A Question I Pose...

This will be very short post readers, I ask you to comment back and share your ideas on the following questions:

Does the old adage that ignorance of the law is no excuse still carry weight in a world where the people who make and vote on the laws don't even read them?

In a world where an average law is close to a thousand pages or more and requires extensive cross references from one law to another, can anyone truly know the law?

Rep. Joe Wilson Right on the Money

By now you've heard all about Rep. Joe Wilson calling the President a liar during his recent speech to Congress on health care reform. Well, it turns out that what I and anyone else who took the time to read the bill already knew...Joe was right. While his timing may have been awful and his conduct somewhat inappropriate, he was right.

Take a look at the following NPR article HERE to read about a Congressional Research Support Service report that says illegal aliens are not banned from the program.

According to the language in the bill, there are no restrictions of any kind on illegal aliens participating in the program. While they are technically not required to carry insurance, I ask you, who with the opportunity to get government subsidized insurance cheaply would not do so?

A direct quote from the report:

H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens participating in the Exchange--whether the noncitizens are legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently.

As I railed for eight years against those calling President Bush a liar, I will refrain from echoing Rep. Wilson's call here. However, I will suggest strongly that you fact check President Obama, for your own sake get the facts for yourself, no matter who the source is.

A Response to President Obama's Health Care Speech

The beginning of this is my thought by thought process while listening to the speech tonight. My comments are italicized. The end is a 5 step proposal for a free market solution to the health care problems that would not necessitate the installation of a socialist government run health care system.

President Obama: I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink. -- Really? According to what measures and what prognostications are you claiming our economy is back from the brink?

There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage. -- Notice the emphasis on citizens? Because Americans should not be paying for illegal aliens.

Individual cases of abuse by insurance companies does not necessitate the establishment of a government run socialist health care system.

President Obama: The plan I'm announcing tonight would meet three basic goals:

It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. --HOW?

It will provide insurance to those who don't. -- HOW?

And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. -- HOW?

It's a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge -- Why am I responsible for taking care of someone else? Health care is not a right, it is a perk for those that work hard and want to pay for it on their own. It's not my responsibility to pay for your health care and it shouldn't be.

President Obama: Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have. -- Then why in the bills proposed over the summer did they establish the gradual phasing out of private insurance? The bills stated that no new policy could be written after the first date of the reforms establishment.

That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- really? while I disagree with this concept in theory I recognize the precedent set by the auto insurance requirements and think that we probably don't have much chance to defeat this particular part of President Obama's plan.

There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false - the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. -- if President Obama is being truthful here then why are there parts of the proposed bills that mandate and will fine hospitals for not having staff trained bilingually?

Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place. -- If this is true why are there several amendments that were added by democrats to the proposed bills that eliminate conscience rights and mandate payments to providers such as planned parenthood. Even if the money can't go specifically to abortion, the money can be applied to overhead, and other costs freeing up other sources of money to pay for the abortions.

I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. -- If this were the case then why are there penalties for businesses and individuals that don't play in President Obama's system? Why the increased taxes on sugary foods and beverages?

It's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. -- what polling data supports that statement President Obama? I haven't seen one poll in the last month that supports that statement. The most recent poll I've seen says 52% of people are against this government option. There is plenty of evidence from the town hall meetings and tea parties that took place throughout the summer that people are in opposition to this reform. However, I could be wrong and I kindly ask you to prove me so if I am.

To my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have. -- the problem with this statement is that the democrats don't want to back off of government intervention in health care. The republicans are not willing to allow a socialist government take over of health care and therefore there really is not a common ground unless the democrats can walk away from the public option idea.

First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits - either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize. -- this is rhetoric that we have heard before and once passed initially Congress can very easily go back and amend this bill or update it to allow for carrying a debt load to run this program.

President Obama goes on about medicare for several minutes... -- Why is it that in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $ 12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation).... But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion. President Obama says the expected cost is 900 billion over 10 years. This is not a good track record for the government being accurate...why should we believe that it will only be 900 billion? Why should we believe that taxes and deficits won't go up?

If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out. -- Is that a threat? Is that a call to close down debate and challenges to your authority President Obama?

President Obama rants on for a few minutes about the Republicans, the War spending, tax cuts under Bush, blah blah blah, typical partisan Obama campaign speechifying.

Way to politicize the death of Ted Kennedy...wow, we've sunk to a new low.

An acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise. -- Why is it that the democrats always look to government to solve the problems? He talks about us coming together to lend a helping hand, and yes, we do that, individually, through personal choice and charity, not through coercion where the government forces us to take care of others. There is a word for that, socialism.

Somethings I agree with:
1. insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies - because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.

2. it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

3. So I am proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know that the Bush Administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues. It's a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today. -- this is a start, but it does not go far enough.

General thoughts: This speech was filled with partisan remarks and was essentially President Obama flipping the American people the bird or thumbing his nose at them, you pick the reference you like best. There was no acknowledgement that people don't want this. It was basically more of the same from President Obama, we need a government option, I'm for a government option, and here are the reasons why you should be too. This is not change we can believe in, this is not a major shift in the health care debate, this was just a President being confrontational, and deepening the lines in the sand between the two sides.


My very brief and very basic 5 Point Plan for Health Care Reform: This is going to be really short and scant on details since the above reaction to the speech is rather lengthy. There will be more details on each of these proposals to come shortly.

1. Real Tort Reform -- eliminating the spectre of lawsuits from the medical arena except in cases of egregious and gross negligence will lower costs in the system.

2. Competition through opening up insurance to be purchased across state lines. There is no logical reason that allows you to purchase car insurance from companies that operate nationally, but limits through legislation the health insurance options you have to only a very select few companies allowed to operate in your state.

3. Similar to car insurance, allow for differentiated pricing for health insurance. If you smoke, you pay more. If you have children, you pay more. If you are obese, you pay more. You practice preventative medicine by getting a yearly check up and staying in shape, you get a discount. You get the picture.

4. Allowing consumers to choose the levels of coverage they carry through selection of plans that cover different procedures, services, and prescriptions, rather than one size fits all plans. This would allow people to opt out of some of the so called Rolls Royce plans that cover elective surgeries and non-essential drugs like Viagra.

5. The use of a Pigovian tax (a tax levied on market activities to correct negative externalities that are inefficient) to change health and health care. These efforts take aim at altering personal choices and preferences with the goal of increasing the public’s general health while lessening the burden on the health care system.

There you have it, five ideas that are free market based and do not suggest a government take over of health care.

Health Care Follow Up

First and foremost my faithful followers, I apologize for the length of this post. I wrote with a preview about a month ago about a piece I was working on. That piece did not end up getting published by the ERLC, but will be a two part expose in the George Mason School of Law Newspaper, also known as The Docket.

