Elections in the Netherlands, Georgia and Venezuela

Dutch Parliamentary Elections

The Netherlands’ ruling center-right party won the most seats in the Dutch parliament, although not a majority.  It has formed a coalition government.  The Netherlands has been fiscally responsible and relatively prosperous.

Georgian Parliamentary Elections

A pro-Russian party defeated the pro-Western party of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili in the parliamentary elections in Georgia.  Saakashvili retains the powerful presidency until early 2014, meaning that power will have to be shared, for now.

The Georgian President is responsible for defense and foreign policy, but there will be less effort by Georgia to eliminate Russian dominance over the parts of Georgia it occupied when it invaded the former Soviet republic in 2008 in a conflict that Russia provoked.  Russia has established puppet rulers in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which it may intend as a temporary step toward annexation.  As I have observed in previous posts, Russia has gone unpunished for its aggression.  See my posts from September of 2009, Obama Betrays Allies, Appeases Russia, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama-betrays-allies-appeases-russia.html, NATO Forgives Russia for Georgian Invasion, from April of 2009, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/04/nato-forgives-russia-for-georgian.html and December Foreign Updates: Italy, Georgia, Korea from December of 2010, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2010/12/december-foreign-updates-italy-georgia.html.

Whether or not Georgia will remain democratic and free, or become more authoritarian like Russia, is a larger question than even whether or not it will defend its own territorial sovereignty.

Venezuelan Presidential Elections 

Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez reportedly won reelection in the presidential election, according to the state-controlled election commission, despite exit polling that suggested the opposition candidate Henrique Capriles, a former governor, had won a slight majority.  The true winner will never be known, as the state does not permit an independent audit, although Chavez’s reported official margin was lower than his previous win in 2006.

Chavez had pushed through constitutional amendments that permitted him to seek another term.  The Dictator of Venezuela has ruled as president for 14 years, meaning he will have served for 20 years if he survives his term.

            The Venezuelan strongman, who has limited dissent and severely compromised the independence of the judiciary, had expropriated industries and doled out the country’s oil wealth to win the support of the poor and implemented other public works near the time of the election.  Venezuela holds the world’s largest oil reserves.  Chavez has limited dissent and compromised the independence of the judiciary by intimidation.  Despite double-digit inflation, high crime, electricity blackouts, and an increase in bureaucracy and public corruption, many poor Venezuelans backed Chavez’s socialist revolution. 

Under Chavez, Venezuela has allied itself with the Communist Castro regime of Cuba, providing a lifeline to the Cuban dictatorship, and has formed an anti-American alliance with other leftist regimes, such as Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia as part of his so-called “Bolivarian Revolution.”  For example, the Chavez-led alliance supports the Marxist narco-terrorists in Colombia responsible for much of the cocaine shipped to the United States.  Venezuela also has supported ETA, the Basque terrorists, and has provided financial safe harbor for Hezbollah, the Iranian-sponsored Shi’ite terrorist organization from Lebanon.  Chavez has warm relations with Iran, among other members of what I call “the Axis of Rogues.”

I have called for the designation of Venezuela as a state-sponsor of terrorism in my post from February of 2012, Designate Venezuela a State Sponsor of Terrorism, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2012/02/designate-venezuela-state-sponsor-of.html and posted about U.S. Congressional proposal to that effect in my post, 2,000 Visits to My Blog, from July of 2010, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2010/08/2000-visits-to-my-blog.html, but U.S. President Barack Obama has dismissed Venezuela as not much of a threat to the U.S.

Response to False Democratic Accusations of Lies by Paul Ryan

I was recently asked by a political activist to respond to a Democratic set of talking points that criticized Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin in his remarks at the time of his recommendation by former Massachusetts Mitt Romney to be his running mate.  Romney and Ryan are the Republican nominees for President and Vice President of the United States.  The Democrats in their talking points falsely accuse Ryan of a number of lies.  I decided to post my response to this blog.

The first false Democratic claim in their talking points is that Ryan blamed President Barack Obama for the downgrading of the U.S. credit rating.  The Democrats blame the downgrade on a Republican “threat” not to increase the debt limit (the borrowing authority of the federal government).  The Republicans insisted on spending cuts in exchange for increasing the debt limit, which was already over $14 trillion. The Republicans offered to raise it if Obama and the Congressional Democrats agreed to spending cuts without raising taxes.  Obama and the Democrats insisted on raising taxes, which, by the Democrats’ reasoning, was a threat not to raise the debt limit.  The resulting political impasse is what led to fears hyped by the media that the government would not be able to meet its financial obligations temporarily, even though it still could have kept pace because of incoming revenue. 

The fact that the debt limit was as high as it was and yet had to be raised even higher was a major factor of the credit downgrade.  Although the U.S. would not default on its debt because the Federal Reserve could print more money, the resultant inflation because of the devaluation of the dollar would make such an option economically and politically undesirable.  Therefore, doubts arise about the fiscal solvency of the U.S. to service its debt and meet its financial obligations.

The Democrats contend that Ryan was misleading because he pointed out that the General Motors plant in his hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin closed after Obama was elected.  The plant was, in fact, idled after Obama was elected, but before he took office.  Note the plant was idled, not closed.  Regardless of whether it was idled because of a lack of confidence in the incoming President, it could have been reopened had the economy recovered sufficiently under Obama.  Therefore, it is true that the plant is not currently open at least in part because of Obama’s policies. 

Obama and the Democrats’ claim to have prevented more plant closures because he “saved” GM and Chrysler is specious, as a structured bankruptcy would not have meant that the automobile companies would have gone out business and that all of their plants would necessarily have closed.  It would have meant debt consolidation in order not to have lost everything to creditors while the creditors would not have lose everything.  Obama’s takeover of the automakers meant that the bondholders – in an extraordinary intervention of the government and in violation of the legal protection of contracts – lost everything, thereby undermining investor confidence in holding corporate bonds, while his supporters in the United Auto Workers were protected from losing benefits.  Also, Obama’s closures of thousands of GM and Chrysler dealerships caused the loss of over 100,000 jobs.

The Democrats claim that Ryan is wrong to say that Obama claims to have created jobs.  Obama implies that his policies created jobs: the jobs created are thus, according to him, either fully or partially the result of his interventionist government policies, instead of because of the private decisions made in a free market.  Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, by contrast, did not claim that the government directly created jobs, but that their tax cuts and other fiscally responsible policies unshackled the market and sparked economic recovery and prosperity, which, in turn, allowed the private sector indirectly to create jobs.  The only jobs the government creates are government jobs.  The rest are created by the private sector.  Regardless, I note the figure Obama cites of 4.5 million jobs created during his administration fails to keep pace with population growth, meaning that the size of the labor force, even counting the increased number of people working only part-time as employed, is not increasing, while millions have given up looking for work, not including those who left the workforce for non-economic reasons.  Obama’s figure is thus evidence of the weakest jobs recovery since the Great Depression.

I pause here to note something about these first three Democratic accusations: they reflect the liberal view that everything economic is the result of government policies, which is why they make too much of who was president at what exact point.  They are right that both the Legislative and Executive Branches share in the responsibility for government policies and the consequences those policies have on the economy, something they neglected to acknowledge during the last two years of the Bush Administration when candidate Obama, who was then a Senator in the majority Democratic Congress, blamed President Bush and his Republican Party for everything bad in the economy the last two years of the Administration while ignoring the prosperity of the several years before Obama’s Democratic party won control of the Legislative Branch. 

