jesus talks about helping other people, He is not talking about creating a government program that involuntarily extracts money from people to give to the government for redistribution to other people. My un-trained theological understanding is that He is telling us not us through involuntary government programs to go out and help other people. (On a non-political note, we are to do this to “express our thanks” for what God has done for us and not in an effort to “earn” a ticket to heaven since that “ticket” was already paid for by no effort on our part, but that is beyond the scope of a political commentary.)

How is it a sacrifice and a commitment to a fellow human being when it is something the government forces you to do? It isn't.

I always laugh at the politicians who advocate increasing social programs, but whose charitable contributions are a tiny sum compared to their income. When Al Gore was running for president he disclosed on a tax return that he made several hundred thousand dollars a year; however, his charitable contributions were something like $300. Gore was advocating that we increase government spending on social programs, but his political advocacy was inconsistent with his personal commitment. What a joke!

Please do not misinterpret my position. I am not against doing things to help the less fortunate. In fact, I feel much to the contrary. But, I want to encourage people to do those things instead of expecting the government to do those things.

The needs of the less fortunate can be tackled in an organized manner. You can probably be part of such an effort through your church. Or, if you are not associated with a church or do not want to be associated with a bunch of “Bible Thumpers,” you can do those things through independent organizations like Hillcrest Transitional Housing, which provides transitional housing to the homeless. It is a “teach a man to fish” organization that my wife, my daughters and I all support. But I should warn you that although not affiliated with any particular church, a lot of the folks involved in the organization are trying to follow Jesus' teaching of “loving their neighbor.”

Please give to help others not only during this Christmas season, but all year long. You can do so through your church or through other non-religious organizations. But when you do it, do it out of “love for your neighbor” and not because the government makes you.

(Email your thoughts to jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)

THE PAUL MORRISON SITUATION IS REALLY ABOUT OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT, NOT THE SEX ANGLE

Posted 12/24/07

Paul Morrison's announcement of his resignation as Kansas Attorney General on Friday could have lost me a bet.

On Sunday, Dec. 9 one of my friends e-mailed me the article from The Topeka Capital Journal that exposed Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison's alleged affair and sexual harassment of an employee of the Kansas District Attorney's Office where he served for 18 years before being elected Kansas Attorney General in 2006. When discussing the issue with one of my co-workers who has been very involved in Kansas politics, he said Morrison would be forced to resign. I didn't think so. If we had bet on it, I would have lost.

A politician cheating on his or her spouse is and should be considered a big deal even though it involves the politician's personal life and not the performance of the duties of the elected office. The most important relationship you have in this world is with your spouse. If a politician will cheat on his or her spouse, that politician will obviously have no problem cheating “Joe Taxpayer” or anyone else for that matter. So, this personal issue is relevant to a politician's character and impacts the suitability for that person to hold public office. But, in our current social and political climate I did not think that was enough to force Morrison to resign.

This situation is really about much more than an extra-marital affair. It is alleged that Morrison was using the woman to influence pending litigation involving the current occupant of the Kansas District Attorney's Office and to spy on other activities in the office he formerly held. If true, that would clearly involve Morrison's performance of the duties as Attorney General. But, given the Bill Clinton experience, I did not think that issue would be enough to force Morrison to resign.

The Clinton issue was a serious one. He lied under oath in a legal proceeding. Perjury! That is a big deal for anyone. It is much worse for a lawyer. (Remember that Clinton lost his license to practice law over his perjury.) It is even worse for the President of the United States.

But, Clinton and his friends in the media prevented the issue from ever being about perjury. Instead, the issue became about sex. We heard about a blue dress and other such things, but the media did not focus on the real issue, which is that Clinton had committed perjury. After hearing about Clinton's extra-marital escapades for months, the public reached a point where it bought in to the idea that the issue was about sex and not about perjury. Although Clinton was impeached, he was not convicted at the trial.

Besides, Morrison is now a Democrat. Extra-marital affairs are seen as a “badge of honor” or “right of passage” to many members of the Democrat Party. I did not think his fellow Democrats would hold him accountable for his actions.

So, if you had asked me to place a wager on Morrison's future, I would have said the story will stay out there, but instead of being about improper conduct in office, it will become about sex. We will hear all sorts of details about unusual locations and secret liaisons. But, at the end of the day the official misconduct will be ignored and the affair will be discarded as a personal issue that does not have anything to do with his public service.