I am publishing the full text of the article here first (minus footnotes) for you my loyal followers to get the first crack at it. If you would like the footnotes to get the full text articles of the quoted material, please comment and I will make sure to get them to you. Thanks for reading and hope this helps you make up your mind on health care...

The Mysteries of the Health Care Proposal Unveiled
By: Brian J Barnes, August 27, 2009

The American people and members of Congress from both parties are waging a fierce debate over health care reform. Numerous house and senate committees have trotted out proposals on how to address the perceived problems in the health care system and reaction to these proposals has been vocal and adamant. Based on news coverage from varying town hall meetings around the country it does not appear that either side is happy. Since this issue is not going to go away and Congress will be back in session shortly, your humble writer thought perhaps it was time to expose the reality behind the rhetoric on this hot button issue. In the interest of full disclosure I will tell you upfront, I am not a proponent of this brand of health care reform. This analysis will attempt to reveal some of the most disturbing aspects of the bills, but in no way covers them all. I will stake out what I believe to be to be an inevitable conclusion that the proposed health care reform is exceedingly dangerous legislation to the health and well being of most Americans and the country in general.

Rhetoric v. Reality:
The rhetoric – The government plan is more affordable: President Obama continues to claim in interviews and press conferences that health care reform will save money and make health care more affordable than our current system. If this were true, why the need to raise taxes and cut other programs and shift costs onto the states in a massive ponzi scheme?

The reality: In order to help pay for the costs of health care reform President Obama recently said in an ABC news interview, “that he would propose a reduction in the charitable tax deduction for those his administration considers wealthy.” This will drive down the amount of money people donate to charitable organizations which will further burden those relying on charity, those who are least able to help themselves. Other ideas to pay for the plan include a 3 cent tax on sugary sodas. As Senator Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming has said, “With its trillion dollar price tag, this bill is anything but affordable”.

The health care reform bill would mandate that all Americans sign up for insurance or pay a fine. Id. The same requirement would extend to businesses to either insure their employees or pay a government fine. Id.

Furthermore, due to the high cost of the legislation and the $320 million dollar deficit in funding, the bill would charge a surtax on wealthy Americans, beginning with a 1 percent levy for couples earning $350, 000 and rising to 5.4 percent on income above $1 million.

This plan is anything but affordable. It will ensure that the percent of the average American’s budget that goes towards health care actually increases either through direct expenditures on higher premiums or increased taxes or both if you are deemed significantly wealthy. Currently $84.00 out of every $100.00 spend on health care is spent by someone (en employer, insurance company, or government) other than the recipient of the care. Id. That seems like a pretty good deal for the American consumer as it currently stands. What this plan will do is create stagflation and greater unemployment as those in the higher tax brackets either will not invest to create jobs or will do so outside the United States where the tax regimes are not so oppressive.

Lastly, the plan contemplates taxing your current health benefit or removing its tax exempt status. This would mean the money your employer contributes to your insurance plan would now be taxable. It would also mean purchasing supplemental policies for dental, vision, or medical flex spending accounts would have to be done with after tax dollars, effectively making them much more expensive. A study by the Council for Affordable Health Insurance estimates that the President’s proposals could increase premiums by 75 to 95 percent. Further evidence that this plan is anything but affordable!

The rhetoric – Cutting costs: The Democrats continue to say that the proposed legislation will cut costs in the health care system. They claim that increased competition brought about by a government option, the implementation of information technology in the system, a shift to focusing on preventative care, and other reforms will lower the cost of health care.

The reality: Douglas Elmendorf, Director of the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] told the Senate Budget Committee that, “On the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs”. House Republican Leader John Boehner said of the report from the CBO, “The Director of the Congressional Budget Office today confirmed that the Democrat’s government run plan will make health care more costly than ever, making clear that one of the Democrat’s chief talking points is pure fiction”. Id.

The rhetoric – The plan is Deficit Neutral: President Obama and the Democrats continue to say this bill will be deficit neutral, meaning it will not increase the national debt. President Obama’s budget director Peter Orszag stressed, “The CBO numbers are only so high because the estimates keep current Medicare reimbursements to doctors in place. If you take that off the table in terms of new policy, the House bill is deficit-neutral”. This begs the question, if the payments are off the table, where are they going?

The reality: The Senate Finance Committee members are proposing a giant ponzi scheme with the states where the states would be required to finance the entire cost (states currently pay only 43 percent of Medicaid costs) of the proposed expansion through taking on new debt by issuing bonds that the Federal government is supposed to back. This is an effort to keep the costs off the books of the Federal Government and disguised. Id. If this sounds familiar that is because you are probably remembering the Enron book cooking scandal that bankrupted the company and destroyed the pensions and lives of thousands of workers and investors. Congress is cooking the books on health care and could end up bankrupting the country if we are not watching carefully.

Congressional auditors reported that the legislation would add more than $230 billion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years. CBO Director Elmendorf, while addressing Congress, went further to state that the costs of health care are, “growing faster than inflation, wages, and the overall economy…likely impacting future deficits”.

The rhetoric – Without the government intervention health care costs will bring down the economy: Across the board Democrats and the President tell us that without government intervention the current health care problems will prolong the recession and drag down the economy.

The reality: The statement above may be true. Without changes and improvements the system is facing very significant challenges. Recession and the aging baby boomer generation (who will consume increasing amounts of health care resources) will only compound those challenges. However, the solution the Democrats and President Obama propose is a nuclear option. Their proposal would not be a slow death of the health care system and the economy, but rather a preemptive strike. The US Chamber of Commerce in a letter to the Ways and Means Committee wrote, “The tax increase would be devastating to small businesses, which have led America out of the last seven recessions and create two out of every three jobs during a recovery.” Moreover, they claim that the legislation as proposed would, “override long-standing tax treaties, damage U.S. relationships with major trading partners, and could prompt retaliation by foreign governments against U.S. companies operating abroad, further aggravating already jittery financial markets”. Id. This is a complete repeat of history. As you may recall at the outset of the Great Depression one of the aggravating factors that drove the world economies into a tailspin was retaliatory escalating import and export tariffs and excise taxes.

To increase taxes at a time when the economy is sinking is simply unheard of. The Heritage Foundation has said, “Not a single economic school of thought advocates raising taxes during a recession or threatening to do so in its aftermath. To call for a tax increase during the largest recession in 70 years is downright reckless”.

The rhetoric – The government plan will improve quality of care: President Obama says, “Government will make health care cheaper and better”.