Finally, the Democrats claim in their talking points that the $716 billion in Medicare cuts that are part of Obama’s federalization of health insurance are not “cuts” to Medicare for patients, but decreases in reimbursements to healthcare providers.  It is true that the $716 billion would be from reductions in Medicare reimbursements, but it is also true that these are cuts to Medicare.  Without adequate reimbursement, doctors would be even less likely to see patients on Medicare, meaning that these patients would be less able to receive healthcare.  Medicare is a welfare entitlement program that operates essentially as a subsidy for healthcare providers to treat patients enrolled in it.  Therefore, a cut in the subsidy to healthcare providers to treat Medicare patients is necessarily a “cut” to Medicare.

How Pennsylvania Had a Deficit that Corbett Had to Close, Despite a Balanced Budget Requirement

When Republican Tom Corbett campaigned for governor in 2010, he promised to close Pennsylvania’s $4.5 billion budgetary shortfall by cutting spending and not raising taxes.  As I have posted, he has kept his promise.  See Governor Corbett Signs Pennsylvania’s Budget and Welfare Reform Legislation, from July of 2011, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2011/07/governor-corbett-signs-pennsylvanias.html Pennsylvania Governor Corbett Signs His Second Balanced Budget from July of this year, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2012/07/pennsylvania-governor-corbett-signs.html.

Because the Pennsylvania Constitution requires the legislature and governor to approve a balanced budget, some liberal Democrats are minimizing Governor Corbett’s accomplishment of balancing the budget.  Some even doubt that he could possibly have faced such a significant budget deficit at the time of his inauguration.  They fail to understand that fulfilling the constitutional requirement of approving a balanced budget (i.e. legislatively approving a document in the form of a resolution) is not the same thing as balancing a budget (spending exactly as much as revenue).

First, a budget is an estimate of revenue and spending.  It is impossible to predict accurately either revenue or spending, for a variety of reasons.  It is impossible to predict tax revenue, for example, not only because of the difficulty of economic forecasting, but because it is impossible to predict accurately the myriad of decisions made by individuals in the private sector, such as the total number of employee pay raises or cuts, promotions or retirements, let alone the earnings or losses from stocks or businesses investing in themselves, all of which affect the economy and tax revenue, as well as decisions on how to spend income.  Tax revenue is even affected by the unpredictable earnings or losses from gambling and lotteries.  Births, marriages, movings, illnesses, disabilities and deaths, all of which also affect the economy and tax revenue, are impossible to predict with exact precision.  Even the notoriously-difficult-to-predict weather can affect the budget of governments because of natural disasters or road maintenance or repairs.  Indeed, no government budget ever is exactly balanced; there may be at times, at best, either a small deficit or surplus, but never an equalization of receipts and expenditures.  Even if a budget were exactly balanced, it would surely be more by the chance of the mutual cancellation of many errors than the clairvoyance of budget crafters.  

Second, although constitutionally required to approve a balanced budget, a legislature and governor may use accounting gimmickry to present the appearance of a balanced budget that could not really be balanced.  Such a presentation may be made in good faith or bad.  Regardless, it would be a misrepresentation to consider a budget to be balanced simply because it purports to be balanced, even though it is not.

Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a Democrat, raised taxes and increased spending.  Some of the spending was necessary, but some was reckless and irresponsible, which included much of the Commonwealth’s budgetary reserve (“rainy day fund”), while revenue fell far short of expectations.  Several members of the legislature expressed the opinion that Rendell’s budget was unconstitutional even at the time of its consideration because of its unrealistic economic assumptions.  Therefore, despite the approval of the “balanced budget,” it was not surprising that the state’s budget produced a deficit.  Indeed, Pennsylvania’s budget was $4.5 billion in the red by the time Corbett took office.

One example, he relied upon one-time Obama stimulus money to keep spending, which he used for part of the basic education subsidy for school districts.  School districts in Pennsylvania were warned not to expect a continuation of the same level, but many of them budgeted for the following year as if they expected the same level.  Because the spendthrift Rendell, who was running out of cash for other state needs, used the stimulus money for basic education instead of for economic stimulus, many critics of Governor Corbett are claiming that he has “cut” spending for education, when in reality education spending has not been cut, but has simply returned nearly to its pre-stimulus level, as expected.  In short, the Obama stimulus fueled Rendell’s spending spree instead of stimulating the state’s economy while disincentivizing many of the state’s school districts from determining budget priorities and adopting sound fiscal practices.

Therefore, it is not only possible for a state like Pennsylvania to have a significant budget deficit even though its constitution requires it to approve a balanced budget, it, in fact, happened in fiscal year 2010.  Thankfully, Governor Tom Corbett recognized the seriousness of the situation that threatened the Commonwealth’s economic vitality and addressed it in a fiscally responsible manner.

5,000th Visit to my Blog Tracked by StatCounter

There have been 5,000 visits to my blog since StatCounter began tracking pageviews of my blog since April 2, 2009.  The total of visits does not include my own visits.  As always, visits are defined as page views at least one hour apart.  Thank you for visiting my blog, especially those who follow it or return occasionally, as well those who post comments or who post the homepage of my blog or posts to my blog on other websites. 

If I included the total number of pages viewed (a narrower number than total pageviews, which would include reloads of the same page), the total would be around 5,650.  The reason I prefer to define visits as narrowly as I do is in order to obtain a truer reading of traffic to my blog.  For example, if a person visits my homepage and then a blog post and then returns to the homepage, all within an hour, he has visited once by my count, not three times, as hit counters would total.  If the post he viewed were on the homepage, his viewing of it does not necessarily reflect the reading of any additional material, as he may have opened it in order to comment, although it could also mean that he has copied it and sent to someone else.  If I were to include the total pageviews tracked by StatCounter, not including my own, the total hits would amount to approximately 7,500 – a figure around 50% larger than the number of visits.

A record number of visits in one day was set since my last report: there were over 100 on September 24, with a two-day total from September 24-25 of 135.  Over 100 of these visits were to the blog homepage.

Visitors have landed on 277 posts and viewed an additional 65, in addition to the 380 people who landed on my blog homepage who presumably read multiple posts.  The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization, Commentary on the Roman Influence on America Exhibit at the National Constitution Center and The Economy, Deficit and Debt at George W. Bush’s Inauguration continue to be the three most popular posts, having been viewed well over 1,700 times in total.  They are among eight posts than have been visited at least 100 times.  Of those whose visit to my blog commenced at a post, instead of the homepage, one out of every 11 or 12 viewed additional pages (the homepage, archive or other posts). 

My blog has received visits from all 50 States of the American Union, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam, as well as from 106 foreign states, the Palestinian Territory and Hong Kong.  The most visits outside the United States have come from Malaysia (over 360), followed by Algeria, Canada and the United Kingdom, each with well over 100, followed by India, Pakistan and Australia, each with over 60.  Since my last report, in addition to numerous colleges, universities, schools and businesses, there have been notable visits from the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Justice Department and the European Central Bank.