Fortunately for the people of Kansas, I was wrong. And, fortunately for me, I did not bet a lunch on whether Morrison would resign because I would have lost.

(James Thomas also did not bet the over/under on how many judges’ offices were christened by Morrison and his love partner. Reach James at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)

HERE'S A THREE-STEP PLAN TO FIXING THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION PROBLEM IN OUR COUNTRY

Posted 12/13/07

Last week I noted that the national security risks and economic costs require that something must be done to address illegal immigration. First and foremost, we need to enforce the laws currently on the books. After that there are three essential elements to my proposed fix.

First, we need to address the definition of citizenship. Section 1 of the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says “All persons born . . . in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States . . . .” So, women who are nine months pregnant are crossing the Rio Grande to give birth to their children just so their children will be U.S. citizens. We can fix this by making it clear that being born in the United States only makes you a citizen if your mother is in the country legally at the time of your birth. I understand that this might require a constitutional amendment, but so what. It is that important.

Second, we need to cut off access to welfare and public education. Under current law some of these newly born citizens are receiving welfare benefits. Since the citizen is actually a child, we are paying those welfare benefits to illegal aliens on behalf of the child. Also, the courts have held that states have to educate these children. So, in addition to the child being eligible for welfare, we have to spend our limited public education resources to serve these children. Neither of these should be permitted or required.

Third, we need to cut off access to illegal employment. We can do that by cracking down on those who hire illegal immigrants. We already have laws on the books on this subject so the first thing to do is enforce those laws, including fining those businesses that hire illegal immigrants. However, another penalty we should add is that wages paid to workers who do not have Social Security numbers that match to their names should not be deductible for federal income tax purposes. To protect honest businesses there needs to be an easy and efficient way that an employer can quickly run a name/Social Security match and address accidental discrepancies (e.g., transposed numbers or misspelled names). If the illegal immigrants are just looking for work, but can’t find it, the theory is that they will voluntarily go home.

We should not offer amnesty to illegal immigrants. Congress may choose to ease the restrictions on immigration. However, such a policy should NOT let people off the hook because they broke the law and are already here.

If a less restrictive policy on immigration is adopted, we should give illegal immigrants a short period of time to voluntarily leave the country and then make application to re-enter the country under the more lenient procedures. We can then allow them to legally enter this country and, after following the normal procedures, they can apply for citizenship. BUT, if illegal immigrants are caught in this country after the grace period, then such illegal immigrants should not be allowed to apply for re-entry for five years or some similar penalizing period. (Of course if illegal immigrants are caught during the grace period they should still be deported, but Congress might let them reenter under the more lenient procedures without a penalty period.)

I do not want to discourage immigrants who want to come to America and build better lives for their families. That is what America is all about. But, we should not condone illegal behavior even if done with good motives. It isn’t fair to those who are trying to enter the country legally.

(Fixing the illegal immigration problem is just one of many issues James Thomas will tackle in his role as Landmark columnist. Tackle James via email to jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)

WHEN IT COMES TO IMMIGRATION, IT'S THE ILLEGALS--NOT THE LEGALS--THAT ARE THE PROBLEM

Posted 12/6/07

One of the hottest issues today is illegal immigration. When discussion this issues, we need to keep in mind that we are not talking about legal immigration. Almost all of us are descendants of immigrants. Immigrants have made and will continue to make this country great. We need to respect the idea that people want to come to America.

We should not be surprised about the desire of others to come to America and improve themselves. Despite serious flaws with certain policies of this country, it is still the greatest country on earth (at least until the liberals ruin it). We have a great deal of freedom to generally do whatever we want. Some choose to waste that freedom on foolish and unproductive behavior. (That is fine so long as those that choose this path do not harm others and willingly accept the consequences of their actions.) But, there is the opportunity to take that freedom and use it to lead a responsible and financially comfortable faith-based life.

A couple of weeks ago I saw a first generation example of an immigrant who has made the most of what this country has to offer. Shoji Tabuchi, a violin-playing immigrant from Japan, came to this country with $500 in his pocket. He migrated from California to Kansas City and even spent some time performing in Riverside. Then, he ended up in Branson, where he now has his own show in a nice theater with a great group of performers and supporting team members. During his show, Tabuchi now proudly claims his naturalization as an American citizen.