The reality: According to Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute, “To reduce costs they will have to ration – deny – care”. Id. Rationing the health care you can receive is certainly not improving the quality of care. Moving to a system of evidence based medicine, which the Senate bill includes, will not improve the care. A system of rationed care or evidence based medicine will actually lead to denial of remedies to the American consumer. The only difference between the current system and the government plan will be who tells the consumer No, that treatment is not covered. This plan replaces the insurance company employee who denies your claim with a government bureaucrat that denies your claim.

The reality is that the current American system which is partly profit driven allows for the reduction of waste and costs in pursuit of profit and provides the world with advances in medicine that ease pain and save lives. Id. The logical end point of the path that Congress is moving us down is rationed care and long waiting lists, essentially Medicaid for everyone. Even if implementation of a public health insurance option does not occur, rationing will be likely under the health care bill. Private insurers will face mandates to provide the essential benefits package and to cut costs. This will create a situation where extreme rationing is inevitable. The government would decide who should live or die. Americans must ask themselves if there is a price tag that can be put on human life. America’s founding document, The Declaration of Independence, says, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. When we start rationing off life-saving treatment through the use of evidence based medicine and limiting it to those deemed more valuable to society, we undercut those ideals.

No Rhetoric? There are other parts of the bill that have no rhetoric to accompany them because the proponents of reform are being careful not to bring them up. A sampling of some unnerving topics:

SEC. 2233. PUBLIC HEALTH TRAINING CENTERS
(a) GRANTS.—The Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration and in consultation with the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall award grants to, or enter into contracts with, eligible entities to provide training to graduate medical residents in preventive medicine specialties.

The Bill empowers government to take over medical education through, building, running, developing, or licensing these Public Health Training Centers.

SEC. 440. HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EXPECTING CHILDREN.
PURPOSE —The purpose of this section is to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children.

The House bill gives access for the government to come into your home and inspect it to determine if it is a suitable environment for children and ascertain if you are a fit parent. They do this by establishing the Home Visitation Program for families with young kids & families expecting kids. If this program becomes non-voluntary, and it very easily could, it would certainly sound very much like George Orwell’s 1984, Big Brother would no longer just be a bad summer television show.

Abortion is not explicitly defined as an essential benefit in Sec. 122 of HR 3200. However, the terminology there is vague enough to allow for abortion. For example, abortion could be included under “preventive services.” During a pre-recess hearing, Senator Barbara Mikulski put in an amendment in the Senate bill to cover “preventative services”. At that point, Senator Hatch questioned her to find out what “preventative services” entailed. He further asked her to clarify that they would not include abortion. When pressed further, Mikulski eliminated any uncertainty. Hatch asked her a final question. “Madame Chairman, would you be willing to put some language in that says, ‘Not including abortion services’?” Mikulski concluded saying, “So, no, I would not be willing to do that at this time.”

The Republicans have made four attempts to block the abortion funding with amendments of their own, but Democrat majorities have voted all four measures down.

The Democrats plan seems to be intentionally vague in many respects and grants incredible powers to the Department of Health and Human Services to determine what language means and what plans would be required to cover. An advisory panel appointed by a pro-abortion president is certainly going to come to the conclusion that abortion be included in the benefits package. Even if they did not, courts are likely to interpret this new law in conjunction with Roe v. Wade and mandate abortion funding from the bench. Making abortion an essential benefit in public health care would mean United States taxpayers would fund abortions regardless of their personal convictions on the issue.

The Bottom Line:

The bottom line is that the House Health Care Bill, H.R. 3200, is 1018 pages in length. The magnitude of the bill along with the numerous citations to other legislation makes it nearly impossible to figure out what everything in the bill actually means. The above items are only a smattering of the numerous changes and problems that the currently proposed legislation has to offer the American people. The analysis is what the reform could potentially mean. The simple fact is that if passed, no one can say for certain how badly this will play out in practice. Pragmatically, I can only say that there is an almost absolute certainty that this legislation will lead to diminished health care for most Americans. This bill will lead to less choice in health care for most Americans. This bill will lead to higher taxes and premiums for American business and citizens. And, this bill will lead to unprecedented government intrusion into every level and aspect of society, from business, to education, to homes and families. This bill is a blatant affront to the American ideals of personal choice, capitalism, and to individual liberty.

If health care reform goes through we will see drastic changes to the quality of life for all Americans.

Congratulations Justice Sotomayor

Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed by the Senate today to become the next sitting justice on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). By a vote of 68-31, the Senate sent Sotomayor to join SCOTUS.

No matter your political ideology, please recognize that this day in America is one that has historical significance. The Supreme Court will welcome it's third female justice and first person of Latino descent to the bench. Whether you agree with Justice Sotomayor's ideology or her jurisprudence, this is a good day in our country's history.

So I say Congratulations Justice Sotomayor, welcome to the Supreme Court, and may you write many dissents that are joined by 3 other justices.

Teen Sexting: Is it a Crime?

By now you may be familiar with the term sexting. If you are not, a brief definition found on wikipedia says that sexting is, "the act of sending sexually explicit messages or photos electronically, primarily between cell phones".

The sexting phenomenon which was reported as early as 2005 has become a problem for teenagers across the country. Some teenagers do not see the consequences that come with sending nude photos and pornographic images of themselves back and forth. However, the consequences are serious, dangerous, and sometimes even deadly. What typically occurs is that one teen sends explicit pictures to another teen who then sends them on to others leaving the original sender embarrassed and humiliated. This is exactly what happened last year with tragic results. Jessica Logan, from Ohio, committed suicide after being harassed by fellow students. Jessica had sent a nude photo of herself to her boyfriend who in turn allegedly sent it to many of his friends. The girls mother blames sexting for her daughters suicide.

Sexting also carries with it legal penalties that are severe. It is illegal under federal law child-porn laws to create explicit images of a minor, posses them or distribute them. These laws were initially crafted to prosecute adult predators and pedophiles, However, they are not drafted in a way that exempts teens from penalties for creating and distributing graphic images, even if the images are of themselves.

So the question is should teen sexting be a crime? What is the appropriate response? Do we really want to label a teenager as a sex offender well into the future?

So far there have been two polar opposite responses to those questions thus far. The one approach is to say, yes it's wrong, but it shouldn't be criminal. The other approach is to say this is wrong, it is criminal and we are going to prosecute it.

The first approach is epitomized by states like Vermont and Utah which amended their laws earlier this year, making sexting by teens a misdemeanor instead of a felony. These states are joined by the ACLU who are bringing a law suit against a Pennsylvania prosecutor who is bringing child pornography charges against three teen girls. The prosecutor first offered the girls and seventeen others the chance to take an educational class and serve six months probation, but the three girls refused to take an educational course resulting in the charges being pursued. One of the girls was only 12 years old when photo of her from the waste up in only a bra was taken.