Blogger, the host of this blog, tracks far more pageviews from many more visitors than StatCounter (an average of 15 per day to 6, especially from more foreign states), but the latter’s greater specificity allows for better tracking.  I shall post a separate blog hit report as tracked by Blogger, as usual.

Please continue to visit and post comments.  As always, please feel free to suggest topics or ask questions.  Again, thank you.

Pennsylvania’s Voter ID Law Stands, but not for 2012

            Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Robin Simpson issued a preliminary injunction against the specific provisions of the state’s voter photographic identification requirement for all voters that would have disenfranchised those who attempted to cast ballots without proper photo ID.  He denied the petition of the law’s opponents for a permanent injunction, thereby letting the rest of the popular law passed by the state’s majority Republican General Assembly and signed by Republican Governor Tom Corbett stand, as his injunction is only temporary.

            See also my previous posts on Pennsylvania’s voter ID law: Corbett Signs the Voter ID Requirement into Pennsylvania Law, from March of 2012, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2012/03/corbett-signs-voter-id-requirement-into.html; Update on the Pennsylvania Voter ID Law, from August of this year, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2012/08/update-on-pennsylvania-voter-id-law.html; and Update on the Pennsylvania Voter ID Law: A Judge Denies an Injunction, also from August of 2012,  http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2012/08/update-on-pennsylvania-voter-id-law_15.html.

            Specifically, Judge Simpson cited a section in the voter ID law that required voters without photo ID not to be disenfranchised in ruling that the provisional ballots of those who were unable to produce photo ID up to six days after casting the provisional ballot would not be counted.  The Judge was ordered to issue an injunction by the state Supreme Court if he found there would be disenfranchisement.  He noted the significant efforts of the Commonwealth to educate voters about the need for photo ID and to make free access to photo IDs even easier than at the time of the Court’s first hearing, but determined that the effort would fall short by the 2012 General Election on November 6 of preventing some disenfranchisement.  Judge Simpson, however, rejected the petition of the opponents of the voter ID law to suspend the state’s efforts of educating voters about the need for photo ID, as he allowed the requirement to stand for subsequent elections. 

Thus, the General Election will resemble the Primary in Pennsylvania, in that voters in the Commonwealth will be asked to present photo ID, but not be denied the franchise without it.  Under a previous state law, first time voters will continue to be required to present valid identification in order to cast ballots. 

The Commonwealth Court ruling could be appealed to the Supreme Court.

            Alas, if the ruling stands, those who would commit voter fraud would have one last chance to impersonate voters.  But Pennsylvania would soon have elections that reflect the principle of one man, one vote, as there will no longer be any excuse for the lack of photographic identification for voters.  Although many other election reforms are necessary in Pennsylvania in order to eliminate fraud and other irregularities, a measure of confidence in the democratic process would have been established.

Cinfici Is Polled by Susquehanna

       
               I was polled by Susquehanna Polling and Research on September 18.  The poll of likely voters suggests the presidential race is a dead heat in Pennsylvania, contrary to other polls.  It also suggests that the contest for the seat of the United States Senate representing the Keystone State is much closer than in other polls.

It was the second recent poll conducted by SP&R showing such a result.  The first was an internal Republican poll, the second one a public one for a media outlet.  Both polls were dismissed by liberals as apparent outliers, but they reflect pollster James Lee’s belief that turnout will not be as high in 2012 as it was in 2008.  It also reflects President Barack Obama’s consistent approval ratings measured by nearly all pollsters below 50% in Pennsylvania and higher Republican enthusiasm in the Commonwealth for casting ballots than that of Democrats.  The Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania cited the internal poll as evidence for why the Romney-Ryan campaign should target their state as a battleground and not abandon it to their opponents, as the liberal media have speculated.  SP&R is a reliable, widely used polling organization.

Despite a Democratic voter registration advantage of 13% – over a million people – Republicans dominated the 2010 Election in Pennsylvania with higher voter turnout and a greater crossover of Democrats voting for Republican candidates than vice versa.  See my post from November of 2010, Pennsylvania Proves the Key State for the GOP, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2010/11/pennsylvania-proves-key-state-for-gop.html.  Indeed, Susquehanna’s poll suggests Obama is trailing in the Democratic western Pennsylvania counties that have been trending Republican in recent years.  They are inhabited by the “bitter clingers,” the western Pennsylvanians Obama insulted during the 2008 presidential campaign as bitterly “clinging” to “religion” or “guns.”  The closer Senate race is reflected in the latest Rasmussen poll and may be the fruit of Republican nominee Tom Smith’s television advertisement campaign.  Smith’s campaign is tying the Democratic incumbent to Obama, which may also be contributing to the erosion of support for the President in the Keystone State.

I have been polled several times over the last few years since before I launched this blog in 2008 in statewide or local races, both in public and internal polls, including by major pollsters.  See my posts: Cinfici Is Polled by Rasmussen Reports, from March of 2010, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2010/03/cinfici-polled-by-rasmussen-reports.html and Cinfici is Polled Again, from October of that year, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2010/10/cinfici-is-polled-again.html.  I do not have great confidence in polls generally, much less for how the media reports them, (See my post from earlier this month, The Media’s Error on the Margin of Error in Polls) but the more scientific polls are, the more credible they are.  I post reports of when I have been polled in order to lend credence to the results.

Personal Notes, September 2012

           Now that the summer is ending, I wanted to post about some noteworthy events I attended during that season, among others.

            I attended the annual wreath-laying by District 7 of the Order Sons of Italy in America at the monument of the 39^th New York Infantry Regiment, the “Garibaldi Guards” at Gettysburg National Military Park.  The unit was made up of immigrants from various European countries, including Italians, and was named for Italian General Giuseppe Garibaldi, who played a key role in the unification of Italy in 1861.  The Garibaldi Guards helped repulse Longstreet’s Advance (“Pickett’s Charge”) on July 3, 1863 during the Battle of Gettysburg, the turning point of the American Civil War.  It was an honor to participate in a patriotic, religious and ethnic heritage event on the battlefield – the first time I have ever participated in a public event there, other than being on or leading tours of it.

I also attended the opening of the Republican Victory Center in Berks County, Pennsylvania attended by Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) and a Member of the British Parliament, Guto Bepp, a Conservative from Wales, as well as several state legislators and local elected officials.  I also met with Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA), a conservative who would be my new representative if he is reelected because of reapportionment and redistricting.  I am currently represented by Rep. Jim Gerlach, who has served well, including his representation of Reading and Berks County.  I am looking forward to being represented by Pitts, whose district will include all of Reading.

I can report anecdotally in my discussions with Pennsylvania voters, including in contacts with them at various political events other than those mentioned in this post, that there is a sense of urgency about this year’s General Election.  The feeling is one of dread about America going off the “fiscal cliff,” the continued economic weakness and the decrease of liberty from a corresponding increase in government power and from redistributionism.  The fear is that this election represents the last opportunity to save the United States from the doom that would result from a continuation of these policies under President Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress.  There is hope, however, that the sound fiscal policies of a Romney-Ryan Administration and Republican Congress would restore America to fiscal soundness and prosperity.

The Attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya Was an Act of Jihad, Not Anger

            There has been considerable controversy about whether the attack on the United States Consulate in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the death of the U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans, like the violent protests targeting U.S. embassies in other Muslim states, was a terrorist attack or a spontaneous protest sparked by anger about an anti-Islamic movie made by a resident of the United States.  At first, the Obama Administration denied that it was a terrorist attack, insisting it was a spontaneous result of anger, only now to admit that it was.