So, the concern over immigration is not over legal immigration. We embrace it and the strength it gives to our country. What we do have to address is illegal immigration.

Although there are other concerns, there are two major concerns with illegal immigration. First, there are national security concerns. Many of the 9/11 terrorists entered the country illegally. The terrorists did not sneak in to the country by slipping across the border during the dark of night (although they could have), but they did exploit the legal entry systems by various means including false statements in applications for visas, using the wrong type of visas, etc. The bottom line is that if we had stopped the terrorists at the border, they would not have been able to carry out their acts of terrorism.

The second major concern is the burden it is placing on social services and our education and criminal justice systems. The problem is not as obvious to us in our day-to-day lives. But, let’s consider a few statistics.
One statistic claims that nearly 60% of the occupants of HUD properties are illegal. This statistic may not be entirely accurate, but an internal HUD audit shows that correct identifying information is not being collected for a large percentage of the HUD housing. Another statistic claims that 29% of illegal immigrants are on welfare. I don’t know if 29% is true, but a 1997 General Accounting Office report determined that in 1995 households headed by illegal aliens received a total of $700 million in AFDC benefits and $430 million in Food Stamps. The LA County Sheriff reported in 2000 that 23% of inmates in county jails were deportable. A study by a professor at Rice University estimated that the cost of illegal immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a net $70 billion (with a “B”).

The bottom line is that something must be done to address illegal immigration. The national security risks and economic costs simply demand it. Stay tuned next week for a list of proposed solutions.

(James C. Thomas III gives readers the right stuff on a weekly basis here in your Landmark. Email him in perfectly legal fashion to jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)

THE GOP BETTER REPRESENTS THE PRINCIPLE THAT U.S. IS THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON EARTH

Posted 11/29/07

What does it mean to be a Republican? That is a question that could take quite a while to answer. The Republican platform that was adopted at the 2004 Republican National Convention is over 90 pages long. Also, not all Republicans agree on everything. However, I have a t-shirt that provides a definition of a Republican.

It reads like this:
REPUBLICAN
(ri-peb’-li-ken) n. 1: the Grand Old Party; 2: known for conservative money policy; 3: thinks giving a hand up is better than giving a hand out; 4: the party of Lincoln and Reagan; 5: someone who wants to see more accountability and less government; 6: thinks the USA is the greatest country on earth.

This pretty much sums it up for me.

I am a Republican because of my belief in conservative fiscal policies. I am against higher taxes. In fact, I would encourage lower taxes to stimulate the economy. But, right along with tax policy is spending policy. I am opposed to the government spending more money than it takes in.

I am a big fan of the “teach a man to fish” philosophy. In this great country with all its wealth and abundance, no one should ever have to go hungry. When we see someone in need, we should help them out. But, we need to help people in a way that not only feeds them today, but also prepares them to feed themselves tomorrow. That is why my wife and I are such active supporters of Hillcrest Transitional Housing, which provides transitional housing to the homeless, but ties that to a “tough love” program — you have to learn to budget responsibly and be looking for work or actually working to participate in the program. Help a man when he is down, but don’t help him so much that he never learns to take care of himself.

I am a strong advocate of greater accountability in government. I mean “What the heck are they spending all that money on?” For example, I did not know whether to laugh or cry when listening to people talking on the radio recently about the so-called “art” that is going up in Johnson County. But, we are not immune from such crazy spending. All you have to do is look at the top of Bartle Hall to ask, “Why did we pay X-thousand of dollars for the curler and other ornaments on top of that building?” And, the wasteful local spending is nothing compared to the silly things the federal government has been known to spend money on.

I believe in less government. Why does the government have to regulate every aspect of our lives? As a lawyer who advises business clients, there is a government regulation for about everything a business does. But, let’s consider something even closer to home. Why does the government have to regulate the size of the toilet in my house? And, all of this government regulation just increases the cost of government.

The saddest difference between Democrats and Republicans is the Democrats’ attitude about our country. I know there are many local Democrats who are patriots, who love this country and who have fought for this country. But an on-going theme of the n