The other approach is to pursue these cases as criminal matters and prosecute the accused for sex crimes, making them sex offenders if convicted. According to an article in the Sun Sentinel,

"We investigate sexting like any kind of child pornography case, because that's basically what it is," Broward Sheriff's Office Detective Eric Hendel said. "We get calls when a parent finds material in their child's cell phone and they become inflamed. But they want to back off when they find out their child is just as guilty because they are actively participating in it."

Sexting has exploded onto the teen scene, according to prosecutors at the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office, so much so that the office is drafting a policy to address it.

"After that Orlando case hitting the papers, I see it coming down the pike," said Lynn Powell, chief of the juvenile division.

That Orlando case involved an 18-year-old boy seeking revenge on his former girlfriend, 16, by e-mailing nude photos of her in 2007 to scores of people, including her parents. Charged with sending child pornography, the teen now finds himself on the state sex-offender registry. Last year, an 18-year-old Ohio girl hanged herself after being taunted by classmates after her ex-boyfriend circulated nude photos she had sent him."

A USA Today article also points out that in cases of online child porn, many of the victims first published the source material themselves,

"This week in Spotsylvania, Va., two boys, ages 15 and 18, were charged with solicitation and possession of child porn with intent to distribute after an investigation found they sought nude pictures from three juveniles — one in elementary school.

"It's absolutely becoming a bigger problem," says Michelle Collins of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

Of the 2,100 children the center has identified as victims of online porn, she says, one-fourth initially sent the images themselves."

The logical end to this method is child felons serving time. Is this the right approach? I would venture to argue that yes in part this is the right approach. I say in part because I believe that we should treat this as a crime, but we should consider the necessity of a sex offender label following these kids around for the rest of their lives. Additionally, we must recognize that this cannot be the only approach. While we must take a stand on this issue and take it seriously as the crime that it is, we must also educate our children. We must teach them about the legal consequences, as well as, the social and moral implications related to sexting.

Without question the negative aspects of sexting can, will, and have ruined lives. For those of you who think this issue is really no big deal, I challenge you to think deeper.

What Republican Senators Should Say About Sonia Sotomayor

It is almost certain that Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed as the next Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Some Republicans will feel inclined to vote for her and to be honest I do not think I can rightly blame them. If I were in their place I would likely vote for her also. The difference being that while my vote would be blatantly politically motivated it would not be for the obvious reason of not offending the large Latino voting block.

The statement below lays out why I think a vote for Sonia Sotomayor is not inappropriate and what I would like to hear Republican Senators saying about their vote in favor of the first Latina Justice:

Today I announce my support and intention to vote yes on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States. I make this vote with some reluctance and trepidation because I do not agree with Sonia Sotomayor on most issues. I do not agree with her judicial philosophy, I do not agree with her personal politics, and I do not agree with her hiding her controversial decisions behind unpublished orders and per curium opinions. However, she has served as a federal appeals court judge for many years and if anything should prepare someone for the highest court in the land that should be toward the top of the list. Appellate service is not an automatic prerequisite or qualifier, but certainly a decent indicator of preparedness.

While I do not agree with Sonia Sotomayor in most instances, I must recognize that compared to the other candidates who are rumored to be on President Obama's short list, Cass Sunstein, Elena Kagan, Diane Woodward, or Duvall Patrick, she is by far the least radical of the group. Furthermore, unlike some of my colleagues I recognize that elections have consequences. One of those consequences is the ability of the President to nominate to the bench who he sees fit and those who adhere to his political leanings.

Therefore, while I acknowledge Judge Sotomayor's short comings, I respect the process and will vote to affirm the President's choice for this vacancy. However, I take this opportunity to draw a line in the sand and tell President Obama that should another vacancy on the bench occur he should not attempt to nominate one of the aforementioned. Not only will he not get my support, but he will incur my vehement opposition.

Thank you and good day!

More Daniel Hannan

In an article linked here, Daniel Hannan, who I wrote about earlier, responds to those who are claiming Obama is not an American citizen by asking what if Obama were really born in Kenya. This is purely hypothetical and kind of tongue in cheek on his part, but I'd like you to read the last paragraph which I've quoted below.

Discussing how Obama's Kenyan birth would technically make him British and how that could lead to reconciliation he says, "If so, we should ensure that the reunification of the two states happens on the best possible terms. It would be nice if Americans learned to make tea properly (clue: the water has to be seriously hot). They might even find that the rules of cricket repay study. As for Britain, we could begin by adopting (or readopting) low taxes, sheriffs, a separation of powers, open primaries, localism, the direct election of public officials, a non-state health care system, capitalism, patriotism and sovereignty. The more I think about it, the more attractive it looks."

Mr. Hannan is right on the money here. These are all things that conservative Americans hold dear. They are also exactly what has made us what I would argue is the greatest nation on earth and certainly the most free nation on earth. If you look at those items in bold again you'll notice that they are exactly the things President Obama, his administration, and his democratic cohorts find to be the most wrong with America. Isn't it sad that people outside our country realize how great we have it when our leaders in Washington cannot realize it for themselves? It's time America for the common citizens to stand up and say in one voice, America is great. America is not perfect, but she is a beacon of light to the rest of the world, because she is different and because she stands for freedom. Do not diminish America by making her like the rest of the world.

One last point for the fringe movement on the right who seems to not understand rules of citizenship. It does not matter where President Obama was born so long as his mother is an American citizen, then he too is an American citizen even if he was born in Kenya. This stems from jus sanguinis (which means "right of blood"). So please, please stop embarrassing yourselves and the rest of us on your side of the political spectrum by insisting that President Obama is not a citizen. Stand up and shout because you think President Obama is wrong on the issues, but not because you think he is not a citizen.

ObamaCare the Nightmare Revealed

Check out the link below to watch a short 20 minute video describing the health care system in Canada. It will illuminate what ObamaCare would really bring to the U.S.

The part that should be most concerning is that according to the United Nations as of July 1, 2009 Canada had a population of 33,729,000. The US population is 307,018,000 almost 10 times the size of Canada's. If they can't make it work, what makes our government and the liberalocracy so arrogant as to think we can make it work here?

YouTube Link

Check back later today for a direct analysis of the language from the House Bill, H.R. 3200 and what it means for you.

The Health Care Fiasco Continued

This is a sample of a five page piece I am working on for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. The footnotes have been omitted from the blog article, but when the full article is posted on the ERLC web page I will link to it so you have all the sources.

Rhetoric v. Reality:

The rhetoric – The government plan is more affordable: President Obama continues to claim in interviews and press conferences that health care reform will save money and make health care more affordable than our current system. If this were true, why the need to raise taxes and cut other programs and shift costs onto the states in a massive ponzi scheme?