            As an attack on a diplomatic facility – a government building – and on the government employees therein, it was not an attack on innocent civilians, meaning civilians as opposed to official policymakers.  Although the attack could terrorize innocent American civilians from visiting such facilities, it did not terrorize most Americans.  Therefore, the attack was not a terrorist attack, but was a violent act of Jihad (Islamic holy war) by militant Islamists.  Indeed, it was an act of war against the U.S.  

            I have striven through numerous posts to this blog to distinguish between the evils of militant attacks and the worse evil of terrorism, the targeting of innocent civilians in order to intimidate the populace into giving into the demands of the terrorists, in order to avoid a dilution of the word terrorism and to treat the threat from terrorists even more harshly than from other militants.

            But the point is that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya was not a spontaneous protest by ordinary Libyans angry about an anti-Islamic movie that insults Mohammed.  It was planned by Islamists like al-Qaeda.  The anti-Islamic video was an excuse for anti-American violence, not the cause.  The cause was Islamism.  The timing was September 11, the anniversary of al-Qaeda’s worst terrorist attacks.  Even al-Qaeda’s claimed retaliation for the killing of the terrorist organization’s second in command was an excuse.

            The Ambassador was loved by the Libyan people, some of whom tried to save his life.  He had served in the Middle East with the Peace Corps and Foreign Service, even traveling to Libya during the Civil War to establish relations with the rebels fighting to overthrow Muammar Qaddafi with Western assistance.  An American government official liked by a Muslim population is intolerable for Islamists.

            The Obama Administration appeared more concerned about the feelings of Muslims, before, during and after the attack, than security at American diplomatic facilities.  Adequate security might have prevented the attack or at least ameliorated it.  It is also true that President Barack Obama’s policy of engagement with Muslims, which Islamists interpret as weakness, failed to deter the attack in the first place.  However, just as the anti-Islamic moviemaker did not cause the jihadist attack, neither did Obama’s policies.  Militant Muslims engaged in Jihad did.  The point is similar to placing the blame on the September 11 Attacks on the terrorists who committed them and not on Americans (e.g. because of President Bill Clinton’s repeated failures to respond adequately to terrorism, inadequate airline safety, intelligence failures, etc.) who, although they made unintentional errors, were unable to prevent them.  A larger trend in the United States in recent decades – one that conservatives should be especially mindful to avoid – of an increasing inability to recognize the sole responsibility of individuals for their own actions is discernable here.

Nevertheless, the attack reminds American people that the threat from terrorism targeting Americans, including from al-Qaeda, remains, despite the death of Osama bin Laden.

Pennsylvania News: Small Business Regulatory Reform; Work Requirement for Welfare; Natural Gas Impact Fees

Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, signed the Small Business Regulatory Reform act approved by the Republican majority General Assembly, which requires the impact of regulations on small businesses to be assessed.  If the regulation adversely affects business, the regulatory agency must substitute a less-burdensome regulation.

Corbett also rejected the potential waiver offered by the Obama Administration of the work requirement for welfare recipients, according to the Commonwealth Foundation.

Pennsylvania reported that the Commonwealth has received $206 million in impact fees for natural gas drilling this year.  Last year, the state legislature passed and Corbett signed a principled impact fee into law, resisting pressure to single out the natural gas industry to impose a tax on natural gas drilling in addition to all the usual state corporate income and asset taxes they already pay.  This figure does not include all of those taxes paid to county and municipal governments, as well as all of the tax revenue generated from tens of thousands of jobs and other economic activity, including royalties for landowners.

Remembering Captain Kathy Mazza and the Other September 11 First Responders

           
               My cousin, Kathy Mazza-Delosh, a Captain in the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey who was killed in the line of duty in the September 11 Terrorist Attacks, was among the heroic first responders lost in the massacre who were remembered at a ceremony in Reading's City Park yesterday.

               A nurse by training, Mazza rushed to the North Tower of the World Trade Center after it was hit by a terrorist-guided passenger jet.  She helped people escape from the crowded lobby of the building by shooting out the windows with her service revolver.  After the South Tower was hit and collapsed, Mazza and several of her colleagues were attempting to rescue someone from the North Tower when it collapsed, killing them.  Their bodies were found in February of 2002.

               Mazza was included in local newspaper and television stories.  The link the the Reading Eagle story may be found here: http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=413263.  The link to the WFMZ-TV story may be found here: http://www.wfmz.com/news/news-regional-berks/Reading-firefighters-pay-tribute-to-comrades-killed-on-9-11/-/121418/16560014/-/pl9tmf/-/index.html.  All of the non-governmental civilians quoted are my family members.

Reflection on the 11th Anniversary of the September 11 Terrorist Attacks

We recall all those killed in the massacre of the September 11 Terrorist Attacks and the bravery of the many first responders and other heroes on that day.  We also thank the soldiers, intelligence agents, and other countless other public servants who have served in the War on Terrorism, at home and abroad, including in Afghanistan and Iraq, and recall all those who have fallen.

We praise all the elected officials, from Presidents and Congress to state and local officials who have initiated and continued anti-terrorism polices.  United States President Barack Obama deserves credit for continuing most of his predecessor, George W. Bush’s, policies in the War on Terrorism that have kept us safe from another massive terrorist attack for eleven years, a result which, immediately after the attacks, few would have predicted.  Regrettably, several of the Obama Administration’s policies have left Americans more vulnerable to terrorism and other militant attacks, as I have noted in previous posts.  In this matter, nothing less than perfection is acceptable.  Although Obama has been good, he has not been perfect, either at home, or in Afghanistan or Iraq.  Thankfully, we have not yet paid the price for foolish policies.  

Today, however, we focus on remembering all that we lost on September 11 and being thankful that we have not lost more and grateful for life and liberty, while we must continue to advocate for the right policies to avoid another dark day like the one eleven years ago.  May God Bless America.

Thank President George W. Bush for Saving New Orleans from Flooding from Hurricane Isaac

The levees the Bush Administration had the Army Corps of Engineers construct around New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina apparently spared the city from catastrophic flooding after Hurricane Isaac.  Isaac was far weaker than Katrina in terms of wind speeds, but because it was much slower-moving, it dumped much more rainfall on the area and produced a higher storm surge in some areas of Louisiana outside the Crescent City.  New Orleans was spared from such inundation because the levees held, unlike after Katrina.  Former President George W. Bush and the Republican Congress that approved the appropriation of billions of American taxpayers’ dollars for the project will probably receive little or no credit in the media for saving New Orleans from far worse flooding.  They and the American taxpayers deserve thanks for their successful efforts.

I also note a contrast between the way the disaster of Hurricane Isaac was handled by Louisiana’s Republican Administration under Governor Bobby Jindal than the way the catastrophe of Hurricane Katrina was handled by the Democratic Administration before, during and after the storm, despite warnings beforehand from the Bush Administration.  Jindal had also won praise for his state’s handling of the BP oil spill two years ago, which, unlike hurricanes, was a matter of federal responsibility because it took place offshore and oil drilling is federally regulated.  The Pelican State Governor was among the many critics of the bureaucracy of the Obama Administration during the oil spill for hampering his efforts.  Louisiana was better prepared for this storm and its citizens took heed of the storm warnings more than the last time. 

