Tag: money

Near-Sighted Legislation

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

The senate is scheduled to vote today on whether to debate the bill to make two new seats in the House of Representatives and give them to give Utah and D.C. My opinion on this can be found in an editorial at National Review Online (no, I didn’t write it, but it expresses the same position I hold). The one new thing I learned from that article was that the bill does not specify that Utah gets the second seat, but that it would go to "the state that stands next in line to receive a seat through the normal process of apportionment. " (currently Utah) I guess I did know that, but I did not realize the wording.

When I wrote about this issue in July I made much the same argument as NRO and stated that Utah had nothing to gain by pushing for a new representative with so little time before the next census. Representative Chris Cannon (R-Ut) points out that we do have something to gain – money. Sending a new representative earlier gives earlier seniority and allows for more pork money to be sent home from Washington. Unfortunately sending pork money home is exactly the way to buy votes for re-election.

I’m sure this sounds un-American of me but if the purpose of a representative is to send more pork home then we should reduce the size of the house to 250 or less rather than increase its size by 2. What we need in this country is not more money being passed around after filtering through the capitol. This only ties us to greater dependence on the federal government and gives more power to what was supposed to be a relatively weak central governing body.

UPDATE: The bill failed. But Senator Hatch promises to keep pushing for it until we pass his flag burning amendment. If we got him a recording contract in Nashville would he retire from the Senate?

Tags Constitution, fourth seat, government, legislation, money

General

Our Crisis in Foreign Policy

Post author By David
Post date September 13, 2007
4 Comments on Our Crisis in Foreign Policy

Frank does a good job discussing One Lesson From Two September 11th Events. He is completely right to ask:

What will it take for America to learn a similar lesson–that if we expect to be respected and not feared, that we must give respect? Why does America think it is better than the rest of the world, and that we don’t have to abide by the same rules and morals when dealing with the rest of the world? If we learned and practiced this one simple lesson, we would once again have the respect of nearly everyone. As it stands, they would spit on us if they didn’t think we’d drop a smart bomb on them for it.

Our crisis seems to be that the loudest voices in foreign policy seem to be those on the right who think that war is good for our popularity here at home (they’ve been proven wrong since we went to Iraq) and those on the left who think that spreading our money around the globe will make us popular internationally (they were proven wrong on September 11th, 2001). The fact is that both courses to action lead us to be resented. If our foreign policy was not bad enough, our domestic policy does the same thing as we insist from both camps that we must have the highest standard of living in the world. The fact is that we need to work hard and respect others and just take the standard of living that results from our hard work.

Tags connections, insights, international, money

culture

Buying Local

There is nothing completely new in the premise of Scott’s Buying Local Saves? I’m fairly sure that I have heard stories almost exactly like this one:

. . . Kelly Cobb’s effort to make a suit of clothes using only resources available within a 100-mile radius of Philadelphia. ‘The suit took a team of 20 artisans [eighteen] months to produce — 500 man-hours of work in total.’

That should serve as conclusive evidence that you can prove almost anything with the right setup. Scott does a good job of illuminating some of the reasons that cause these kinds of results and calls into question the theory behind local-only shopping. The thing that held my interest is that I have preferences towards that kind of behavior, for some similar reasons to what he discusses.

There is a major difference though – I do not favor local products and services strictly for some moral good, and I don’t favor them in all cases. I think I would call my purchasing habits a pragmatic approach to buying local. I favor getting my hair cut at the local barbershop because I see no reason to pay my money to Great Clips or any other chain. I am especially pleased by the fact that the local barbershop is no more expensive, and I like the haircuts better than the chain stores. I also shop at the local grocery store rather than Walmart. I know some people who think Walmart is evil, but my reasons are much more mundane. I like the fact that the local grocer is not open on Sundays – I like to support businesses that don’t live in the 24/7 world of business. I also like the fact that the local grocery store is only one third the distance from my house as the nearest chain grocery store.

What it really comes down to is the fact that I have tried to divorce myself from the idea that saving a penny is always worth the cost. I save more in time, energy, and fuel by shopping local than I spend extra because their merchandise is 3 cents more expensive per item than Walmart. My favorite result of this new mindset is the freedom to look at things from more than just a checkbook perspective. It’s quite liberating.

Tags community, ideal, money

General

For Sale: Senate Seat

Election season is upon us and that means I get to be entertained by campaign politics, which seems like regular politics on steroids. As I was looking at some of the close races being covered by the New York Times I stumbled upon one little blurb in one senate race that needs to be discussed. The article about this year’s senate race in Rhode Island has this little fact at the end of the article:

All told, more than 80 percent of the money in this race comes from outside the state.

This is just wrong. The fact that money has a large influence in our political system is not news but there should be sharp limits on which money gets to have that influence. I think that at least 75% of all money in any campaign should come from those who fall within the jurisdiction being contested. In other words, for a statewide office such as senator or governor, at least 75% of the money in either campaign should come from within the state. For national offices – in other words the president – 25% or less of the money should come from international donors. For congressional seats 75% of the money should come from within the congressional district. The same should hold true for campaigns at all levels of government. In all these cases the 75% limit should probably be applied to every type of donor – individuals, businesses, and special interest groups.

I suspect that this particular problem is most pronounced in senate and congressional races. I would be very surprised to learn that 80% of the money in a presidential campaign came from a foreign country – just as I would be surprised to learn that the campaign for my local school board seat was being financed by a corporation in Kissimmee Florida. Regardless of where the problem is the worst, the rules should be the same at all levels of government.

Tags ideal, money, reactions, State

General

Lunch with the President

No, that is not just a catchy header to get your attention. I really was invited to have lunch with the President this month. And yes, I mean the President of the United States.

It came as a surprise at first. I read the email subject from one of my senators and thought, “Wow, it’s amazing that I was among those chosen out of all his constituents.” I am at a slight disadvantage when someone sends me an email which is an image because my email client does not display images without my consent. This was one of those emails, so I did not know anything about what was in the message except the subject at first. While clicking the button to display the message, I thought that it must be because I had recently corresponded with this senator to express my views on some current bills in the senate. How else would he have picked my name out of a hat.

Display the image and . . . it’s from the committee to re-elect. Although I disagree with this senator and do not wish to have him re-elected I would still like to go – for a chance to say “hi” to the President.

Scan to the bottom of the image and it’s only going to cost me $500 a seat to accept this invitation. I’m so flattered. They even offer me a great group rate of $4000 for a table of eight. Okay, I’m not going to spend $500 that will help elect a man I don’t want elected – not even to meet the President. I’m not sure I could find $500 to meet the President and help elect someone I want elected (although I did recently find $503 to pay for new tires on my car – I still don’t know how the checkbook balanced this month after the tires).

So why write about this – I’m not going to the lunch and I was “chosen” because they hoped I’d cough up $500 like I did for my tires. I’ve been thinking about this since I got the email and considering my reaction to the possibility of meeting the President.

Some may assume that I am a fan of the President. The reason I’m writing is because I realized that my reaction to the possibility of meeting the President, or even a former President, would be the same whether I liked him or not. There is something about getting to meet people in positions of importance. I would love to meet the Pope even though I have already clearly stated that I am not Catholic. What it really comes down to is that I respect the office. I love this country and what it is supposed to stand for. Certainly there are times and places where it becomes a symbol of things which it should not stand for, but that is the exception and not the rule.

I just hope, and will always do what I can to ensure, that our country and the man who leads it at any given time, are worthy of our respect and deserving of our support, even if there is need for some dissent over some issues. I’d hate to see the day when I could no longer be comfortable being identified as a citizen of the United States, or meeting the President.

Tags candidates, money, State