The reality: In order to help pay for the costs of health care reform President Obama recently said in an ABC news interview, “that he would propose a reduction in the charitable tax deduction for those his administration considers wealthy.” This will drive down the amount of money people donate to charitable organizations which will further burden those relying on charity, those who are least able to help themselves. Other ideas to pay for the plan include a 3 cent tax on sugary sodas. As Senator Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming has said, “With its trillion dollar price tag, this bill is anything but affordable”.

The health care reform bill would mandate that all Americans sign up for insurance or pay a fine. Id. The same requirement would extend to businesses to either insure their employees or pay a government fine. Id.

Furthermore, due to the high cost of the legislation and the $320 million dollar deficit in funding, the bill would charge a surtax on wealthy Americans, beginning with a 1 percent levy for couples earning $350, 000 and rising to 5.4 percent on income above $1 million.

This plan is anything but affordable. It will ensure that the percent of the average American’s budget that goes towards health care actually increases either through direct expenditures on higher premiums or increased taxes or both if you are deemed significantly wealthy. Currently $84.00 out of every $100.00 spend on health care is spent by someone (en employer, insurance company, or government) other than the recipient of the care. Id. That seems like a pretty good deal for the American consumer as it currently stands. What this plan will do is create stagflation and greater unemployment as those in the higher tax brackets either will not invest in jobs or will do so outside the United States where the tax regimes are not so oppressive.

Lastly, the plan contemplates taxing your current health benefit or removing its tax exempt status. This would mean the money your employer contributes to your insurance plan would now be taxable. It would also mean purchasing supplemental policies for dental, vision, or medical flex spending accounts would have to be done with after tax dollars, effectively making them much more expensive. A study by the Council for Affordable Health Insurance estimates that the President’s proposals could increase premiums by 75 to 95 percent. Further evidence that this plan is anything but affordable!

The rhetoric – Cutting costs: The Democrats continue to say that the proposed legislation will cut costs in the health care system. They claim that increased competition brought about by a government option, the implementation of information technology in the system, a shift to focusing on preventative care, and other reforms will lower the cost of health care.

The reality: Douglas Elmendorf, Director of the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] told the Senate Budget Committee that, “On the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs”. House Republican Leader John Boehner said of the report from the CBO, “The Director of the Congressional Budget Office today confirmed that the Democrat’s government run plan will make health care more costly than ever, making clear that one of the Democrat’s chief talking points is pure fiction”. Id.

The rhetoric – The plan is Deficit Neutral: President Obama and the Democrats continue to say this bill will be deficit neutral, meaning it will not increase the national debt. President Obama’s budget director Peter Orszag stressed, “The CBO numbers are only so high because the estimates keep current Medicare reimbursements to doctors in place. If you take that off the table in terms of new policy, the House bill is deficit-neutral”. This begs the question, if the payments are off the table, where are they going?

The reality: The Senate Finance Committee members are proposing a giant ponzi scheme with the states where the states would be required to finance the entire cost (states currently pay only 43 percent of Medicaid costs) of the proposed expansion through taking on new debt by issuing bonds that the Federal government is supposed to back. This is an effort to keep the costs off the books of the Federal Government and disguised. Id. If this sounds familiar that is because you are probably remembering the Enron book cooking scandal that bankrupted the company and destroyed the pensions and lives of thousands of workers and investors. Congress is cooking the books on health care and we all will end up paying in the end.

Congressional auditors reported that the legislation would add more than $230 billion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years. CBO Director Elmendorf, while addressing Congress, went further to state that the costs of health care are, “growing faster than inflation, wages, and the overall economy…likely impacting future deficits”.

The rhetoric – The government plan will improve quality of care: President Obama says, “Government will make health care cheaper and better”.

The reality: According to Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute, “To reduce costs they will have to ration – deny – care”. Id. Rationing the health care you can receive is certainly not improving the quality of care. Moving to a system of evidence based medicine, which the Senate bill includes, will not improve the care. (More on evidence based medicine on page 3) Moving to a system of rationed care or evidence based medicine will lead to denial of remedies to the American consumer. The only difference between the current system and the government plan will be who tells the consumer No, that treatment is not covered. The reality is that the current American system which is partly profit driven allows for the reduction of waste and costs in pursuit of profit and provides the world with advances in medicine that ease pain and save live. Id. The logical end point of the path that Congress is moving us down is rationed care and long waiting lists, essentially Medicaid for everyone.

The rhetoric – The government plan will make sure everyone is covered: The Democrats and Republicans continue to justify these changes by promising access to health care and insurance for everyone.

The reality: The reality is quite different. Estimates vary on how many people will be swept up under the new plan. The most quoted number says there are approximately 50 million people currently without health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that at the end of a decade under the new plan, 15 to 20 million would remain uninsured. Id. Other reports split the difference and estimate that even after paying a trillion dollars, 1,000,000,000,000, (twelve zeros); we still will have about 17 million uninsured. This plan no matter what anyone tells you will not get us to the lofty goal of universal coverage.

The rhetoric – Without the government intervention health care costs will bring down the economy: Across the board Democrats and the President tell us that without government intervention the current health care problems will prolong the recession and drag down the economy.

The reality: The statement above may be true. Without changes and improvements the system is facing very significant challenges. Recession and the retiring baby boomer generation needing significantly more health care resources compound these challenges. However, the solution the Democrats and President Obama propose is a nuclear option. Their proposal would not be a slow death of the health care system and the economy, but rather a preemptive strike. The US Chamber of Commerce in a letter to the Ways and Means Committee wrote, “The tax increase would be devastating to small businesses, which have led America out of the last seven recessions and create two out of every three jobs during a recovery.” Moreover, they claim that the legislation as proposed would, “override long-standing tax treaties, damage U.S. relationships with major trading partners, and could prompt retaliation by foreign governments against U.S. companies operating abroad, further aggravating already jittery financial markets”. Id. This is a complete repeat of history in another form. As you may recall at the outset of the Great Depression one of the aggravating factors that drove the world economies into a tailspin was retaliatory escalating import and export tariffs and excise taxes.

To increase taxes at a time when the economy is sinking is simply unheard of. The Heritage Foundation has said, “Not a single economic school of thought advocates raising taxes during a recession or threatening to do so in its aftermath. To call for a tax increase during the largest recession in 70 years is downright reckless”.