The Media’s Error on the Margin of Error of Polls

               The media usually reports polls in a number of erroneous or misleading ways.  One of the most common regards the margin of error.  I shall examine the other errors and misleading expressions in future posts.

               The margin of error is the statistical degree of deviation, usually based upon at least a 95% degree of confidence.  The margin is determined by the sample size, as is the degree of confidence.  The larger the sample size, the lower the margin of error and the higher the degree of confidence.

               The margin of error refers to each figure of results in a poll, not the difference between the two figures, as the media erroneously reports it.  Thus, the results may represent a statistical tie, even though the difference between two results in a poll may be greater than the margin of error for the total sample.

               For example, if Candidate A’s result is that he is favored by 49% of those polled and Candidate B by 44% and the margin of error is plus or minus 3%, then their race is within the margin of error.  Candidate A’s result is plus or minus 3% of 49% (i.e. 46%-52%) while Candidate B is plus or minus 3% of 44% (41-47%).  Because the ranges for Candidates A and B overlap (i.e. Candidate A’s lowest possible low is lower than Candidate B’s highest possible high), their race is a dead heat.  The media would therefore be wrong to report the result of such a poll as “outside the margin of error.”

               Note: A poll of polls using the same type of polling sample should produce a margin of error and a degree of confidence commensurate with the total number polled.  For example, the results of a poll of 300 registered voters and a margin of error of plus or minus 5% should not be averaged with a poll of 1,000 likely voters and a margin of error of plus or minus 3%.  Not only are the polling samples different, but even if they were the same, a new margin of error and degree of confidence should be calculated based upon the combined results and then the combined total could be reported instead of averaging the results of the two polls as if they are of equal weight, margin of error and degree of confidence.  In other words, averages of the results of polls are inaccurate because they do not take into account these factors.  Instead, the results using similar polling samples should be combined and weighted as if they were one poll.

Conservative Analysis of the 2012 Republican National Convention

            Although the Republican National Convention this year nominated a candidate for President of the United States who was the most moderate of the field in the primary elections, Mitt Romney, the former successful businessman, savior of the 2002 Winter Olympics and Governor of Massachusetts, is campaigning as a conservative and selected a conservative as his running mate, seven-term Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, who was nominated for Vice President. 

Ryan, whose career I have followed since his first successful election campaign in 1998, is a protégé of the late Rep. Jack Kemp (R-NY), author of the tax cuts of President Ronald Reagan that helped spark a 25-year period of economic prosperity – the most stable in American history.  He is the leading Republican expert on fiscal and economic matters in the House of Representatives. 

The installation of a national debt clock and a clock displaying the debt increase during the convention was politically shrewd.  It was appropriate to acknowledge Hurricane Isaac and the passing of Neil Armstrong, the first man on the moon.  The speeches focused mostly on fiscal and economic matters, although defense, foreign policy, trade, immigration, energy, abortion, gay marriage, labor, education, and threats to liberty were among the issues raised repeatedly.  A common theme ran through the speeches: the humble origins of the speakers or their parents or grandparents.  Although the speeches focused on the challenges facing the U.S., such as the debt, the poor economy, and Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, the speakers demonstrated a Reaganesque optimism based upon their faith in America.  Many of the speakers are rising conservative stars.  

Not only were the speeches generally conservative, but the remarkable platform approved by the GOP Convention reflected conservative principles (http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/).  The platform was much more comprehensive than the speeches, yet relatively succinct. 

The Republican Party appeared largely united behind the Romney-Ryan ticket and increasingly enthusiastic about it and its chances of victory.  It is also determined to defeat President Barak Obama and elect more conservative Republicans to Congress before it is too late and the U.S. goes off the “fiscal cliff” like Greece and other European countries.  

Governor Corbett Abolishes Pennsylvania's Death Tax for Family Farmers

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, signed a bill into law to eliminate the Commonwealth’s onerous inheritance tax for those who inherit their family’s farm.  The bill was approved by both houses of the majority Republican General Assembly. 

Pennsylvania’s inheritance tax had been reduced from 6% to 4.5% for lineal descendents under fellow Republican Governor Tom Ridge, but the phase-out of the “death tax” was halted under Democratic Governor Ed Rendell, who initiated a tax and spending spree.  The inheritance tax rate for siblings is 12% and for other heirs, the Commonwealth taxes inheritance at 15%!  What makes Pennsylvania’s rate especially burdensome is the lack of any exemption, meaning that the tax begins to apply from the first dollar inherited, unlike federal taxes or those of other states that only tax inheritance above a large threshold.  Now, those inheriting family farms will no longer pay any inheritance tax.

The owners of small family farms are often wealthy in land, but poor in cash. Thus, the death tax was significantly responsible for the large decrease in the number of family farms in Pennsylvania, as families had to sell all or parts of the family farm either to larger corporations or to real estate developers in order to pay the inheritance tax.  The loss of farmland and other open space has contributed to urban sprawl, with its resultant adverse effects on the environment, as well as a decrease in the availability of fresh, locally-grown produce. 

The movement in the Keystone State to preserve open space had helped to reduce the effect of the tax, while an increase in demand for locally-grown produce has led to a rise in the number of farmers’ markets that are making farming a more worthwhile enterprise.  Thus, the actions of the Legislature and Governor will not only improve Pennsylvania’s economy, but preserve its environment and quality of life.  It should also be noted that Pennsylvania farmers and other landowners in parts of the Commonwealth have been aided by royalties from natural gas drilling. 

There are many other businesses that, like farms, require land by their nature in order to produce goods or services.  Pennsylvania’s death tax thereby continues to burden many citizens who inherit their family enterprises, especially small businesses that have a relatively large amount of land, but not enough cash to pay the inheritance tax in order to keep the business in the family. 

Furthermore, the death tax, which taxes the inheritance of money that was mostly already taxed during the lifetime of the person who earned it, continues to burden all Pennsylvanians.  I call upon the General Assembly to continue to phase out the Commonwealth’s death tax.

Recent Attacks Were Not Domestic Terrorism

The shootings at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin and the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. were labeled by law enforcement authorities as acts of “domestic terrorism.”  However, neither attack met the definition of terrorism: the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians in order to intimidate the populace into giving into the demands of the terrorists.

I have posted several times about the importance of not broadening the definition of terrorism, which dilutes its evil and have stated clearly which acts constitute terrorism and which do not.

The attack at the Sikh temple was an act of hatred with the intent to kill, not to terrorize others beyond the immediate targets.  At worst, it was an act of genocide -- a grave evil, but not the same thing as terrorism.  The motive of the shooter, who was killed in the attack, was unlikely to terrorize the general populace because it was targeted at a particular group or at least at those not within his ethnic group and because he acted alone.  He might have expected or even intended to be killed in the attack.  Acting alone in a one-time attack cannot possibly terrorize anyone after the completion of the attack, once there is no longer the ability to carry out further attacks.

The second target, the Family Research Council, was apparently selected for a political motivation.  The general populace was not the target, but the individuals at the organization, in this case a conservative advocacy organization, with whom the shooter disagreed.  The general populace is not terrorized by an attack on a particular political target.