The Bottom Line:

The bottom line is that the above items are only a smattering of the numerous changes and problems that the currently proposed legislation has to offer the American people. If these bills go through we would see drastic changes to the quality of life for all Americans. This legislation opens the door or outright proposes fundamental changes that would position our health care system to be a larger version of those offered in places like Canada and the United Kingdom. If you have seen the 20/20 expose on those systems then you should ask yourself, do we really want that kind of system here? Do you want to wait for months at a time to get treatment? Do you want the government to cost benefit analysis the cost of treatment against your life expectancy or your expected contribution to society post care to determine if you receive the treatment? Do you want to pay more for less? Do you want to see the national debt become up to 80% of Gross Domestic Product by 2019? If you answered NO to all those questions, then the time to act is now. Contact your Senator and Congressman by both phone and email. Tell your friends and family to do the same. Only if the outcry becomes loud enough will this legislation be stopped.

For more information and a good read check out this article.

Continuation of a Theme

This article is a great follow up to my earlier post about why the government isn't looking out for you.

This will be heresy coming from a future attorney, but this article is right on. Tort reform should be the first thing to be fixed in any health care legislation. The cost of insurance and lawsuits is out of control. It is so outrageous that most cases are settled even if the doctor wasn't in the wrong. There is such fear of a huge jury verdict that insurance companies and doctors roll over begging for mercy rather than risk a trial. However, when you look at the proposed health care legislation there is nothing related to tort reform in the bill. More of the same old same old from our dear friends and Representatives in Washington.

Tragedy of the Commons Plays Out on National Mall through Congressional Earmarks

The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory proposed by Garrett Hardin in 1968. Essentially the premise is that where no one owns property, (i.e. it is communal) then no one has incentive to protect it. In actuality, there is more incentive to use up the resource before someone else does.

Central to Hardin's article is a metaphor of herders sharing a common parcel of land (the commons), on which they are all entitled to let their cows graze. In Hardin's view, it is in each herder's interest to put as many cows as possible onto the land, even if the commons are damaged as a result. The herder receives all of the benefits from the additional cows, while the damage to the commons is shared by the entire group. If all herders make this individually rational decision, however, the commons are destroyed and all herders suffer.
Positive: the herder receives all of the proceeds from each additional animal.
Negative: the pasture is slightly degraded by each additional animal.
(Taken from Wikipedia.)

Thinking in terms of commercial fishing we see this problem all the time. No one owns the fish stock and therefore no one protects it so it comes back year in and year out. Instead, fisherman are induced to take as large a catch of fish as possible because they know if they do not someone else will. They will then forfeit revenue that someone else gains.

What does this have to do with the National Mall you may be asking. Well, the answer to that question is that because essentially no one owns the mall it is not getting the money it needs in order to be maintained and improved. When I say no one owns the mall what I mean is that there are no Congressional representatives that can score political points or win votes by giving money to the Mall. Instead through earmarks and diversion of funds, they send money back to their home states and the money that should be going to the National Mall is diverted away.

Stephen Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense has said, "We're making spending decisions on the basis of political muscle, rather than project merit. Because the mall is owned by nobody, even though it is this gem for many Americans, it gets short shrift," he said.

While law makers can score points by sending money home to repair a Mother's Day Shrine in West Virginia or build a bridge to no where in Alaska, the National Mall gets short changed over and over again based on the appropriation of money via earmarks. However, the mall doesn't just lose out in the earmark process, it loses out in the regular funding process as well. Just this year, Congress removed $200 million that would have been directed to National Mall repair in the stimulus bill and last year they voted down a measure that would have spent $100 million on the Mall. No one cares about the Mall because it isn't politically expedient.

Meanwhile the Mall receives more than 25 million visitors a year from all over the globe with as many as 1.8 million at a time for large events like the Presidential Inauguration and National 4th of July Festival.

Until we can stop the corruption of the appropriations process and eliminate earmarks, there does not appear to be much hope for the National Mall or financial accountability for our tax payer dollars. The tragedy of the commons will continue to play out on the Nation's front lawn for all the worlds visitors to see.

Read more about the problem here.

Health Care Fiasco

Check out the visual break down of what the proposed health care bill will do to our health care system here.

It is far removed from logic and clearly a matrix of confusion and government confiscation of control over your medical and thus life and death decisions.

More to come on the health care fiasco later this week.

Sotomayor Confirmation Information

So it appears that Sotomayor will get a vote before the August recess. However, this is not our biggest worry right now. The health care reform and Cap and Tax Global Warming bills are moving ahead in Congress and make no doubt about it that President Obama will sign them if they pass both houses and that will be the beginning of a California style bankruptcy on a national level. Look for more on those issues to come this week.

In the meantime, if you want to know more about Sotomayor who will almost certainly be appointed and what you can expect from her on the bench, check out the following memo I co-wrote for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission here.

The Obama Cult of Personality

Only 6 months in and some are already calling for a 3rd term for President Obama. This grassroots organization wants to repeal the Twenty Second Amendment so President Obama can be president for as many terms as he wants and that the people vote him in for.

From the start with President Obama it has been about his cult of personality. As several pundits mentioned during the campaign, Obama is not a politician, he is a celebrity unto himself. Just like normal celebrities that people follow and worship and obsess over, so too does President Obama have his cult following. From Chris Matthews thrill running up his leg to the throngs of celebrities and world leaders endorsing and rooting him on, President Obama has a following the likes of which have not been seen in a very long time.

What is especially disturbing is President Obama's attempts to reach out to thugs and Marxists all over the world. He has written a letter to Iran requesting a dialog and he is supporting Manuel Zelaya (the deposed Honduran President who was attempting to circumvent his countries Constitution and get an unlimited term) more here. President Obama also wants to establish a better connection with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and he has made multiple comments related to not caring as much about democracy as about freeing the world from poverty and want. These behaviors and associations suggest that President Obama might be just the kind of man who would latch onto the presidency for as long as he could hold it. While I cannot say for certain what is in President Obama's heart, I can note that the potential is certainly there.

Many Americans could be duped into thinking that repealing the Twenty Second Amendment was a good thing. The website attempts to couch it in libertarian and individual rights ideals, "the American People need to take back their right to elect the leader of their choice." They go further to say, "We have Presidential Term Limits without the necessity of a Constitutional Amendment - it is called the people's right to vote. The American people have a right to impose term limits at their discretion simply by not voting a President back into office."

The website mentions and links FDR with BHO, suggesting we needed FDR for more terms then and we should have the option of having BHO for more terms now. They even link them visually.

.

While a House Resolution has been brought by Congressman Serrano from New York's 16th District to repeal the Twenty Second Amendment, it doesn't seem to be much of a threat. He has brought the same resolution every couple of years since the late 1990's and has failed every time. Hopefully, the End22 folks will fade away and this post will seem like a exercise in non-sense, but in case they don't, you heard it here first.

Finally, since I think the band Living Colour described the Cult of Personality with their 1980's hit of the same name much better than I ever could, I leave you with a link to the songs Youtube clip here and the lyrics below.

“And during the few moments that we have left, we want to talk, right down to
earth, in a language that everybody here can easily understand.” (Malcolm X)

Look in my eyes, what do you see?
the Cult of Personality
I know your anger, I know your dreams
I've been everything you wanna be ohhh…
I'm the Cult of Personality
Like Mussolini and Kennedy
I'm the Cult of Personality
the Cult of Personality
the Cult of Personality

Neon lights, Nobel Prize
When a mirror speaks, the reflection lies
You won't have to follow me
Only you can set me free

I sell the things you need to be
I'm the smiling face of your T.V. ohh…
I'm the Cult of Personality
I exploit you; still you love me
I tell you one and one makes three ohh…
I'm the Cult of Personality
Like Joseph Stalin and Gandhi ohh…
I'm the Cult of Personality
the Cult of Personality
the Cult of Personality

Neon lights, Nobel Prize
When a leader speaks, that leader dies
You won't have to follow me
Only you can set you free

You gave me fortune, you gave me fame
You gave me power in your God's name
I'm every person you need to be ohh…
I'm, the, Cult, of, Per, Son, Al, Ity

I am the Cult of (x8)
Personality

“Ask not what your country can do for you…” (John F. Kennedy)
“The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.” (Franklin D. Roosevelt)

Sotomayor's Bias Resume

In another example of her focus on identity politics, it now comes out that Sotomayor was a board member for a Puerto Rican legal advocacy organization that brought a suit charging racial discrimination in NYC police promotions during the 1980's. She then sat as a judge and heard a case that was related to the exact same issue (New Haven Fire fighters Case -- Ricci v. DeStefano).

I'm smelling bias here. The least she could have done was recuse herself. It's impossible to say a judge will never have conflicts of interest, but when they are this blatant, you recuse yourself.

ABA Code of Judicial Conduct:

CANON 2
A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.

CANON 3
A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently.

Personally, I can't wait to read some of these documents.

Read full story here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/01/sources-puerto-rican-group-sends-sotomayor-documents-senate/

A View Against Hate Crimes Legislation Part I

Economic influence, Market principals, and Tax policy in the Health Care System.

How can law and economics create effective public policy in the health care arena? While it is clear that our current system is dysfunctional; using 80% of the resources to focus on the minority of users who have reached the stages of chronic illness, we have yet to find a solution to the problems. Many advocate the use of government regulatory action, tax proposals, or socialized health care. However, I submit that free market solutions combined with tax policy changes will be more effective at fixing the problems than a government run system.

Starting with the tax policy proposals, I suggest the use of a Pigovian tax (a tax levied on market activities to correct negative externalities that are inefficient) to change health and healthcare. These efforts take aim at altering personal choices and preferences with the goal of increasing the public’s general health while lessening the burden on the health care system. Within business contexts Pigovian style taxes are used primarily to control issues like pollution. A Pigovian tax can change negative externalities in personal health and lifestyle choices as well. These changes will have far reaching impacts in the health care market. For years the sin taxes, a Pigovian tax targeting individual conduct, focused on products people considered moral ills, such as alcohol. Current public policy is shifting towards using the sin tax to address the epidemics of obesity and diabetes that have swept through the healthcare system like a tsunami in recent years.

States are beginning to tax products believed to be at the root of this public health crisis. These include candy, sugar products, and sugar laden sodas and beverages. The Governors of New York and Massachusetts recently proposed a soda tax and Illinois already has a tax on candy bars and soda products. These taxes adjust personal choices which eventually result in reduced health care costs. Additionally, the taxes help fund the system. Studies have yet to show whether these methods will be effective or not, however, they are sure to be better solutions than socialized state run health care. Additionally, while the traditional Pigovian tax encourages people to abstain from certain negative behaviors; negative Pigovian taxes (giving subsidies to encourage positive behavior) are being proposed to encourage people to make healthy life choices like working out at a gym.

Traditional libertarian thinkers will likely think the traditional Pigovian tax limits personal freedom and choice. They may argue that these behaviors are strictly personal and the government should not moderate them; however, I contend that a negative Pigovian tax that would make gym memberships deductible and subsidize positive health choices can only be a benefit. Other critics of the sin/Pigovian taxes say that these taxes have historically led to black markets and organized crime smuggling. These taxes create large price differentials in markets and the tax is punitive in nature. These taxes tend to discriminate against lower socio-economic classes that are more likely to consume cheaper and less healthy foods and products. These methods of altering behavior also place a greater burden on those members of society who already have a difficult time acquiring or affording quality health care. While the critics make valid points, economic theory predicts that in an economy where the cost of making responsible choices is high, and where supply of unhealthy products is abundant, Pigovian taxes will be an efficient way to promote the public interest, and will lead to an improvement of the quality of life and health care.

Free market ideas have created the richest nation on earth and can provide the answers for our health care problems. One idea is the creation of personalized health insurance accounts that travel with the consumer from job to job and are not employer based. To bring health care costs down the free market needs to establish a private health insurance sector. Americans should be able to save with a Health Savings Account (“HSA”). Insurance premiums and HSA’s should be tax deductible. Furthermore, individuals should be able to roll over excess HSA dollars from one year to the next, instead of losing their unspent money at the end of each year. Another reason health insurance is so expensive is because many states require policies that provide benefits that many families do not want. These mandates increase costs for everyone. Allowing customized policy selection similar to auto insurance policies would lower costs for all users. Lastly, to improve health care quality, the free market system must emphasize cost reductions, incentives for preventive care, and chronic illness management.

Finally, government has created the bulk of the health care problems. Let's be honest, government rarely if ever does anything well or efficiently. Why should we think something as massive as healthcare should be any different or better with government control? With the most minimal of government assistance in structuring tax policy; free markets can be the solution.

Fairfax County and Illegal Immigrants vs United States Army

Yesterday morning while driving to work I heard a news story that just about caused me to have an aneurysm. This story would have likely killed several people as my super sized Grand Cherokee SUV sped down RT 66 out of control with a brain dead man at the wheel. Luckily for myself and the other commuting motorists I was able to control my rage enough to prevent said aneurysm and eventually arrive at work safely.

What nearly caused this catastrophe you ask? Well, it was the news that the Fairfax County School Board is threatening the Department of the Army and the Pentagon with a lawsuit. Driving this whole situation is the Base Realignment and Closing (BRAC) process. Essentially, due to base closures and unit moves from the 2005 BRAC process, an influx of troops and family members into the Fairfax County area is beginning this year and continuing into 2011. Where the dispute lies is in the number of children that influx will create. The Army is claiming approximately 265 new students will enroll in the school district while the county is claiming the number could be as high as 3,200 children.