When law enforcement refers to a crime as “domestic terrorism,” it means an attack that is based upon political, religious or ethnic motivations, as opposed to the usual motivations of crime.  To them, it makes little difference whether or not such an attack meets the definition of terrorism.  Their jargon, as reported in the media, however, does not necessarily define the crime for everyone else.

I take this opportunity to express sympathy for the victims of these attacks and their families and to laud the heroism of those who ended them.

Update on the Pennsylvania Voter ID Law: A Judge Denies an Injunction

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Robin Simpson denied a preliminary injunction against the state’s new voter identification law.  He ruled that the law reasonably addresses a concern of the legislature, is not required to address a problem that already exists, does not impose a new qualification to vote and is not intended to deny any individuals the privilege to vote.  Judge Simpson also noted the provisions of the law to allow voters to obtain a valid photographic identification free of charge, the Commonwealth’s plans to educate the public about the new requirement and the provisions of the law that permit voters to cast absentee ballots or provisional ballots coupled with signing an affidavit, as well as something the opponents of the law failed to consider: the ability of voters to seek judicial relief. 

Judge Simpson found that at most the law might burden only a few people, which would not justify overturning the law that addresses a reasonable concern of the legislature to protect the integrity of the ballot and does not burden the overwhelming majority of citizens, while the various provisions of the law could afford voters sufficient protection for their franchise.  In denying the injunction, the Judge did not rule out the possibility that a voter could prevail on the merits of his claim to have been disenfranchised if such an event occurs, but the high standard necessary to set aside the implementation of the law could not possibly have been made at this point.  The opponents of the law are likely to appeal, but are unlikely to prevail, which would require at least a two thirds vote of the six members of the State Supreme Court, meaning that the law is likely to be implemented in time for the 2012 General Election.

See also my post from earlier this month, in which I made some of the same legal arguments accepted by Judge Simpson, a Republican for whom I campaigned for nomination and election, while arguing that there is a voter fraud problem in Pennsylvania: http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2012/08/update-on-pennsylvania-voter-id-law.html and my post announcing the signing of the voter ID bill into law by Governor Tom Corbett from March of 2013: http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2012/03/corbett-signs-voter-id-requirement-into.html.

Nellie Gray, Rest in Peace

The foundress of the annual March for Life, Nellie J. Gray, passed away today at the age of 88 in Massachusetts, where she resided.

Gray served as a corporal in the Army during Word War II, earned a bachelor’s degree in economics and served in the United States federal government for nearly three decades, first in the Department of State, then the Department of Labor.  Meanwhile, she earned a law degree and later argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.  Through the help of a Priest Gray met, she converted to Catholicism. 

After the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton Supreme Court decisions of 1973, Gray organized the first March for Life on January 22, 1974 on the anniversary of those infamous rulings, which became an annual event drawing hundred of thousands of attendees from across the U.S.  She served as the mistress of ceremonies at every March.  Other events are held across America on the day.  The effort is even mirrored by pro-life movements around the world.  The March for Life and the annual report on abortion Gray produced calls attention to the evil of abortion and the harm it causes both to babies and their parents and highlights respect for life from conception until natural death and human liberty.  Priests for Life leader Father Frank Pavone has announced that the 2013 March for Life will be dedicated in Gray’s honor.

Gray recognized the similarity of the evil of fascism and the Holocaust she fought during the Second World War and the evil of tens of millions of abortions committed in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade.  In both cases, she fulfilled her duty to use her God-given talents to do good, thereby serving as an inspiration to all.

May Nellie Gray’s example continue to inspire all Americans to respect the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with which our Creator endows all of us, born and pre-born.  

Update on the Pennsylvania Voter ID Law

Liberals are arguing that because there have been no prosecutions of election fraud, there must not have been any fraud.   The liberals argue a priori that Pennsylvania’s voter identification requirement thus solves a problem that does not exist.  However, there is no legal requirement in the first place that a problem must already exist before legislators address it. 

Indeed, it would be unreasonable to wait for a problem to occur in order to prevent it, like waiting for terrorists to attack instead of neutralizing the threat beforehand.  The voter ID law reasonably address that problem. 

In attempting to minimize voter fraud and other irregularities strictly through the quantification of successful prosecutions, liberals contradict their claims in other cases.  For example, they claim that because most cases of the sexual abuse of minors by legal adults are unreported, the problem is significantly worse than the number of successful prosecutions suggests.  Thus, it appears that in regard to voter fraud, liberals are simply close-minded to the possibility of its existence.

But proof of election fraud does, in fact, exist.  Liberals should have learned their lesson of the truth of the legal maxim that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”  Just as liberals were proven wrong about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the United States reported in 2006 that it had found several hundred artillery shells topped with chemical warheads in Iraq, among other prohibited materiel, that had been suspected by United Nations inspectors as never having been destroyed by the Baathist Iraqi regime, liberals are again being proven wrong about voter fraud in Pennsylvania and elsewhere across the Union, where there have been several hundred prosecutions for election fraud, often involving elected officials.

            I had already cited an example of voter fraud in Pennsylvania in my March of 2012 post, Corbett Signs the Voter ID Requirement into Pennsylvania Law http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2012/03/corbett-signs-voter-id-requirement-into.html, I was among the candidates on the ballot in the 2000 General Election who were victimized by voter fraud.  For example, in a number of voting precincts in Muhlenberg Township, which was dominated by a Democratic “Gang” that was later removed from power after its leader pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges, voters were fraudulently impersonated by unknown individuals.  After one such incident of impersonation, when a Judge of Elections in one of the precincts questioned a second individual who attempted to impersonate another voter, the impersonator ran out of the polling place!  Therefore, even though there was no fraud prosecution, there was at least one successful voter fraud and a second attempt to commit fraud in just one precinct alone.  That precinct was the only one in the Township that was majority Republican with a Republican Judge of Elections, meaning that there was no safeguard against Democratic fraud in the other precincts.  As I noted in the earlier post, this example is just one of many of various voter irregularities in Democratic strongholds of which I have observed or heard reports of over the years, such as in the City of Reading, both in terms of fraud or other irregularities.  Efforts are made whenever possible to report them to election authorities or encourage witnesses to report them.

Furthermore, a recent investigative report (http://media.philly.com/documents/Voting+Irregularities+Report.pdf) by an election official in Philadelphia County highlighted the problem of voter fraud and related election irregularities.  Even though the report was based only on spot-checking, it nevertheless details numerous examples of voter impersonation, voting by individuals in more than one precinct, voting by non-citizens or others ineligible to vote, more votes cast in precincts than voters who officially voted and various other irregularities.  In short, serious voting irregularities, whether constituting fraud or not, are committed in Pennsylvania in Democratic-dominated areas, of a kind that would be reduced by the requirement of voters to provide photographic identification.  Indeed, liberals mislead by focusing on the term “election” or “voter fraud,” which is legally defined as a crime, while ignoring the more common irregularities of allowing ineligible people to vote when the criminal intent to commit “fraud” is absent. 

Philadelphia County is the same place where armed members of the New Black Panthers engaged in voter intimidation during the 2008 General Election.  The liberal Obama Administration’s Attorney General Eric Holder opted not to prosecute them for voter intimidation, while liberals play the race card by accusing proponents of voter identification of voter intimidation, especially of blacks – a convenient argument that allows Democrats to continue to commit election fraud, especially in Philadelphia, with impunity. 