I see nothing wrong with asking the government to cover its fair share of usage for the children that influx into the school system. After all the parents of these new students will not be paying the same taxes, (specifically real estate and property tax). So what made me so outraged about this issue you might ask? The reason for my ire and my steadily rising blood pressure dear reader is due to the entanglement of a complicating issue in this matter. Simply put, Fairfax County considers itself a sanctuary county and acts accordingly. That is, the county does not cooperate with illegal immigration authorities, they do not make efforts to assist in enforcing United States immigration laws, they do not permit police officers to verify the citizenship of criminals and persons of interest, and they allow children of illegal immigrants to attend schools in Fairfax County.

In fairness, Fairfax County is in fact mandated by a 1982 Supreme Court decision wherein the Court ruled in Plyler vs. Doe [457 U.S. 202 (1982)] that undocumented children and young adults have the same right to attend public primary and secondary schools as do U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Further, like other children, undocumented students are required under state laws to attend school until they reach a legally mandated age. As a result of the Plyler ruling, school systems may not:

1. deny admission to a student during initial enrollment or at any other time on the basis of undocumented status
2. treat a student differently to determine residency
3. engage in any practices to chill the right of access to school
4. require students or parents to disclose or document their immigration status
5. make inquiries of students or parents that may expose their undocumented status
6. require social security numbers from all students, as this may expose undocumented status
7. students without social security numbers should be assigned a number generated by the school
8. adults without social security numbers who are applying for a free lunch and/or breakfast program for a student need only state on the application that they do not have a social security number
9. the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) prohibits schools from providing any outside agency including the Immigration and Naturalization Service with any information from a child's school file that would expose the student's undocumented status without first getting permission from the student's parents.

Yet, while the precedent of the court may require them to accommodate and educate the children of illegal immigrants, it is another matter all together to establish yourself as a sanctuary county, as described by the statements below: (as taken from the Washington Post Tuesday, October 23, 2007)

Board of Supervisors Chairman Gerald E. Connolly (D) said yesterday that under no circumstances would he follow the lead of Prince William County and push for legislation to cut off services to illegal immigrants or authorize police to check the immigration status of suspects, measures he described as election season demagoguery.

"I can just tell you Fairfax County is not going to go the route of some of our neighbors," Connolly, who is seeking a second term as chairman Nov. 6, said during a meeting with Washington Post reporters and editors. "We're not going to demagogue. We're not going to essentially roll back the welcome mat. . . . That's not why I ran for office and that isn't who we are, and we're not going to do that."

and then to sue the military during a time of war for more money that is entirely unwarranted.

This is yet another issue on which the liberal wing of the political process gets it wrong. Once again we see that those who are breaking the laws are given more deference, at least in Fairfax County, than those people in our military (and the military itself) who are defending the highest law in the land; The Constitution.

Dichotomy of Justice

This week we were witness to two very distinct and divergent views of what constitutes justice. Two cases that involve sexual misconduct, one admittedly more severe than the other, but sexual misconduct none the less. The differences in these cases show us how far apart we are as a nation in regards to our views on rehabilitation, retribution, and justice for the victims and society.

In the state of Louisiana a man convicted of child rape of his 8 year old step daughter is awaiting his appeals of his death sentence. Patrick Kennedy is currently the only person in the country awaiting the death penalty for a crime other than murder. The US Supreme court which ruled some 42 years ago that you could not put someone to death for rape will hear arguments this week to determine if putting someone to death for a crime other than murder is cruel and unusual. Louisiana takes the unusual view that the the courts original ruling referred to the rape of adults and that child rape is a crime that is especially heinous and deserving of the death penalty. Nineteen years after the Supreme Court ruling Louisiana Legislature passed a law allow for the use of the death penalty for those who commit rape of a child under 12. The family of the child who's identity is still unknown to this day is especially committed to seeing the case through. They believe that the punishment is justified due to the lifetime of mental anguish, fear, and suspicion that the victims have to live with. "It's going to be justice," said Lynn Ray, the victim's cousin. "It's going to be that she can look forwards and not backwards, and not have to look over your shoulders, and one day see him. Or see him coming after her."

(For more on this case: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/15/rape.execution/)


Meanwhile, in the state of New York, we see the case of a man convicted 52 times, 29 of which involved sexual misconduct. Freddie Johnson, still under electronic monitoring was apprehended a 53rd time. He was witnessed and caught in the act of rubbing himself against a Hunter College co-ed. Johnson was charged with persistent sexual abuse and forcible touching. While Johnson certainly hasn't committed an act so depraved as child rape, the repetitiveness and his inability to change his behavior leads on to question the state of New York's actions in this man's case. Think of the number of women who have been molested and accosted because New York failed to act responsibly in this instance. While I'm not advocating the death penalty for Mr. Johnson, we have to wonder why after several times being charged and convicted of these lower level sexual assaults that Mr. Johnson was not locked away with a lost key.

(For more on this case: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/04/10/2008-04-10_a_53time_loser_paroled_pervs_molest_try_.html)

These two cases present a very different opinion on the ability to rehabilitate, as well as, questions about the consequences of ones actions. Can someone who commits an act of sexual misconduct be rehabilitated? What constitutes appropriate punishment when one violates another in a sexual manner (no matter how slight)? Can the victims ever feel safe again?

Rehabilitation, is impossible for sex offenders, or so claims Andrew Vachss. In an article originally published in 1993 Vachss claims that rehabilitation is thwarted by, "the need for offenders to seek higher and higher levels of stimulation. There is no observable waning of their desires over time: sexual predators do not outgrow their behavior. Thus, while most sadistic sex offenders are not first arrested for homicide, they may well try to murder someone in the future." (http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/disp_9301_a.html) Additionally, he goes on to state, "If we don't intend to execute sexual predators, and we have no treatment, what is our final line of defense?"

From the stance of the state of Louisiana the answer to that question is that for childred at least, based on the severity of the act of child rape, the only retribution that can be had is to put the offender to death. In the case of the state of New York, the act of groping a woman is so non-consequential that one can perpetrate it 53 times before we decide that it might be appropriate to incarcerate the person for life.

The Supreme Court has to decide if Louisiana's approach is correct and legal in terms of the cruel and unusual sections of the Constitution. The citizens of New York have to decide if their approach is correct and if not, push law makers in Albany to reform the NYS Penal Code. The Supreme Court could also be called on to decide if imprisonment based on probable conduct is legal, even if the probable conduct is based on 52 prior committed acts.

The only thing that is certain is that if the perpetrators of these acts are allowed back out on the streets the victims will never be safe, be it life imprisonment or death, one of those two options are the only way to allow victims to begin to gain some semblence of security back in their lives.