The liberals’ argument against the voter identification requirement would be worse than saying that a crackdown on bank robbery would represent the taking away of the right to bank.  It would be even worse than saying that cracking down on bank robbery is itself the crime of bank robbery (like saying “the cure is the disease”) because exercising the privilege to vote, as the means to hold government accountable and thereby to safeguard liberty, is more basic to freedom than even the right to bank.

European Monetary Union Update: Cyprus and Italy

            While the fiscal situation in Greece and Spain continues to deteriorate, despite the measures taken by the European Monetary Union to resolve the crisis, Cyprus has asked the European Monetary Union for a bailout, as it holds much Greek debt in the form of bonds.  The island republic inhabited mostly by ethnic Greeks is the most immediate example of the spread of contagion of fiscal crisis from Greece.

            Italy announced over five and a half billion dollars worth of additional budget cuts that will allow a six-month delay of a previously-approved increase in the value added tax, according to ANSA.  The tax cut is intended to increase economic growth.

Additional Thoughts on the United States Supreme Court Ruling on the Federalization of Health Insurance

            I noted several positives in my last post for conservatism and federalism in the recent United States Supreme Court ruling on the federalization of health insurance, which I hope my readers found heartening. 

Many fellow conservatives have expressed deep disappointment over the ruling because it upheld the individual mandate to purchase health insurance, which was the lynchpin of the legislation passed by the liberal Democratic Congressional majority and signed by President Barak Obama.  The entire law could have been overturned had the mandate been ruled unconstitutional.  I write this post to hearten further my fellow conservatives.

            We conservatives ought not to act like liberals.  Conservatives should avoid the practice of many liberals to make unnecessary ad hominem arguments against those with whom we disagree.  We should not expect an outcome of a case to be based upon ideology or politics, like liberals do, but the Constitution or the law, as originally intended.  We must also accept that the principle of judicial restraint requires deference to the powers of the Legislative Branch, which is representative of the People, even if the law were bad, unpopular, or were approved dishonestly, as long as it is constitutional.  

In significant cases, I read the entire majority, concurring and dissenting opinions, particularly of the conservative Justices, including all of their footnotes – a practice I recommend.  The scholarly opinions of Supreme Court Justices are generally based upon legislative history, precedent and reason.  The Justices are influenced by ideology, but generally not by partisan politics. 

            Although I agree more with the conservative dissenters in this case, I believe Chief Justice John Roberts was reasonable in reaching his decision in favor of upholding the individual mandate.  The conservative dissenters noted that this case was “difficult” because it was one of “first impressions” in a number of areas, meaning that there was little or no precedent.  Thus, Roberts cannot be accused of overly adhering to precedent. Unlike liberals, the Chief Justice did not base his decision on his desire for a particular outcome.  Indeed, he upheld the law on constitutional grounds even though he did not support it on its merits.  In reaching his decision, Roberts neither changed the meaning of the words of the Constitution nor discovered new rights nor cited foreign law as an authority, as liberals do.

            In fact, the Chief Justice deftly got liberals to agree with several conservative and federalist principles in gaining a number of important victories in this case.  In some respects, Roberts was successful even without the conservative Justices, whose opinion, although called a “dissent” was actually only a dissent in part and a concurrence in part.  Where they concurred, he and the conservatives thus gained a larger margin of victory than otherwise would have been expected.  In other words, Roberts reached an outcome favored by the liberals, but in a conservative manner. 

            I should note an additional benefit of Roberts’ opinion: in going out of his way to defer to the Legislative Branch, Roberts now has a free hand to strike down Executive Branch mandates, for which no judicial deference is due, such as the Obama Administration’s mandate that employers provide health insurance for sterilization, contraception and abortifacients.       

It can only be speculated that perhaps there were some intimidation of the Supreme Court by the media or Obama.  Public confidence in the Court is a legitimate concern for a chief justice, although it must be balanced by judicial independence.  Even though there was a history until recently of Republican-appointed Justices voting for liberal positions, Bush v. Gore subjected the Court to the unfair criticism of partisanship.  The open disagreements between Obama and the Court exacerbated the perception.  Henceforth, because of this case, whenever Roberts joins with his fellow conservatives on the Court, he can no longer be dismissed as lacking independence in terms of partisanship or ideology. 

One area of particular concern raised by the conservative dissenters in this case is worth further examination.  Because of Chief Justice Roberts’ necessary deference to the Legislative Branch, he argued in his opinion that the remedy to fix a law is required by precedent to be narrow in order to save as much of the law as possible.   However, fixing the law is not the job of the Court.  The conservatives observed that Roberts’ fixes seem to substitute his view for the Legislative Branch’s intent.  For example, the right of the States to opt out of the Medicaid expansion was arguably not the legislative intent of Congress because the result could be a patchwork of vastly different health insurance coverage among the States instead of uniform coverage.   

In appellate law, jurists must often balance competing principles.  Sometimes, they err to one side or the other.  Roberts may fairly be criticized in this case, but not for being unreasonable.  Moreover, the Chief Justice deserves praise for his use of legal reasoning through which he gained some remarkable victories for conservatism and federalism.

Conservative, Federalist Analysis of the Arizona Border Control and Federalization of Health Insurance Rulings

There were significant federalist implications of the United States Supreme Courts rulings on the Arizona border control law and the federalization of health insurance that I have posted on frequently.  Although there were no sweeping victories for federalism and conservatism, there were some major narrow victories.

In the Arizona border control case, the Court ruled that States may enforce federal laws, even if the federal government declines to enforce its own laws.  In this case, Arizona was requiring its law enforcement officers to inquire as to citizenship status of suspects it had probable cause to stop and pass the information along to federal authorities.  The ruling meant that the Obama Administration’s attempt to prevent Arizona from even enforcing federal laws would have violated states’ rights.

            Had Chief Justice John Roberts not sided with the liberals to form a 5-3 majority, the votes would have been split 4-4 because of the recusal of Justice Elena Kagan.  A split decision would have left the Appeals Court ruling stand, which was that Arizona’s law was totally unconstitutional.  Thus, Roberts got the liberal Justices to go along with him in a narrow victory for states’ rights, although the ruling restricted Arizona from exercising its sovereign right over the entry of people onto its soil. 

            The liberals had argued that because of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal law would supersede state law because the Constitution granted the federal Union the power to enact a uniform rule of naturalization, “immigration” was strictly a federal power.  However, as the conservative dissenters pointed out in an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the right to police a State’s borders to keep out those it does not want is an inherent right of sovereignty.  He noted the point I mentioned in my post from April of this year, Chester Arthur, the Most Underrated U.S. President, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2012/04/chester-arthur-most-underrated-us.html, that there were no federal immigration laws before the 1880s, meaning that the issue was recognized as strictly a state one.  Indeed, naturalization, the process of obtaining citizenship, which is understandably a federal matter, is not the same thing as immigration, let alone the broader matter of border control. 

The Court gave deference to the Legislative Branch and to its precedents that federalize an issue if Congress enacts comprehensive legislation to address it.  Although there are joint federal and state powers, the Court only permitted Arizona to exercise power over the issue to the limited extent of enforcing federal law, while rejecting the less controversial parts of the law that it ruled went beyond the strict limit.  Considering that the Obama Administration and the Left did not even want to allow a State such a limited power, the ruling was a landmark victory for states’ rights.

            On the constitutional challenge of the federalization of health insurance brought by a majority of the States, among others, conservatives won greater victories, despite the major disappointment of the refusal of the Supreme Court to declare the federal mandate to purchase health insurance unconstitutional. 

            Seven of the Justices agreed that the federal government lacked the power to mandate the purchase of a good or service under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause under the General Welfare Clause, both of which were cited by the Obama Administration, the liberal Democratic Congressional majority and others on the Left as the unquestionable source of its limitless power.  Thus, the ruling is a landmark case that finally placed some significant limits to federal power under these provisions liberals have used to do whatever they want that is not expressly prohibited under the Constitution, its other provisions, such as the Tenth Amendment, notwithstanding.

The Obama Administration, after having denied that the mandate was a tax during the public debate over the bill, then argued in the alternative in federal court that the federal Union had the power to issue such a mandate under its taxing authority.  A majority of five Justices agreed.  Congress is not constitutionally obligated to tell the truth, but it is accountable to the electorate for misleading the public, as it is for bad law.  Although federal power now seems to be unlimited to force individuals to do what liberals want through the taxing power, their efforts will be exposed for what they are: a tax, which, as an unpopular power requiring the consent through representation of those who are taxed, would be difficult for the representatives of the people to impose.

As in the Arizona border control case, Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, deferred to the Legislative Branch.  The counterargument from the four conservative Justices who dissented on the taxing power question was that by inferring legislative intent even when it was not expressed at the time, he substituted his judgment for that of the Legislative Branch.  Indeed, the question of which taxing power the federal government was exercising under the Constitution remains.  Therefore, once the tax begins to be collected, someone harmed by its collection could challenge its constitutionality.  I should add that there is no criminal penalty under this law for the failure to pay the tax.  Congress may further limit the enforcement of its collection.

This ruling does not affect the litigation against the other mandates that have been or will be issued under the federalization of health insurance, such as the one requiring the free coverage for sterilization, contraception and abortifacients I have posted about previously. 

            The federal government’s attempt to coerce the States into expanding Medicaid under the plan to federalize health insurance was the second of the two challenges brought by the States.  The Court ruling on this issue is another landmark victory for states’ rights.

            The federal government may not coerce the States into doing what it wants by threatening to withhold all of its Medicaid funds instead of only the additional funds the state would have received had it agreed to implement the expansion.  In fashioning a remedy, however, as the dissenters noted, some taxpayer money collected from the citizens of a state will be used to fund Medicaid expansion in other states.  Nevertheless, this case represented the most significant limit ever to federal attempts to force the States to do its bidding.  In deferring to the Legislative Branch and in keeping with the practice of not issuing rulings beyond the necessary scope of the issue, the remedy the Court fashioned was narrow: instead of striking down the expansion entirely, it ruled that the penalty for a State that opted out of the Medicaid expansion could only be the loss of the funds for expansion, not all its Medicaid funds.   Many States are declining to expand their Medicaid programs because of the ruling.        

            The Arizona border control and the federalization of health insurance rulings acknowledged Court precedent in expanding federal power, but finally placed some major limits to those powers and acknowledged some states’ rights.  The Supreme Court did so without subjecting itself to a false charge of judicial activism, but by restraining itself to narrow rulings and remedies to which even the Left had difficulty in objecting to legally.  The Legislative and Executive Branches will henceforth have to exercise power more honestly and narrowly.  Although conservatives were disappointed that these rulings were not as great as hoped, they provide much support for federalism and liberty.

Conservative Commentary on the Mexican Presidential Election

            The result of the Mexican presidential election is the return of power of the center-left Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), after a hiatus of twelve years, with the victory of Enrique Pena Nieto.  The center-right, whose candidate came in third place, had ruled in the meantime, leading to increased prosperity, but without being able to end the drug gang wars near the border with the United States.  The main rival to Pena Nieto was a far-left candidate sympathetic to Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez. 

The PRI had ruled Mexico as a notoriously-corrupt dictatorship for seventy years.  Towards the end of its rule, while it clung to power by election fraud, it had begun to reform democratically and liberalize the economy, which it pledged during the campaign to continue.  The PRI will have to be more successful than its predecessor in defeating the vicious drug gangs. 

Pennsylvania Governor Corbett Signs His Second Balanced Budget without Raising Taxes

            Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, signed the Commonwealth’s budget for fiscal year 2012-2013, which the majority Republican General Assembly approved on time for the second year in a row – a rare feat in Pennsylvania. 

Like Corbett’s first year budget, this year’s balances the budget by cutting spending – limiting it to less than the inflation rate, plus the rate of population growth – without raising taxes.  Additional revenue from taxes allowed for less cuts in spending for education and other programs than originally proposed, and the inclusion of an emergency fund for distressed schools.  The Governor won the inclusion of a tax credit for businesses’ scholarships for school choice, as well as tax credits to lure an ethane plant.  The budget continues the phase-out of the onerous capital stock and franchise tax (a tax on assets, in addition to income).  It also includes the block-granting of welfare programs to counties in order for them to prioritize funds more effectively.

            Meanwhile, Corbett was also involved with a successful bipartisan state and federal effort to keep a major oil refinery in Philadelphia open and even to expand it.  The Corbett Administration continues to crack down on welfare fraud.  Since he signed his last budget, the Governor also signed legislation to ban the dangerous drugs known as “bath salts” and the voter identification law.  See Corbett Signs Voter ID Requirement into Law, from March of 2012:  http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2012/03/corbett-signs-voter-id-requirement-into.html.  He was also hailed for his handling of devastating floods in Pennsylvania.

Governor Corbett has held off on implementing the establishment of exchanges under the federalization of health insurance scheme approved by the liberal Democratic Congress and United States President Barak Obama; the Governor and Legislature are considering opting out of the costly Medicaid expansion, now that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the federal threat to withhold all of the Medicaid funds to a state that opts out, and not only the additional funds for the expansion, to be an unconstitutional violation of states’ rights.  The Keystone State under then-Attorney General Corbett was a party to the partly-successful state lawsuit led by Florida challenging the constitutionality of the health insurance federalization.

More on September 11 vs. 9/11; Happy Fourth of July

I hope all of my American readers had a happy Independence Day.

I have posted previously on the reasons why the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks on the United States should not be abbreviated “9/11.”  See September 11 vs. 9/11, from April of 2009, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/04/september-11-vs-911.html and Personal Reflections on the Tenth Anniversary of the September 11 Attacks, from September of 2011, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2011/09/personal-reflections-on-tenth.html.  The Independence Day holiday caused me to think of another reason why “9/11” is inappropriate: the holiday is usually nicknamed the “Fourth of July” or referred to simply as “July 4,” but never as “7/4.”

Also, I shall take the opportunity to expound on a point about Independence Day I first made on that holiday in a post in 2009.  The Fourth of July represents neither the birthday of the “United States,” nor of the “Country” or “Nation” but the anniversary of the declaration of independence from the United Kingdom of the 13 original American States.  Note: the Continental Congress had approved the resolution of independence on July 2; some States had already declared their independence.  One could say it is the “birthday” of American independence, but the federal union known as the “United States of America” did not exist until 1789, upon the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.